PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good afternoon, everybody. Please have a seat.

I want to once again welcome President Xi back to the White House. We first hosted him here three years ago when he was Vice President. So this is our sixth meeting. As a result of our efforts, our two nations are working together more closely across a broader range of critical issues — and our cooperation is delivering results, for both our nations and the world.

Since I took office, American exports to China have nearly doubled and now support nearly one million American jobs. Chinese investment in the United States helps support jobs across our country. We partner to address global challenges, whether it’s promoting nuclear security, combating piracy off the Horn of Africa, encouraging development and reconciliation in Afghanistan, and helping to end the Ebola epidemic in West Africa.

The historic climate change announcements that we made last year in Beijing have encouraged other countries to step up, as well, increasing the prospects for a stronger global agreement this year. And as a member of the P5+1, China was critical to both the sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating table and to the talks that produced the comprehensive deal to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

So, greater prosperity and greater security — that’s what American and Chinese cooperation can deliver. That’s why I want to say again, the United States welcomes the rise of a China that is peaceful, stable, prosperous, and a responsible player in global affairs. And I’m committed to expanding our cooperation, even as we address disagreements candidly and constructively. That’s what President Xi and I have done on this visit — during our working dinner last night and our meetings today.

Let me mention some specifics. First, with respect to our economic relationship, we agreed to step up our work toward a high-standard bilateral investment treaty that would help level the playing field for American companies. We’ve committed ourselves to a set of principles for trade in information technologies, including protection of innovation and intellectual property. President Xi discussed his commitment to accelerate market reforms, avoid devaluing China’s currency, and have China play a greater role in upholding the rules-based system that underpins the global economy — all of which are steps we very much support.

I raised once again our very serious concerns about growing cyber-threats to American companies and American citizens. I indicated that it has to stop. The United States government does not engage in cyber economic espionage for commercial gain. And today, I can announce that our two countries have reached a common understanding on the way forward. We’ve agreed that neither the U.S. or the Chinese government will conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information for commercial advantage. In addition, we’ll work together, and with other nations, to promote international rules of the road for appropriate conduct in cyberspace.

So this is progress. But I have to insist that our work is not yet done. I believe we can expand our cooperation in this area, even as the United States will continue to use all of the tools at our disposal to protect American companies, citizens and interests.

Second, I’m pleased that we’re building on last year’s climate commitments. Last month, I issued our Clean Power Plan to help reduce America’s carbon emissions. Today, I want to commend China for announcing that it will begin a national market-based cap-and-trade system to limit emissions from some of its largest sectors. Last year, I announced our pledge of $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund to help developing nations deal with climate change. Today, I welcome China’s major commitment of climate finance for the most vulnerable countries as well.

Our two countries are also putting forward our common vision for the ambitious climate change agreements that we seek in Paris. When the world’s two largest economies, energy consumers and carbon emitters come together like this, then there’s no reason for other countries — whether developed or developing — to not do so as well. And so this is another major step towards the global agreement the world needs to reach in two months’ time.

Third, with respect to security in the Asia Pacific, we agreed to new channels of communication to reduce the risks of miscalculations between our militaries. The United States and China have reaffirmed our commitment to the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. We demand the full implementation of all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions and we will not accept North Korea as a nuclear weapon state.

We did have candid discussions on the East and South China Seas, and I reiterated the right of all countries to freedom of navigation and overflight and to unimpeded commerce. As such, I indicated that the United States will continue to sail, fly and operate anywhere that international law allows. I conveyed to President Xi our significant concerns over land reclamation, construction and the militarization of disputed areas, which makes it harder for countries in the region to resolve disagreements peacefully. And I encouraged a resolution between claimants in these areas. We are not a claimant; we just want to make sure that the rules of the road are upheld.

I reiterated my strong commitment, as well, to our One-China policy based on the Three Joint Communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act.

Fourth, we’ve agreed to do more to promote international security. At the United Nations in the coming days, the U.S. and China will bring countries together to promote development in Afghanistan, and we’ll work with our many partners to strengthen international peacekeeping. We agree that all parties, including Iran, need to fully implement the nuclear deal, and that U.N. Security Council resolutions need to be fully enforced.

For the first time, the U.S. and China will also formally partner to promote global development. Building on our efforts against Ebola, we’ll work to strengthen global health security. We’ll expand our joint efforts on humanitarian assistance, disaster response, agricultural development and food security. And given China’s success in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty — which is one of the most remarkable achievements in human history — we will help rally the world this weekend around new development goals, including our goal to end extreme poverty.

Fifth, we had a frank discussion about human rights, as we have in the past. And I again affirmed America’s unwavering support for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people, including freedom of assembly and expression, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. And I expressed in candid terms our strong view that preventing journalists, lawyers, NGOs and civil society groups from operating freely, or closing churches and denying ethnic minorities equal treatment are all problematic, in our view, and actually prevent China and its people from realizing its full potential.

Obviously, we recognize that there are real differences there. And President Xi shared his views in terms of how he can move forward in a step-by-step way that preserves Chinese unity. So we expect that we’re going to continue to consult in these areas.

Even as we recognize Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China, we continue to encourage Chinese authorities to preserve the religious and cultural identity of the Tibetan people, and to engage the Dalai Lama or his representatives.

Finally, we’re taking more steps to expand the connections between our two peoples. We launch a new initiative to boost tourism between our countries in the coming months. And just as children across China learn English, we’re starting a new initiative called “1 Million Strong” to encourage 1 million American students to learn Mandarin Chinese over the next five years.

Vice President Biden pointed out that two of his children are already on track — two of his grandchildren, actually. After all, if our countries are going to do more together around the world, then speaking each other’s language, truly understanding each other, is a good place to start.

So, overall, we’ve had an extremely productive meeting. The particular work that has been done by our teams shows the extraordinary progress that we can make when we’re working together. The candid conversations between President Xi and myself about areas of disagreement help us to understand each other better, to avoid misunderstandings or miscalculations, and pave the way potentially for further progress in those areas.

And, President Xi, I want to thank you again for expanding your commitment to cooperation between our nations. I believe that it’s another reminder that as we work to narrow our differences, we can continue to advance our mutual interests for the benefit not only of our two peoples, but for the benefit of the world.

Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT XI: (As interpreted.) President Obama, dear friends from the press, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends — good morning. It’s a great pleasure for me to meet with all of you together with President Obama. Let me begin by thanking again President Obama and the U.S. government for the gracious hospitality and thoughtful arrangements and warm reception accorded to me and the Chinese delegation. I also want to thank the American people for a warm welcome.

Yesterday and today, President Obama and I have had in-depth discussions on our respective domestic and foreign policies, important topics in bilateral relations, international and regional situation. Our meetings are constructive and productive, and we have reached extensive and important consensus.

During the discussions, President Obama shared with me the domestic agenda and foreign policy priorities that he has been working on. And I congratulated him on the progress that he has made in those areas. I appreciate President Obama’s reaffirmation to me that the United States welcomes the rise of a peaceful, stable and prosperous China. It supports China to play a bigger role in the international arena. And the United States supports China’s reform at opening up.

I indicated to President Obama that China is making all-around efforts to deepen comprehensive reform, to build law-based governance, to enforce strict party discipline, so as to achieve the grand goal of building a society of initial prosperity in all respects. The reform at opening up China will not stop.

China is firmly committed to the path of peaceful development. It is committed to growing friendship and cooperative relations with all countries in the world. To work with the United States to build the new model of major-country relationship without conflict, without confrontation, with mutual respect and win-win cooperation is a priority in China’s foreign policy.

We have spoken highly of the important progress made in China-U.S. relations since the Sunnylands summit in 2013. And we have agreed to follow the consensus, expand the practical cooperation in various areas at the bilateral, regional, and global level, and manage differences and sensitive issues in constructive manner, and to advance the new model of major-country relationship between China and the United States.

We have agreed to deepen the practical cooperation in various areas at the bilateral scope. We have agreed to vigorously push forward the bilateral investment treaty negotiation, speed up the pace of the work so as to achieve a high standard and balanced agreement.

We will expand mutually beneficial cooperation in energy, environmental protection, science and technology, aviation, infrastructure, agriculture, health and other areas. The two governments and relevant agencies have signed many cooperation agreements, and our businesses have signed a series of commercial contact.

China and the United States are highly complementary economically and there is huge potential for further cooperation. For the United States to recognize China’s market economy status and ease export control on civilian high-tech items, it will help expand the mutually beneficial cooperation between the two countries.

We have also had in-depth discussion on the current international, economic, and financial situation. We have agreed to step up macroeconomic policy coordination and jointly promote global economic growth and financial stability. To this end, we have established the mechanism on regular phone conversation on economic affairs between China and the United States which will be led by Vice Premier Wong Yang of China and Secretary of Treasury Jacob Lew. They will stay in close communication on respective and global major economic issues.

We will also step up cooperation within G20, the World Bank, IMF, and other multilateral mechanisms. I appreciate the U.S. supporting including the RMB into the IMF Special Drawing Rights when certain standards of the IMF are met. And I also appreciate the U.S. commitment to implement the IMF quota and governance structure reform plan adopted at the G20 Summit in 2010 at an early date.

We have truly affirmed the new progress made in the confidence-building mechanisms between the two militaries. We have agreed to step up exchanges in policy dialogues between the two militaries at all levels, hold more joint exercises and training. We believe that terrorism is the common enemy of mankind, and we have agreed to step up multilateral and bilateral counterterrorism cooperation. We have decided to increase communication and cooperation on counter-piracy, humanitarian assistance, and disaster reduction, and international peacekeeping operation, and also anti-corruption — law enforcement cooperation to jointly fight against all kinds of transnational corruption crimes.

We have in-depth discussion on the situation of the Asia Pacific. And we believe that China and the United States have extensive common interests in this region, and we should continue to deepen dialogue and cooperation on regional affairs and work together to promote active interactions and inclusive cooperation in the Asia Pacific, and work with countries in the Asia Pacific to promote peace, stability, and prosperity in this region.

China is committed to the path of peaceful development and a neighboring foreign policy characterized by good neighborliness and partnership with our neighbors. Islands in the South China Sea since ancient times are China’s territory. We have the right to uphold our own territorial sovereignty and lawful and legitimate maritime rights and interests. We are committed to maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea, managing differences and disputes through dialogue, and addressing disputes through negotiation, consultation, and peaceful manner, and exploring ways to achieve mutual benefit through cooperation.

We’re committed to respecting and upholding the freedom of navigation and overflight that countries enjoy according to international law. Relevant construction activities that China are undertaking in the island of South — Nansha Islands do not target or impact any country, and China does not intend to pursue militarization.

China and the United States have a lot of common interests on the issue of South China Sea. We both support peace and stability of the South China Sea. The countries directly involved should address their dispute through negotiation, consultation and in peaceful means. And we support freedom of navigation and overflight of countries according to international law and the management of differences through dialogue, and full and effective implementation of DOC and an early conclusion of the consultation of COC based on consensus-building. We have agreed to maintain constructive communication on relevant issues.

China and the United States are two major cyber countries and we should strengthen dialogue and cooperation. Confrontation and friction are not made by choice for both sides. During my visit, competent authorities of both countries have reached important consensus on joint fight against cyber-crimes. Both sides agree to step up crime cases, investigation assistance and information-sharing. And both government will not be engaged in or knowingly support online theft of intellectual properties. And we will explore the formulation of appropriate state, behavior and norms of the cyberspace. And we will establish a high-level joint dialogue mechanism on the fight against cyber-crimes and related issues, and to establish hotline links.

Democracy and human rights are the common pursuit of mankind. At the same time, we must recognize that countries have different historical processes and realities, and we need to respect people of all countries in the right to choose their own development path independently.

The Chinese people are seeking to realize the great renew of the Chinese nation, which is the Chinese history. This process in essence is a process to achieve social equity and justice and advancing human rights. China stands ready to, in the spirit of equality and mutual respect, conduct human rights dialogue with the United States, expand consensus, reduce differences, learn from each other, and progress together.

We have decided to continue to work together to tackle global challenges and provide more public good for the international community. We, again, issued a joint announcement on climate change. We have agreed to expand bilateral practical cooperation, strengthen coordination in multilateral negotiation, and work together to push the Paris climate change conference to produce important progress.

We have signed China-U.S. development cooperation MOU, and we have agreed to expand trilateral cooperation in Asia, Africa and other regions in terms of food security, public health system establishment, emergency response, and disaster reduction. And we will maintain communication and coordination in implementing the post-2015 development agenda, promote a more equitable and balanced global development partnership, and help developing countries to achieve common development.

We have agreed to firmly uphold the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. President Obama and I welcome the comprehensive Joint Plan of Action reached by relevant parties regarding the Iranian nuclear issue. We reaffirmed that all relevant parties should undertake to implement the agreement fully, and work together to implement all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

We reaffirm our commitment to realize the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in peaceful way. And we oppose any action that might cause tension in the Korean Peninsula or violate U.N. Security Council resolution. We believe that the September the 19th joint statement of the Six-Party talks and relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions should be implemented in full, and all relevant parties should work together to firmly advance the denuclearization process of the Korean Peninsula, and maintain peace and stability so as to achieve enduring peace and stability in Northeast Asia.

The friendship between the two peoples is the most reliable foundation for long-term and stable development of China-U.S. relations and we should endeavor to solidify this important foundation.

We have decided to make 2016 a year of tourism for China and the United States. In the next three years, we will fund a total of 50,000 students to study in each other’s countries. We also welcome the United States’ decision to extend the 100,000 Strong initiative from universities to elementary and secondary schools, and by 2020, 1 million American students will learn Mandarin.

The door of friendship of China will continue to be open to the American people. I also hope that the Chinese people could come to the United States for holidays or visits more easily and conveniently.

Mr. President, with 36 years of development, the interests of China and the United States are deeply interconnected, and we have greater responsibilities for world peace and human progress. There are broad areas that the two sides should and can work together. The Chinese side stands ready to work with the United States to uphold a spirit of perseverance, and advance bilateral relations to seek further progress to the better benefits of the Chinese and American people and the people in the world.

Thank you. (Applause.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Okay, we’re going to take a few questions. We’re going to start with Margaret Talev of Bloomberg.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. President Obama and President Xi, I’d like to talk to you about cyber. If I am an American business and I’m being hacked by Chinese pirates who are trying to steal my intellectual property, what firm assurances can you give us today that things are going to get better, and when?

President Obama, are you satisfied enough about the steps that China is taking to hold off on imposing any new sanctions to this end? Or what do you still need to see?

And, President Xi, could we expect prosecutions of Chinese people and organizations who have hacked American businesses? And if the U.S. did sanction anyone in China, would you respond with sanctions?

Also, everyone will kill me if I don’t ask — what is your reaction to House Speaker John Boehner’s decision to resign? (Laughter.) Will this make life better or worse for you? Are you concerned it will make it more difficult to avoid a government shutdown or raise the debt limit? And do you think Boehner could just waive the rules and get immigration reform through before he leaves? Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’ll take them in order. With respect to cyber, this has been a serious discussion between myself and President Xi since we first met in Sunnylands. And the good news, from my perspective, is, is that in the lead-up to and then finalized during our meetings here today, we have, I think, made significant progress in agreeing to how our law enforcement and investigators are going to work together, how we’re going to exchange information, how we are going to go after individuals or entities who are engaging in cyber-crimes or cyber-attacks. And we have jointly affirmed the principle that governments don’t engage in cyber-espionage for commercial gain against companies. That all I consider to be progress.

What I’ve said to President Xi and what I say to the American people is the question now is, are words followed by actions. And we will be watching carefully to make an assessment as to whether progress has been made in this area.

With respect to the various tools that we have to go after those who are attacking our companies or trying to extract trade secrets or data, we have traditional law enforcement tools, but
— as I indicated a while back — through executive action, I’ve also instituted the ability to impose sanctions on individuals or entities where we have proof that they’ve gone after U.S. companies or U.S. persons.

And we did not, at our level, have specific discussions of specific cases. But I did indicate to President Xi that we will apply those and whatever other tools we have in our toolkit to go after cyber criminals, either retrospectively or prospectively. Those are tools generally that are not directed at governments; they are directed at entities or individuals that we can identify. And they’re not unique to China. Those are tools that we’re going to be using for cyber criminals around the world.

And President Xi, during these discussions, indicated to me that, with 1.3 billion people, he can’t guarantee the behavior of every single person on Chinese soil — which I completely understand. I can’t guarantee the actions of every single American. What I can guarantee, though, and what I’m hoping President Xi will show me, is that we are not sponsoring these activities, and that when it comes to our attention that non-governmental entities or individuals are engaging in this stuff, that we take it seriously and we’re cooperating to enforce the law.

The last point I’ll make on the cyber issue — because this is a global problem, and because, unlike some of the other areas of international cooperation, the rules in this area are not well developed, I think it’s going to very important for the United States and China, working with other nations and the United Nations and other — and the private sector, to start developing an architecture to govern behavior in cyberspace that is enforceable and clear.

It doesn’t mean that we’re going it prevent every cyber-crime, but it does start to serve as a template whereby countries know what the rules are, they’re held accountable, and we’re able to jointly go after non-state actors in this area.

On John Boehner, I just heard the news as I was coming out of the meeting here, so it took me by surprise. And I took the time prior to this press conference to call John directly and talk to him.

John Boehner is a good man. He is a patriot. He cares deeply about the House, an institution in which he served for a long time. He cares about his constituents, and he cares about America. We have obviously had a lot of disagreements, and politically we’re at different ends of the spectrum. But I will tell you, he has always conducted himself with courtesy and civility with me. He has kept his word when he made a commitment. He is somebody who has been gracious.

And I think maybe most importantly, he’s somebody who understands that in government, in governance, you don’t get 100 percent of what you want, but you have to work with people who you disagree with — sometimes strongly — in order to do the people’s business.

I’m not going to prejudge who the next Speaker will be. That’s something that will have to be worked through in the House. And I will certainly reach out immediately to whoever is the new Speaker to see what his or her ideas are, and how we can make progress in the important issues that America faces.

The one thing I will say is that my hope is there’s a recognition on the part of the next Speaker — something I think John understood, even though at times it was challenging to bring his caucus along — that we can have significant differences on issues, but that doesn’t mean you shut down the government. That doesn’t mean you risk the full faith and credit of the United States. You don’t invite potential financial crises. You build roads and pass transportation bills. And you do the basic work of governance that ensures that our military is operating and that our national parks are open and that our kids are learning.

And there’s no weakness in that. That’s what government is in our democracy. You don’t get what you want 100 percent of the time. And so sometimes you take half a loaf; sometimes you take a quarter loaf. And that’s certainly something that I’ve learned here in this office.

So I’m looking forward to working with the next Speaker. In the meantime, John is not going to leave for another 30 days, so hopefully he feels like getting as much stuff done as he possibly can. And I’ll certainly be looking forward to working with him on that.

PRESIDENT XI: (As interpreted.) Madam reporter has raised the cybersecurity issue. Indeed, at current, for the international community and for China and the United States, this is an issue all attach great importance to. With President Obama and I have on many occasions — and this is a long history — have exchange of views on this. I think it’s fair to say we’ve reached a lot of consensus on cybersecurity, including some new consensus.

Overall, the United States is the strongest country in terms of cyber strength. China is the world’s biggest cyber country in terms of the number of Web users. We have more than 600 million of netizens. Our two sides should cooperate because cooperation will benefit both, and confrontation will lead to losses on both sides. We are entirely able to carry out government department and expert levels of dialogue and exchanges to strengthen our cooperation in many respects and turn the cybersecurity between the two countries into a new growth source, rather than a point of confrontation between the two sides.

China strongly opposes and combats the theft of commercial secrets and other kinds of hacking attacks. The U.S. side, if has concerns in this respect, we can, through the exiting channels, express those concerns. The Chinese side will take seriously the U.S. provision of any information. Now, we have already, and in the future, we will still, through the law enforcement authorities, maintain communication and coordination on this matter, and appropriately address them.

So, all in all, we have broad, common interest in the field of the cyber. But we need to strengthen cooperation and avoid leading to confrontation. And nor should we politicize this issue. During my current visit, I think it’s fair to say that the two sides, concerning combatting cyber-crimes, have reached a lot of consensus. Going forward, we need to, at an early date, reach further agreement on them and further put them on the ground.

Thank you.

Now I would like to propose for China’s Central Television reporter to raise a question.

Q Thank you, Mr. President Xi. I have a question for President Obama. I have noticed that last night, during a meeting with President Xi Jinping, as well as at the welcoming ceremony this morning and the just-recently-made remarks, you’ve indicated that the U.S. welcomes the rise of a peaceful, stable and prosperous China, and supports China to play a bigger role on the international stage. Would you please elaborate? That for your office so far, what have you done to enable reaching this target? And we are more interested for the remainder of the office, what will you do still further to reach that goal? Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think that the United States has provided a platform in the post-World War II era in which the Asia region has been able to stabilize, and the conditions in which China was able to grow so rapidly were maintained. And we’re very proud of the work that we did after World War II to help rebuild both Asia and Europe; to help establish the international norms and rules that facilitated growing global trade and connections and travel and interactions; and to help maintain the peace.

Since I’ve been President, my goal has been to consistently engage with China in a way that is constructive, to manage our differences and to maximize opportunities for cooperation. And I’ve repeatedly said that I believe it is in the interests of the United States to see China grow, to pull people out of poverty, to expand its markets, because a successful and stable and peaceful China can then serve as an effective partner with us on a range of international challenges.

Last night, during our discussions, I mentioned to President Xi that as powerful as the United States is, the nature of the biggest challenges we face — things like climate change, or terrorism, or pandemic, or refugees — those are not issues that any one nation alone can solve. And we recognize, because of our strength and the size of our economy and the excellence of our military, that we can play a special role and carry a larger burden, but we can’t do it alone. China, despite its size, still has development challenges of its own, so it can’t solve these problems alone. We’ve got to work together. We’ve got to cooperate.

And I think that can happen as long as we continue to recognize that there’s a difference between friendly competition — which we have with some of our closest friends and allies like Great Britain or Germany — and competition that tilts the playing field unfairly in one direction or another. That’s typically where tensions between our countries arise, is our desire to uphold international norms and rules — even as we recognize that we need to update some of these international institutions to reflect China’s growth and strength and power.

So President Xi mentioned IMF reform, quota reform. That’s an area where we fully support and want to implement a greater voice and vote for China in that institution, reflective of its strength. The same will be true when we go up to the United Nations on peacekeeping initiatives. China is able to project its capabilities in a way that can be extremely helpful in reducing conflict.

And in all of those issues, as well as education, science, technology, we think that the opportunities for cooperation are there as long as there’s reciprocity, transparency, and fairness in the relationship.

And what I have said in the past to President Xi is, is that given China’s size, we recognize there’s still a lot of development to be done and a lot of poverty inside of China, but we can’t treat China as if it’s still a very poor, developing country, as it might have been 50 years ago. It is now a powerhouse. And that means it’s got responsibilities and expectations in terms of helping to uphold international rules that might not have existed before.

And that is something China should welcome. That’s part of the deal of being on the world stage when you’re a big country, is you’ve got more to do. My gray hair testifies to that. (Laughter.)

Julie Davis.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I know you said you didn’t want to prejudge the next Speaker. But I wonder if you could tell us what Speaker Boehner’s resignation today tells you about the Republican Party and your ability to work with Congress in the remainder of your term, particularly since it’s coming at a time when you’re trying to negotiate to avert a government shutdown. Does this make that easier or harder? And do you think that you’ll be able to move forward with the Congress on priorities like the budget, Planned Parenthood, immigration that you weren’t able to address with Speaker Boehner in his position?

And for President Xi, you’ve experienced an economic downturn in your country with the stock market crisis. And investors, globally, have been concerned about some of the actions you’ve taken to intervene in the stock market and with the currency exchange rate. I wonder if you could stay what you told President Obama, or what you can say today, to restore confidence that these interventions will not have spillover effects into the global economy in the future. Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, Julie, I meant what I said. I’m not going to prejudge how I’ll be able to work with the next Speaker because I don’t know who the next Speaker is. And I suspect that there’s going to be a lot of debate inside the Republican caucus about who they want to lead them and in what direction.

It’s not as if there’s been a multitude of areas where the House Republican caucus has sought cooperation previously, so I don’t necessarily think that there’s going to be a big shift. I do think that Speaker Boehner sometimes had a tough position because there were members in his caucus who saw compromise of any sort as weakness or betrayal. And when you have divided government, when you have a democracy, compromise is necessary. And I think Speaker Boehner sometimes had difficulty persuading members of his caucus of that.

Hopefully they’ve learned some lessons from 2011, the last time that they sought to introduce a non-budget item into the budget discussions. At that it was Obamacare, and they were going to shut down the government for that purpose. It ended up really hurting the economy, slowing it down, and caused a lot of hardship and a lot of problems for a lot of people.

Because it turns out, actually, government provides a lot of vital services. Our military provides us protection. Our agencies keep our air clean and our water clean. And our people every single day are helping to respond to emergencies, and helping families get Social Security checks, and helping them deal with an ailing parent. And when you insist that unless I get my way on this one particular issue I’m going to shut down all those services — and, by the way, leave a whole lot of really hardworking people without paychecks — that doesn’t just hurt the economy; that hurts — in the abstract, it hurts particular families.

And as I recall, it wasn’t particularly good for the reputation of the Republican Party either.

So, hopefully, some lessons will be drawn there. I expect we’ll continue to have significant fights around issues like Planned Parenthood, and significant fights around issues like immigration. But perhaps the visit by the Holy Father to Congress may have changed hearts and minds. I know that Speaker Boehner was deeply moved by his encounter with Pope Francis. I want to congratulate him, by the way, on facilitating that historic visit. I know it meant a lot to John and his family.

And I would just ask members to really reflect on what His Holiness said — not in the particulars, but in the general proposition that we should be open to each other, we should not demonize each other, we should not assume that we have a monopoly on the truth or on what’s right, that we listen to each other and show each other respect, and that we show regard for the most vulnerable in our society.

It’s not a particularly political message, but I think it’s a good one — at a moment when, in our politics, so often the only way you get on the news is if you’re really rude or you say really obnoxious things about people, or you insist that other people’s points of views are demonic and evil, and leave no room at all for the possibilities of compromise.

I’d like to think that that spirit will continue to permeate Washington for some time to come. And I know that, in his heart, that’s who John Boehner was. It was sometimes hard to execute. But as I said, he is a good man and a reasonable man. And he’s going to be around for a while, and I hope that we can get some things done before he steps down.

PRESIDENT XI: (As interpreted.) Thank you, madam reporter, for your interest in China’s economy. China is now committed to improving the marketized renminbi exchange rate formation regime. Since 2005, we adopted the exchange rate reform. By June this year, the renminbi has risen in value by more than 35 percent with the U.S. dollar. Last month — in fact, we are continuing to make reforms to the renminbi exchange rate central parity quotation regime. That increased the intensity for the markets to determine the exchange rate of renminbi.

Due to the influence of factors, such as the previous strengthening of the U.S. dollar and somewhat turbulence on the financial market, the renminbi exchange rate after reform has experienced a certain degree of fluctuation. However, there is no basis for the renminbi to have a devaluation in the long run. At present, the exchange rate between renminbi and U.S. dollars is moving toward stability. Going forward, China will further improve the marketization and formation regime of renminbi exchange rate, maintain the normal fluctuation of the exchange rate, and maintain the basic stability of renminbi at an adaptive and equilibrium level.

At present, China is also under increasing pressure of economic downturn and some fluctuations on the stock market. Challenges and difficulties have obviously increased. But what we are taking is proactive fiscal policy and prudent monetary policy. And we describe them as measures to stabilize growth, promote reform, restructuring, promote people’s livelihood, and fend off risks.

By comprehensively taking measures, we managed to maintain a 7 percent of growth rate in the first half of this year. Last year, we achieved a 7.3 percent of growth rate. And compared with the aggregate economic strength, the increase — the absolute increase of the economy is equivalent to the size of a middle-sized economy.

So for the first half of this year, our growth order is 7 percent, and for the whole year, I think it is expected at the same level. The Chinese economy maintaining a mid-to-high growth of rate. This is a fundamental that has not changed, because we are equipped with several conditions.

First of all, our people’s income are still at a middle income period. When countries are developing, this is a period where there will be further development. At present, our per capita GDP only stands at $700-$800 U.S. dollars, and that is very much behind the United States. There is big room for ascendency and for increase. And we are now doing what we call as the full reforms or the full processes, which is in formatization — a new type of industrialization, urbanization, and the agricultural modernization.

Take the urbanization as an example. Every year, it will increase by 2 percent. Now our urbanization ratio is 53 percent, and it is expected to grow by 2 percent. And that is equivalent to something like 10 million people moving from rural areas to the urban areas. At the same time, we’re also should not let the rural areas be backward. We need to develop the rural areas. Through the Internet Plus and other policies our industrialization and our urbanization will have a frog-leap development.

Now, the Chinese economy — turning to a slower growth rate and turning it from a speed-based growth to quality-based growth, and we are moving from an export-driven and investment-driven economy into an economy driven by expanded consumption and domestic demand. We call this as a new normal of the Chinese economy. And I’m confident that going forward, China will surely, for all of us, for everybody, provide a healthy growth that strengthens confidence.

Thank you. And now I would like to remind reporter from the People’s Daily of China to raise questions.

Q Thank you, President Xi. I have a question — to seek guidance. Now, some people in America believe that China’s growth might challenge the U.S. leading position in the world. My question for President Xi is, what is your view on the current United States and what is China’s U.S. policy? Thank you.

PRESIDENT XI: (As interpreted.) Thank you. In my view, the U.S. in economic, in military, has remarkable strength. And other countries in the world are also developing. Still, the U.S. has un-compared advantages and strengths.

The Cold War has long ended. Today’s world has entered into an era of economic globalization where countries are interdependent upon each other. People should move ahead with the times, and give up on the old concepts of “you lose, I win” or “zero-sum game,” and establish a new concept of peaceful development and willing cooperation.

If China develops well, it will benefit the whole world and benefit the United States. If the U.S. develops well, it will also benefit the world and China.

China’s policy towards the U.S. is consistent and transparent. As the world’s biggest developing country and biggest developed countries, and as the world’s two biggest economies, our two sides have broad and common interests on world peace and human progress, and shoulder important and common responsibilities, although our two sides also have certain differences. But the common interests of the two countries far outweigh those differences.

It is also my sincere hope that the two sides of China and the U.S. will proceed from the fundamental interests of the two peoples and world people, make joint efforts to build a new model of major-country relations between two countries, and realize non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and cooperation.

That should serve as a direction where both sides should strive unswervingly. China is the current international system’s builder, contributor, and developer, and participant, and also beneficiary. We are willing to work with all other countries to firmly defend the fruits of victory of the Second World War, and the existing international system, centered on the — and at the same time, promote them to developing a more just and equitable direction.

China has raised the One Belt One Road initiative and proposed to establish the AIIB, et cetera. And all of their aims are to expand mutual and beneficial cooperation with other countries and realize common development. These initiatives are open, transparent, inclusive. They are consistent in serving the interests of the U.S. and other countries’ interest. And we will come — the U.S. and other parties — to actively participate in them.

Thank you.

The European Union has lost control of its borders and risks total collapse if they are not sealed, a senior Brussels diplomat has warned.

Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, warned the EU was now facing a “critical point” and that the migrant crisis hadn’t even reached its peak.

As he chaired an emergency meeting of EU leaders in Brussels last night Mr Tusk painted a bleak picture of the EU’s future, saying the 28-member bloc was on the verge of breakdown with “recriminations and misunderstanding” pitting nations against one another. The future of free movement was at stake, he said, as the continent had lost control of its borders as well as a “sense of order”.

He added: “The most urgent question we should ask ourselves…is how to regain control of our external borders. “Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to even speak about common migration policy.”

He appeared to lay much of the blame with Germany, accusing Chancellor Angela Merkel of exacerbating the problem by sending the signal to desperate Syrians fleeing their war-torn homeland that Germany had no limit on the number of migrants it would accept.

He added: “We need to correct our policy of open doors and windows. “Today we are talking about millions of potential refugees trying to reach Europe, not thousands. “It is likely that more refugees will flow towards Europe, not less.

Especially as almost all of them feel invited to Europe.” But Ms Merkel responded: “Setting up fences between members states is not the solution. “Faced with a great challenge, it can not be that Europe says we can’t handle this. “That’s why I say again and again, we can do this.”

As deep divisions continue to show between EU nations, French President Francois Hollande offered a stark assessment of the crisis engulfing the continent. He said: “Those who don’t share our values, those who don’t even want to respect those principles, need to start asking themselves questions about their place in the European Union.”

The biggest problem has been the larger EU member states (France, Germany) bossing the smaller members around. How do you force a country of 1.8m (Slovenia) to accept 120,000 refugees, yet the same number applies to France, a country of 66m. However, it is precisely what France and Germany advocate. This will undoubtedly lead to cracks in the EU block, with Eastern Europe perhaps being the first to go?

While there has been an opening up of the political space in the south, elsewhere surveillance, intimidation and a climate of fear remain. For many Tamils in the north and east of the island, very little has changed since January.

By the Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice*

Until recently, the family of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa dominated the Sri Lankan government. Rajapaksa’s reign was characterized by the consolidation of executive power, militarisation, and a general crackdown on the rights of ethnic and religious minorities.  In the prevailing culture of fear and impunity, serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law went unpunished and continued long after the end of the brutal civil war in 2009.

On 8 January 2015, Rajapaksa lost the presidential election, in a surprise defeat, to Maithripala Sirisena, a former health minister who brought together a broad anti-incumbent coalition to stand against his erstwhile political ally.  Six months later Sirisena dissolved parliament, and Rajapaksa’s party lost again in the general election held on 17 August.

Some progress

During his first six months in office, President Sirisena has made promising progress in some areas. For example, freedom of expression has improved and the media and civil society in the south of the country now have some room to operate independently.  A constitutional amendment passed in April diluted some of the excessive executive powers of the president.  And encouraging steps have been taken to investigate some high profile corruption and murder cases.

But not on human rights

Nevertheless, the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, particularly in the north of the country, remains worrying. The Government has done little to address the major structural problems that continue to threaten minority communities and undermine the rule of law. For many survivors, there has been little meaningful change on the ground. The Government has shown itself to be far less willing (and able) to conduct reforms when it comes to areas where the military has a significant influence, such as demilitarisation, accountability, and matters defined as important to national security.  This suggests that while sections of the Government may be open to reform, elements of policy still remain in the hands of the security apparatus, whose attitude – and top personnel – have not changed since the previous regime.

Business as usual in the north and east?

While there has been an opening up of the political space in the south, elsewhere surveillance, intimidation and a climate of fear remain. For many Tamils in the north and east of the island, very little has changed since January. The daily experiences of ethnic minorities, in terms of interactions with the military, for example, still differ greatly from those of the Sinhalese majority.

No significant steps have been taken to repeal the draconian anti-terror laws or to end the human rights abuses experienced by detainees. Recent reports (for example, by Freedom from Torture and the International Truth and Justice Project) provide fresh evidence that such abuses – including torture, rape and abductions – are still taking place. Until this changes, there can be little hope of genuine reconciliation or lasting peace.

*The Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice is a multi-ethnic, non-partisan group who campaign for a just and lasting peace in Sri Lanka, based upon accountability and respect for human rights. The Sri Lanka Campaign for Peace and Justice is a member of the Global Coalition for Conflict Transformation, which is comprised of organizations committed to upholding and implementing the Principles of Conflict Transformation. 

Almost two years after Iranian tycoon Babak Zanjani was arrested for embezzlement and corruption, his first trial will finally take place on October 3 before Judge Salavati.

IRNA reports that Zanjani’s lawyer says it is not yet clear whether the trial will be held behind closed doors or not but he adds that his client prefers an open trial in the interest of “public enlightenment”.

Zanjani is a prominent figure linked to the former administration and the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He is accused of mediating the sale of Iranian oil but failing to reimburse the oil ministry for the proceeds. He reportedly owes the oil ministry a debt of 8.6 trillion toumans.

Prior to his arrest, he was quoted as saying that since 2010 he has sold “millions of barrels of oil through a network of 60 companies in Dubai, Turkey and Malaysia” and reaped an income of 17.5 billion dollars from it.

The spokesman for Iran’s judiciary, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, has said that the Zanjani file consists of 209 volumes, each with 200 pages.

Zanjani’s lawyer has said that due to the voluminous nature of the charges, he will not be able to read the complete file by the start of the trial and he has asked for an adjournment, but his request has been denied.

Iranian MP Ami Abbas Soltani told the Shargh daily that since a prisoner cannot be held without indictment for more that 24 months, they are trying to prolong the case in order to obtain his freedom.

Australia’s new government led by Malcom Turnbull will be very different from its predecessor, though of the same Liberal-National coalition. However residual conservative forces within its ranks mean that major changes in direction are unlikely in the short-term.

By Sam Bateman*

Australia’s new prime minister Malcolm Turnbull will lead a government that is very different from its predecessor though of the same Liberal-National coalition. Turnbull has described his government as one that will seize the opportunities of the future rather than one seeing only challenges ahead and seeking to preserve the order of the past. The government of his predecessor, Tony Abbott, had become derided for its reactionary mindset, including its failure to accept challenges of the 21st Century, such as climate change and the need for a constructive renewable energy policy.

In forming what he calls a ‘21st Century government’ Turnbull has shown a clear focus on business skills and potentially dynamic, leading members of his government. He has markedly increased the number of women in senior political roles, including appointing Senator Marise Payne as Australia’s first female defence minister.

Who is Malcolm Turnbull?

The problem for Malcolm Turnbull is that he will be unable to push for change too quickly. Although some key members of the ‘old guard’ of ultra-conservative supporters of previous prime minister Tony Abbott have been ousted from Cabinet, a hard core of people of similar political persuasion remains in Parliament, including some within Turnbull’s own Cabinet. Too much change too fast conflicts with the conservative political thinking of these members, and they are unlikely to support any major shifts in policy at least in the short-term.

Turnbull brings to leadership a much wider depth of experience, particularly within the private sector, than his predecessor. He has been successively over the years a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, journalist, barrister, banker, businessman, shopping centre developer, and politician. He has been remarkably successful in all these pursuits.

In 1986, as a 31-year old barrister, he acted for the former MI5 officer Peter Wright and won the famous ‘Spycatcher’ case against the British Government led by Margaret Thatcher. He is popular with the electorate and already there has been a remarkable lift in the public opinion polls in support of the Liberal – National Party coalition government.

After the mining magnate, Clive Palmer, Malcolm Turnbull is the second wealthiest Australian parliamentarian. Perhaps most importantly for what could become a major change of direction for Australia in the future, although not in the short-term, Turnbull is a republican, having once been leader of the Australian Republican Movement. His predecessor, Tony Abbott, on the other hand, was an enthusiastic royalist who earlier this year reintroduced knighthoods into the Australian system of honours, awarding an Australian knighthood to Prince Philip.

Foreign policy

Julie Bishop remains Australia’s foreign minister, but some subtle changes are likely in foreign policy. The focus on business and opportunities in the Turnbull Government may lead to more emphasis in Australia’s international relations on economics and trade rather than security. There will be greater recognition that the old order of US-led regional stability has gone; China is the new powerful player on the regional scene, and that changes in Australia’s strategic posture are required. As a consequence, there may be less echoing of Washington by Canberra when it comes to strictures of China.

The Abbott Government presided over a significant ‘mission creep’ with Australia’s military involvement in the Middle East. Some of Turnbull’s key supporters were rather less than enthusiastic about Australia’s recent commitment to the aerial bombing campaign in Syria. That decision will not be reversed but Turnbull, along with his new Defence Minister, is unlikely to share Abbott’s great liking for military commitments overseas.
Defence policy

Senator Marise Payne, the new defence minister, is a self-described feminist and small ‘l’ liberal. She has periodically annoyed more conservative members of the Liberal Party with her less traditional views. She has been a Senator since 2007 and was Minister for Human Services in the Abbott Government. Having been Chair of the powerful Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Senator Payne has considerable experience with the defence portfolio. Her appointment has been well received by the defence establishment.

Senator Payne is on record as a strong supporter of Australia’s relations with Asia. After being appointed minister, she said relations with Indonesia were a top priority. She plans to visit Jakarta soon to cement relations with her Indonesian counterpart and help remedy the thorny problems that had arisen in the bilateral relationship during the Abbott Government’s term. While Australia’s alliance with the US will remain a corner-stone of Australia’s defence and foreign policies, a more pragmatic and less doctrinaire view is likely to emerge as to just what that alliance means in terms of Australia’s relations in the region.

The advent of the Turnbull Government has markedly reduced the prospects of Australia building its new submarines in conjunction with Japan. After then Prime Minister Abbott had reportedly reached a ‘hand-shake’ deal with Prime Minister Abe, Japan had appeared to be the favourite for the submarine project, but will now fall back behind the European contenders who are offering firmer prospects for building the submarines in Australia.

Looking ahead

Despite Malcolm Turnbull’s personal predilection for issues such as climate change, a meaningful renewable energy policy, same sex marriage, and an Australian republic, he is unlikely to push for changes in policy on these issues in the short-term. The residual conservative forces in his Government are simply too strong. In the medium- and longer-term, however, significant changes are possible not just in controversial domestic issues, but also in Australia’s foreign policy.

*Sam Bateman is a Senior Fellow in the Maritime Security Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is a former Australian naval commodore who had several postings in the Strategic Policy area of the Department of Defence in Canberra.

By Elise Harris

Pope Francis told journalists on board his flight to Rome that giving communion to divorced and remarried Catholics is a “simplistic” solution to the issue, and stressed that there are also other problems that need to be discussed.

“(It) seems a bit simplistic to me to say that the synod, that the solution for these people is that they can receive communion. That’s not the only solution (asked for).”

What the “Instrumentum laboris” proposes “is a lot,” he said. “Also, the problem of the new unions of divorcees isn’t the only problem.”

“In the instrumentum laboris, there are many (problems to be addressed). For example, young people don’t get married. They don’t want to get married. It’s a pastoral problem for the Church. Another problem: the effective maturity for a marriage. Another problem: faith.”

Pope Francis spoke to journalists on board his American Airlines flight from Philadelphia to Rome after spending 10 days in Cuba and the United States.

In the 47 minute inflight news conference, Francis answered 11 questions on themes such as his impressions of the United States after completing his first visit, bishop’s accountability in cases of clerical sex abuse and the right of government employees to exercise conscientious objection as a human right.

The Pope’s comments on divorced and remarried were the answer to a question posed by journalist Jean Marie Guenois of French news agency Le Figaro.

Guenois asked the Pope whether he is looking for a solution to the situation of divorced and remarried Catholics, as well as his response to fears that his recent ‘motu proprio’ on streamlining marriage annulments have created a de-facto “Catholic divorce,” and whether they have closed discussion on the topic.

In his response, Francis stressed that with his motu proprio, he has closed the administrative path that could have led to divorce.

“Those who think this is ‘Catholic divorce’ are wrong because this last document has closed the door to divorce by which it could have entered. It would have been easier with the administrative path,” he said.

“This document, this ‘motu proprio,’ facilitates the processes and the timing, but it is not divorce because marriage is indissoluble when it is a sacrament. And this the Church cannot change. It’s doctrine. It’s an indissoluble sacrament.”

On Sept. 8 Pope Francis made significant changes to the marriage nullification process, giving more of a role to local bishops, dropping the automatic appeals, and declaring the process free of charge.

The changes were published in two motu proprio – or letters issued by the Pope “on his own initiative.” The documents were entitled “Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus” (The Lord Jesus, a meek judge), which deals with modifications in the Latin Rite’s Code of Canon Law, and “Mitis et misericors Iesus” (Jesus, meek and merciful), which outlines changes for Eastern Churches who, although in full communion with Rome, have historically had a different process.

Francis noted that the streamlined process was asked for by last year’s synod participants, since there are some cases that take up to 10-15 years.

“There’s one sentence, then another sentence and after there’s an appeal, there’s the appeal then another appeal. It never ends,” he said.

Although Pope Benedict XIV instituted the double-sentence in his time, it was because there were “some abuses” being made in the process in central Europe, the Pope noted, and that to stop it “he introduced this but it’s not something essential to the process.”

“The procedure changes, jurisprudence changes, it gets better,” he said, noting that although at the time it was an urgent need, times change and even Pius X wanted to streamline the annulment process but didn’t “have time or the possibility to do it.”

On the topic of the coming synod, Pope Francis said that the issues surrounding divorced persons who enter into new marriages will be discussed, as can be seen in the “instrumentum laboris,” or working document, for the discussion.

However, he also stressed that there are many others issues to be addressed besides just new unions and communion for the divorced and remarried, such as the growing number of youth who don’t want to marry, personal maturity when entering into the sacrament and faith.

Marriage preparation is also an important point to address, he said, adding that “I think so often that to become a priest there’s a preparation for eight years, and then, it’s not definite, the Church can take the clerical state away from you.”

“But, for something lifelong, they do four courses! Four times… Something isn’t right. It’s something the synod has to deal with: how to do preparation for marriage. It’s one of the most difficult things.”

He said that the many problems needing attention can be found in the synod’s “Instrumentum laboris,” but said he was glad to get a question on “Catholic divorce,” and clarified that “it doesn’t exist.”

“Either it wasn’t a marriage, and this is nullity – it didn’t exist. And if it did, it’s indissoluble. This is clear.”

Published June 23, the “Instrumentum Laboris,” has been compiled by the Vatican department in charge of organizing the synod to guide this October’s discussions.

Divided into three parts, it builds on the final report of last October’s synod, also incorporating suggestions from Church entities like bishops’ conferences and even individuals who freely sent their opinions.

The final instrumentum was reviewed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before its publication, according to a source familiar with the document.

Set to take place Oct. 4-25, this year’s ordinary synod will reflect on the theme “Jesus Christ reveals the mystery and vocation of the family” will gather more than 200 Bishops and representatives from all over the world. The conclusions of the gathering will be used by Pope Francis to draft his first Post-Synodal Exhortation, which can be expected in 2016.

In the document it is noted that various opinions have been expressed by synod fathers on the topic of communion for the divorced and remarried, including suggestions to keep the current practice.

Others have asked that each individual case be examined, and that couples in special circumstances be allowed to receive the Eucharist after completing a journey of penance and reconciliation guided by the local bishop.

The document emphasizes that the question is still being discussed, and that particular emphasis should be given to the distinction between “objective situations of sin and extenuating circumstances.”

By Jonathan Wade and Ian Litschko of the Sentinel Group

France has agreed to sell two Mistral-class LHD to Egypt, a transaction estimated at more than 950 million euros. After the failed transaction with Russia due to the ongoing situation in Ukraine, the fate of the Mistrals was involved in many rumors, including a possible sale to Canada.

Reuters reported that French officials confirmed the deal on September 23, 2015. French President Francois Hollande addressed reporters stating that France and Egypt came to an agreement on the sale of the Mistral.

“We unwound the contract we had with Russia, on good terms, respectful of Russia and not suffering any penalty for France,” Hollande told reporters on arrival at an EU summit in Brussels.

“Yesterday, I agreed the price and conditions of this sale with (Egyptian) President (Abdel Fattah al-) Sisi and so France will ensure the delivery of these ships without losing anything, while helping protect Egypt.”

In June 2015, Egypt acquired a FREMM Aquitaine-class vessel from France, followed by the Egyptian Air Force taking delivery of the first three Rafales fighters of a 25 plane deal in July 2015. Now in September, the Mistral deal has been concluded, suggesting that Egypt has a penchant for French-made military hardware, leading to the possibility of more lucrative contracts for French companies.

The sale of the two Mistral-class LHD will significantly contribute to the growing relationship between Russia and Egypt. Although Russia has lost a valuable contract, the fact that Egypt bought the two LHDs enable them to enhance military cooperation and interoperability with Cairo. It is clear that both countries will take advantage of this transaction, but for different reasons.

Russian Advisors Aboard the Mistral

Once the Egyptian Navy deem the two Mistrals operational, it is probable that Russia will offer to deploy advisors to share their expertise in operating the vessels—even with limited experience at sea with the Mistrals—to the Egyptian sailors. The fact that Russian soldiers were training on the Mistral will greatly benefit the newly-established Egyptian crew.

If aboard, Russian advisors will most likely have access to the entire ship and could pass technical information of the vessel to national shipbuilders; a move that would enable Russian shipbuilders to work on a similar version of the Mistral.

A Russian version of the Mistral could also benefit Egypt. Russia will most likely provide equipment for the Mistral to Egypt as they were ready to take delivery of the first Mistral when the deal began to waver and as such, already have systems ready for use by the vessels. They may also develop new technologies that could be deployed on the Egyptian Mistral in the future.

Russia Sells 50 Ka-52 to Egypt

After the failed contract between Russia and France, fifty Ka-52 helicopters were left unused. Fortunately for Russia, Egypt purchased the whole fleet of Ka-52 and are considering the deck-version for seaborne operations aboard their newly-purchased Mistral-class LHD.

The Ka-52 Alligator is “a next-generation reconnaissance and combat helicopter designed to destroy tanks, armored and non-armored ground targets, and enemy troops and helicopters both on the front line and in tactical reserves. The helicopter can operate around the clock and in all weathers. The Ka-52 can provide target acquisition and designation for helicopter teams and ground troop command and control centers. It can also provide fire support for troop landings, fly routine patrols, and escort military convoys.”

Well-connected sources in the Russian defense industry told TASS that Russia could possibly supply the sea-based version of the Ka-52: “An agreement on the supply of fifty Ka-52 helicopters has been signed,” he said. “If the Egyptian side finds it necessary, the sea-based version of the helicopters will be supplied.”

That said, the Ka-52K has been specifically designed for seaborne operations. The first delivery is expected between 2017 and 2018.

Russian helicopters rotorcraft manufacturer and Russia’s Defense Ministry said that the Ka-52K would be deployed on other Russian Navy ships instead of the Mistral.

Nevertheless, it is almost certain that Russia will agree to sell Ka-52K helicopters to Egypt, reopening the door to more contracts from the Egyptian military.

Russia’s Presence in the Middle East

In the lead up to the sale of the Mistrals to Egypt, Russia has been appearing in the region quite frequently. Russia has been concluding paratrooper training exercises in Egypt, talked about Syria with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and increasing its presence in Syria. The increased presence, coinciding with the sale of the Mistrals as well as the continuing deterioration of the situation in Syria, provides Russia the opportunity to unnerve the West while doing little that can be perceived as threatening. We have seen an increased presence by NATO forces in Europe, particularly on exercise, in response to Ukraine, while simultaneously gradually reducing their presence in the Middle East. By refocusing their deployments to Syria and conducting such exercises in the region, Moscow has effectively told the West that they are ready to fill the vacuum a lessened coalition presence will create, though they remain open to cooperation.

The question NATO needs to ask themselves is: If the low levels of cooperation with Russia remain, can they live with an increased Russian political and military presence in the Middle East? After all, the CSTO, much like NATO, is capable of deploying abroad with their rapid reaction force, and with the increase in extremist influence in CSTO members, may provide enough reason for their deployment if Western commitment remains low.

Through relationship building in the Middle East, Russia is positioning itself well regardless of how events in Syria evolve. Despite their vested interest in keeping Assad in power, improving cooperation with the other regional powers and ensuring mutual interests are protected provide Moscow with the best outcome in the Middle East, while likely keeping NATO involved there rather than in Europe.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

The recent influx of refugees into Europe has been mislabeled as “immigration” and portrayed by local right-wing politicians as an existential threat. This European nationalist rhetoric could legitimise and provoke violence by Salafi-jihadis.

By Aida Arosoaie*

Refugees fleeing the wars in Syria, Eritrea and Afghanistan are facing a great injustice: in the past few months, right-wing European politicians have been referring to them as ‘migrants’ and even depict them as an existential threat to Christian Europe. The justifications of European nationalist politicians for such actions are seeded in the conflation between Islam – the refugees’ religion – with Salafi-jihadi militancy.

By framing it as an existential threat, the right-wing politicians are constructing their political discourse in the same way Salafi-jihadi organisations construct theirs while at the same time, acting inconsistently with the fundamental values of the European Union. If this rhetoric persists it might result in legitimising the Salafi-jihadi discourse and make recruits of current refugees, which in turn, would increase the likelihood of attacks in Europe orchestrated by Salafi-jihadis.

Europe’s “immigration” problem

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany referred to the Syrian, Eritrean and Afghan nationals coming into Europe as the “biggest challenge” she has experienced. The Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni argued that the current immigration crisis poses a threat to the “soul of Europe”. Viktor Orban, Hungary’s Prime Minister was more vehement as evidenced by these words he uttered:

“Those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity.”

Additionally, the current European nationalist lexicon does not include the word ‘refugee’. Instead, it uses the less evocative term ‘migrant’. However, there is a substantive difference between the state of a refugee and that of a migrant. UNHCR defines refugees as persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution and migrants as persons who choose to move, not because of a direct threat of persecution or death, but mainly to improve their living standards.

Protected under international law, the status of a refugee signals the threat to human dignity, liberty, equality and respect for human rights which represent the very fundamental values of the Constitution of the European Union. The choice of ‘migrant’ over ‘refugee’ signals an attempt to evade moral responsibility in addressing the plea of these people.

Threat of Salafi-jihadi militancy

The framing of the current “immigration” threat is in effect a securitising process that renders Islam and Muslims as existential threats to Europeans. This is problematic in two ways. Firstly, this securitisation process is based on the same Manichean divide that defines Salafi-jihadis’ thinking. Secondly, this discourse is incongruous with the fundamental values of the European Union.

Nationalist European leaders and parties, such as Orban, the UK Independence Party or France’s National Front, believe that Muslim refugees are an existential threat to the Christian soul of Europe because they associate Islam with Salafi-jihadi militancy. This conflation implies that the refugees, motivated by their religion, promote global “terrorism”. Significantly, Orban is constructing an existential threat in the same fashion as the Salafi-jihadi groups. Take the speech by Abu Mohammad al-Adnani, the spokesperson of ISIS, who denounced the West for covertly waging a war against Islam:

“O Crusaders, indeed you are weak cowards, all of you (…) because you don’t dare make public the reality of your war and the fact that it is a crusade, that it is against Islam, and that it is against Sunnis”.

Thus Adnani is also conflating Western politics with Christianity. Both parties construct an existential threat by conflating the Other’s religion with politics: in the case of Salafi-jihadis is the conflation of Christianity with democracy and liberalism, while in the case of right-wing European leaders it is Islam with Salafi-jihadi “terrorism”. Both parties project the world in binaries, each binary with its own religion and specific ideological orientations.

Legitimising the Salafi-jihadis

By constructing an existential threat based on such conflations, Orban also disregards the commitment he has to the values of the European Union. The EU was not founded on a particular religious creed, but on neutral values meant to serve humanity. In this context, Orban’s behaviour is morally inconsistent, as he is acting against the very values he is supposed to represent as a leader of a European Union member state.

This could also draw the attention, and indeed ire of Salafi-jihadis who in the past, have specifically posited such moral inconsistencies as an essential trigger for their violence. In a statement on 1 November 2004, Osama bin Laden implied that Al-Qaeda would not strike Sweden, for example, because the Swedish government never acted in inconsistent terms. It bears noting that Sweden is the country that has been taking in more asylum seekers per capita in comparison to any other European country without questioning their religion.

By portraying the current refugee crisis in existential terms and by disregarding the fundamental values of the European Union, right-wing European leaders might end up legitimising the Salafi-jihadis amongst the refugees. Potential consequences could be the emergence of a recruitment pool for Salafi-jihadi groups and a surge of Salafi-jihadi-orchestrated attacks across Europe.

Instead, if right-wing European leaders and parties moderate their rhetoric and re-spond to the refugee crisis in ways that are morally consistent and in conformity with the European values, they might end up legitimising their own political values amongst the refugees. If so they would assist a potential post-war reconstruction of Syria where the West could be looked at more favourably as opposed to the contemporary neo-colonial and neo-imperialist lenses.

*Aida Arosoaie is a Research Analyst with the International Centre for Political Vio-lence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR), a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

By Terence Chong*

The independent Pentecostal movement has been growing rapidly in Southeast Asia in recent decades, benefitting from the broader expansion of charismatic Christianity from the 1980s onwards in Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia, as well as further afield in Taiwan and South Korea.

There are several reasons why the growth of this movement in this region is important. Firstly, to a large extent the Pentecostal movement has an ethnic face. The majority of Pentecostals in urban centres like Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Surabaya, Jakarta and Manila are, with some notable exceptions, upwardly mobile, middle-class ethnic Chinese. In countries where the ethnic Chinese are in the minority, Pentecostal churches and cell groups are crucial spaces for social networking, business contacts and identity-making.

Secondly, it has a wide economic appeal suggesting an ability to tap into different concerns and aspirations. For while the megachurch, the most popular incarnation of independent Pentecostalism, is often associated with the middle classes, it has great attraction for the poor and the working class in urban centres like Manila.

Thirdly, the central figure of the charismatic leader in Pentecostal churches means that senior pastors enjoy great deference and sway over large congregations. In actual terms, this has meant the ability to mobilise financial capital; and the conflation of politics, business and religion to varying degrees raises the spectre of religious nationalism.

A 2011 Pew Research Centre study estimated that there are 279 million Pentecostals worldwide, comprising 12.8 per cent of all Christians.2 There are no accurate estimates for the number of Pentecostals in Southeast Asia but the percentage of Christians (including Catholics) in Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines and Singapore are 13.2 per cent, 8.8 per cent, 85 per cent, and 18 per cent, respectively.3 The exact number of Pentecostals are difficult to pin down for two reasons. Firstly, most country censuses do not differentiate between the larger Christian community except for Protestantism and Catholicism. Secondly, as a movement, Pentecostalism does not have strict doctrines or hierarchy, and may exist as distinct congregations as well as fringe congregations in mainline denominations. The conventional definition of ‘Pentecostalism’ is the emphasis on the deeply personal spiritual experience of God, baptism of the Holy Spirit, expressive worship, belief in signs and miracles, and the speaking of tongues or glossolalia. Nonetheless, according to estimates, there are 7,300,000 Pentecostals in Indonesia; 2,200,000 Pentecostals in Philippines; 206,000 Pentecostals in Malaysia; and 150,000 Charismatic Pentecostals in Singapore.4

PREDOMINANTLY BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY ETHNIC CHINESE

Christianity is by large an ethnic Chinese faith in Malaysia and Singapore, and has a more multiethnic complexion in Indonesia and the Phiippines. Colonial legacies as well as the conflation of Islam with ethnic Malays in Malaysia and with indigenous Indonesians such as Javanese and Madurese have resulted in predominantly ethnic Chinese Pentecostal congregations in the major urban centres of these three countries. The reason for this strong attraction of ethnic Chinese to Pentecostalism is two-fold.

The first concerns identity-consolidation in Chinese-minority societies where these churches are seen as alternative places to a less than welcoming political climate. Scholars elsewhere have shown how the precarious existence of Indonesian Chinese under Suharto played a part in their attraction to Christianity, and Pentecostalism in particular. Koning argues that the systematic alienation of Chinese identity and culture made Pentecostal-Charismatic churches one of the natural places for convergence.5 More recently, studies commissioned by ISEAS- Yusof Ishak Institute show that the political marginalisation of Malaysian Chinese has endowed Pentecostalism with the capacity to act as a vehicle to consolidate Chinese identity as a modern and individualised subject within the country.6

It is also noted that in a nation where Muslims are in the majority, Malaysian Chinese are differentially inclined to Christianity and specifically the Pentecostal church where the church and its various groups provide social solidarity and support. Nevertheless, it must be noted that Malaysian Chinese do not make up the largest portion of Christians in the country. The non-Malay bumiputera (sons of the soil) group comprise the bulk of Christians at 64.3 per cent; followed by the ethnic Chinese at 27.3 per cent; and finally the Indians at 6.6 per cent. These non-Malay bumiputeras reside largely in Sabah and Sarawak while Chinese and Indian Christians reside mainly in the peninsula.

The second reason offers a more socio-economic explanation for the Pentecostal-Chinese link. Here, the minority status of ethnic Chinese in all of Southeast Asia, bar Singapore, has made the Pentecostal church an important place for social and business networking. More than that, these churches flourish because they provide contact opportunities among Chinese professionals and entrepreneurs.

These commissioned studies also demonstrate the link between business and the ethnic Chinese. The Rose of Sharon Church, led by Pastor Jacob Nahuway, recently inaugurated a sanctuary in a Chinese-majority residential suburb in North Jakarta which seats 10,000 worshippers.7 This ability for financial mobilisation differs from the Catholic or Protestant denominations which are generally top-down and institutional in nature. The building of Pentecostal megachurches is thus a demonstration of efficient mobilisation of financial capital from its congregants independent of any institutional oversight beyond the individual church.

The Rose of Sharon Church is also one of the few Pentecostal churches that have secured official permit to build a dedicated church, and the capital and network needed to build the monumental structure attest to the extensive connection and social capital between the authorities and wealthy entrepreneurs. The exclusive gated-community where the church is located also reflects the demography of its worshippers, who are mostly upper-middle class ethnic Chinese. Nevertheless, Indonesian Pentecostalism, like Malaysian Pentecostalism, is diverse. The same commissioned studies have also problematized these neat categories. In Surabaya, for example, Indonesia’s second largest city, the term “ethnic Chinese” must be less rigorously defined because the ethnic Chinese has had a history of intermarrying with the pribumi, forming creolized communities despite the colonial legacies.8

The decades of Chinese assimilation into Indonesian culture has meant that while there is a discernible Chinese community within the Pentecostal faith, much of the latter has a multi- ethnic complexion. Consider the statistics: the total percentage of self-identified ethnic Chinese is only 1.2 per cent of the Indonesian population, or 2.8 million, although this may be an underestimation as many do not self-report their ethnicity. Meanwhile, only about 35 per cent of ethnic Chinese profess to be Christians. In other words, there are about a million Chinese Christians in Indonesia, and it is safe to say that they are in the minority since there is an estimated seven million Pentecostals in the country.

A MIDDLE CLASS CHURCH THAT APPEALS TO THE WORKING CLASS

As an off-shoot of the Methodist’s Holiness movement in rural America, Pentecostalism began at the dawn of the 20th century as a series of revivals among the urban poor. The 1906 Azusa Street revivals in Los Angeles among the predominantly African-American community is traditionally seen as the genesis of the movement and was distinguished by its economically marginal status and unorthodox styles of worship. Post-war Pentecostalism began to make inroads into urban churches with white congregations. The neo-Pentecostal wave in the 1970s and the rise of televangelism in the 1980s strengthened the association between Pentecostalism and the middle class.

This middle class association is popular because of the characterization of Pentecostal megachurches as trendy places of worship. They are effective in their deployment of marketing strategies to advance their brand of Christianity through rock concert-like worship sessions and televised sermons. Their use of the powerful visual aesthetics and the technologies of pop culture encourages a highly intense personal religious experience in a mass setting. They are “not only very large churches that experiment with tradition, liturgy and doctrine, but also draw on popular culture and a consumerist logic in order to attract an audience more familiar with rock and roll, shopping malls, and self-help culture than with traditional church liturgies, hymns, or symbols.”9

In Southeast Asia the strong link between Pentecostal megachurches and the upwardly mobile middle class is strong. This link is underpinned by the fact that the minority ethnic Chinese communities in various countries are over-represented in the business and professional class. In Singapore for example, where the ethnic Chinese are in the majority, the Pentecostal community was as well-educated and well off as the broader Protestant community, if not more so.10

The Pentecostal megachurch’s so-called ‘prosperity gospels’ either justify wealth and well-being as divine favour or offer them as reward for faithfulness to God, thus making it popular with the middle class. It has been argued that this popularity comes from the ability to measure the immeasurable.11 It is crucial to younger professionals who have experienced class transition and who desire a linear and quantifiable perspective of their journey with God. In correlating the spiritual with the material, there is a rationalization of the irrational, such that the notion of being a “faithful” or “obedient” Christian may be calculable by material blessings received. This logical relationship is a familiar one for the transitional class who knows what it is to invest, to be measured, to be judged and, finally, rewarded.

In Malaysia for example, it was found that the majority of Calvary Church’s congregation is comprised of middle and upper middle class ethnic Chinese.12 Around this Chinese core are ethnic Indians, while newer members include transnational workers like Filipinos, Nigerians, Cambodians and Dutch. Calvary Church’s ability to justify the possession of wealth and well-being as a symbol of God’s favour, which should be repaid back to community and nation-building, has made it popular with the middle class. The church as an organisation too, reflects middle class consumption aspirations where the idea of growth is realised through new, modern and most importantly, large buildings for worship.

However, it would be a mistake to assume that Pentecostal appeal is limited to the middle classes. Echoing the origins of the movement, Pentecostalism in the Philippines includes a large swathe of the working class, alongside members of the middle class. The Jesus is Lord (JIL) church is one of the country’s largest Pentecostal churches. Founded in 1978, JIL began as a series of Bible study sessions at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. In addition to English and Filipino, JIL’s pastors preach in local languages and dialects in order to reach out to the working class in the suburbs and rural areas. This is in contrast to other megachurches that focus primarily on the Metro Manila vicinity. Attention to the working class Filipino is crucial to the indigenisation and widespread relevance of Filipino Pentecostalism since this provides it with a much broader base in a country where more than half the population is considerably poor.13

Furthermore, while many of JIL’s pastors are well educated, the church makes the point to assign pastors who have themselves come from urban poor or rural communities to these very communities. This allows for rapport between pastor and congregation. JIL’s appeal to the broader working class also comes from evangelistic activities and music that expresses nuances and emotions that resonate with local Christians. For example, JIL members show a strong Filipino imprint through the use of local words such as hipo (touch) which, though they may evoke sexual connotations, refer to a unique encounter with God.14 This helps indigenize the religious experience and Pentecostalism for communities.

THE CHARISMATIC LEADER AND RELIGIOUS NATIONALISM

Perhaps the most distinguishable feature of the Pentecostal movement, particularly its independent megachurch manifestation, is the importance of the charismatic leader. Many of these leaders are founders or children of the founders of these independent Pentecostal churches. There are a few types of charismatic Pentecostal leaders.

Firstly, especially in the Singapore case, independent Pentecostal churches are typically off- shoots of mainline churches. Young church leaders in these conservative mainline churches see themselves as part of the “Joshua Generation” which denotes the passing of the torch from older leaders to younger ones. The Book of Exodus describes the handing over of the guard from Moses who led the Israelites out of Egypt, to Joshua who proceeds to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land. These Joshua Generation leaders may have come into theological or organisational conflict with their conservative senior pastors and thus broken away from their church, bringing along with them a small group of followers to establish new churches. These include cases such as City Harvest Church and New Creation. As a self- selected group, these young leaders are highly driven individuals with clear and expansionist visions of church development, who command the loyalty and deference of followers.

Another type of charismatic leader is one with a compelling redemptive life-story, typically of vice, immorality, serious illness, and/or socio-economic depravation, who then finds Christ and proceeds to lead life anew. One such life-story is that of Philip Mantofa, leader of Surabaya’s Mawar Sharon, who had a childhood of illness, ethnic marginalisation and crime before he heard the voice of Jesus calling out to him at the church altar and experienced evil spirits leaving his body.15 Such biographies of redemption are powerful cultural models for congregations. They serve as crucial narratives for Pentecostal conversion among the Indonesian Christian youth where sin and sickness are replaced by salvation, and thus attractive to young urban youths lost in the market economy or the cosmopolitan jungle.

Whether a ‘Joshua Generation’ leader or one with a history of redemption, the charismatic leader is an authoritarian one. Power and authority are centred on the head or senior pastor who is entrusted to articulate God’s will and vision for the church. In this manner, the charismatic leader’s legitimacy is beyond question because it lies with God who has chosen him (and it is usually a masculine position) to shepherd the flock over matters of theological direction, administrative organisation, and even business decisions. The charismatic leader will thus not tolerate dissent or alternative views which may undermine or reduce the relevance of his position.

The unquestioned authority of the charismatic leader allows him to align theology with specific political values or nationalist ideologies, or what scholars have termed “religious nationalism”.16 Take the LoveSingapore coalition in Singapore for example. A loose group of different churches but with a strong Pentecostal strain, the LoveSingapore coalition formed in 1995 and is led by Pastor Lawrence Khong, senior pastor of the Charismatic Pentecostal Faith Community Baptist Church. LoveSingapore cloaks its religiosity with patriotism by praying and interceding for politicians, civil servants and state institutions through its prayerwalks and prayer summits. The objective is to “turn this nation God-ward” thereby staking a Christian claim on the development of politics and nation-building.17 This has the potential for stoking tension in a multicultural society, and may lead other faith communities to stake the same claims over the nation.

Likewise in the Philippines, JIL is heavily involved in national politics. Members of JIL are behind the political organisation, Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC), to advance the church’s call for moral renewal. Bro. Eddie Villanueva, head pastor and founder of JIL, was a presidential candidate in 2004 and 2010, and ran for senator in 2013, all unsuccessfully. Interestingly though, his campaigns were supported by celebrities, intellectuals, and even a former Chief Justice with as many as three million people at his political rallies in Metro Manila. Nevertheless leaders and members in the JIL chapters in Canada have left the church because of allegations, among others, that church funds were used for political activities.18

As a faith, the Pentecostal movement’s growth in Southeast Asia has been largely ignored by policy-makers because of their focus on political Islam. This could be to the long-term detriment of governments because the growth of Pentecostalism reflects the changing ethnic and class dynamics in urban settings which policy-makers should be cognizant of. Not only is it predominantly ethnic Chinese driven, hence, making it a convenient marker of ethnicity in multicultural societies, it also appeals to non-Chinese and indigenous communities, thus raising sensitivities over proselytization, especially in Malaysia and Singapore. Pentecostalism’s attraction to the middle class suggests that its growth will not taper off.

And yet, it is also drawing in the poor and the working class in urban centres like Manila. Finally, although the church and the state have had a long history of engagement, religious nationalism in the case of independent Pentecostal churches is different. While mainline denominations like Catholicism, Anglicanism or Methodism make decisions as a collective, there is less checking and balancing in independent Pentecostal churches. This does not mean that these mainline denominations do not intervene in the political sphere as Cardinal Sin and People Power in the Philippines have demonstrated. However, the autonomy of these Pentecostal churches means that religious nationalism may be more unpredictable since much rests on the agenda and visions of the charismatic leader.

About the author:
* 1. Terence Chong, Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the Regional Social and Cultural Studies Programme (terencechong@iseas.edu.sg). This paper draws from ongoing research at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute on Pentecostalism in Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Surabaya, Jakarta and Manila. The author would like to thank Hui Yew-Foong for his comments on this paper.

Source:
This article was published by ISEAS as ISEAS Perspective 2015 Number 53 (PDF)

Notes:
2 http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-movements-and-denominations/ (accessed 10 May 2015)
3 Various censuses.
4 Todd M. Johnson and Gina A. Zurlo, eds. 2010. World Christian Database. Leiden/Boston: Brill
5 Juliette Koning (2009), “Singing yourself into existence: Chinese Indonesian entrepreneurs, Pentecostal- Charismatic Christianity, and the Indonesian nation state”. In Christianity and the State in Asia: Complicity and Conflict, ed. Julius Bautista and Francis Khek Ghee. London: Routledge
6 Jeaney Yip, forthcoming.
7 Hoon Chang-Yau, forthcoming.
8 Chao En-Chieh, forthcoming.
9 Stephen Ellingson, “New Research on Megachurches: Non-denominationalism and Sectarianism,” in The New Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Religion, ed. Bryan S. Turner (Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell, 2010), p. 247.
10 Chong, Terence and Hui, Yew-Foong. 2013. Different Under God: A Survey of Church-going Protestants in Singapore. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies
11 Chong, Terence. 2015. “Megachurches in Singapore: The Faith of an Emergent Middle Class”. Pacific Affairs 88(2):215-235
12 Jeaney Yip, forthcoming.
13 Jayeel S. Cornelio, forthcoming.
14 Aguilar Jr. F.V. 2006. Experiencing Transcendence: Filipino Conversion Narratives and the Localization of Pentecostal-Charismatic Christianity. Philippines Studies 54(4): 585-627.
15 Chao En-Chieh, forthcoming.
16 Rogers Brubaker. 2012. “Religion and nationalism: four approaches”. Nations and Nationalism 18(1): 2-20.
17 http://www.lovesingapore.org.sg (accessed 20 August 2015)
18 Jayeel S. Cornelio, forthcoming.

There is no political will to make Malaysia as a nation-state be realized in its entirety, argue the authors of this article, with the current situation and social condition characterized by violence.

By Murray Hunter and Azly Rahman*

“ … I am indeed proud that on this, the greatest day in Malaya’s history it falls to my lot to proclaim the formal independence of this country. Today as new page is turned, and Malaya steps forward to take her rightful place as a free and independent partner in the great community of Nations-a new nation is born and though we fully realise that difficulties and problems lie ahead, we are confident that, with the blessing of God, these difficulties will be overcome and that today’s events, down the avenues of history, will be our inspiration and our guide …” — Tunku Abdul Rahman, first prime minister of Malaysia, Proclamation of Independence, 31 August, 1957

Today’s debate in Malaysia has gone down to the lowest ebb. Discourse on democracy is dead; bludgeoned by the caretakers of the cult of secrecy of the ruling regime. The dream of a progressive Malaysia conceived by her freedom fighters and founding fathers and mothers such as Burhanuddin Al-Helmy, Ibrahim Yaakob, Onn Jaafar, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tan Chen Lock, V. T. Sambanthan, and even the much contested heroic figures such as Chin Peng, Rashid Maidin, Mokhtaruddin Lasso, and Shamsiah Fakeh has turned into a nightmare in broad daylight. If there is a period of decay in destruction of the democratic institutions yearning to grow well this is the time of chaos and anarchy: of Malaysia in the Age of Corrupt Systems.

The challenges of a nation-state today, seem insurmountable not because the idea of a “nation” of many, hybridizing with the singularity, sovereignty, and sensibility of the modern state is an impossibility, but because there is no political will to make Malaysia that nation-state be realized in its entirety. In other words, Malaysia has been made to become a neo-colonialist divide-and-rule hyper-modern polity. The apartheidization of society is deliberate and necessary a design in order for the political-economic elite to rule. Herein lies our intention to explore the theme of the “Malaysian Dream,” and propose explanations to the reasons for the rotting of this neo-colonialist construct and offer ideas towards a remedy. In doing so, we are guided by these questions: What are the ills of this country? What remedies does she need? How do we Malaysians chart a new world of possibilities? What are our visions? — these are the questions we are exploring in this brief essay on the future of Malaysia.

Malaysia’s predicament

Malaysia’s current situation and social condition is one characterized by violence; from a spectrum of hidden and subtle to blatant and outright display of it. Talks of a possible racially-motivated riot in Petaling Street, Kuala Lumpur and a US terror alert warning for that area, a massive rally calling for the end of corruption and a call for free and fair elections, the immense complexity of the ENRON-like case of the Malaysian investment project, the 1MDB and its story which read like a Watergate and a pulp fiction of global money-laundering combined, the resurfacing of the call to investigate the gruesome murder of a Mongolian model-cum- Russian interpreter of a governmental French-submarine deal, the ugly spillovers of the current war of political survival and relevancy between the camps of Najib Tun Razak and former prime minster of 22-years, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad – all these happenings within the last few months are symptoms of this Malaysian socio-political cancer, or a noli me tangere as the Filipino nationalist of the 50s Jose’ Rizal would call it.

How do we get to this seemingly point of no-return? Malaysians may now be reflecting on the spiritual aspect of the predicament. As Jesus/Isa said in The Sermon on the Mount, on “The Beatitudes,” one cannot serve god and money at the same time; as Thich Nach Han preached of the path of peace and moderation; as Muhammad spoke of Humanity as one and transcends race and tribalism, and that an Arab is no superior than any other race.

The remedy of these predicaments is what we ought to work on, gradually but surely through a long deliberate process of inner and outer change, one simply called “Education” — that gentle profession that will ensure personal and social progress.

Today there is a talk of crafting a peace-making and peace-building plan by parties interested in reconciliation. Our view is that any “common framework of nation-building” must incorporate the voices of those marginalized, and the aspirations of the diverse peoples, and the intelligent design of social change that puts people first and at the center. This is what ought to be done rather than erect materials and vainglorious infrastructure architectured to oppress and alienate human beings – those pentagons of power build with the blood, sweat, tears, and fears of the poor the rich enslaved through crude as well as sophisticated means.

In Malaysia, it might be a futile effort for political parties craft elegant common frameworks of a new-Malaysian when not enough social-philosophical dialogue is done through mass and frequent meaningful intellectual engagements that include the hopes and aspirations of the people rather that exclude them; dialogue that sought their opinion and suggestions on what matters rather than teach them to chants slogans of change to be shouted in unison at rallies. In short, we need to bring big ideas down to the level of language and meaningfulness of the class of people we wish to develop.

Each party attempting to work together must command the language of participatory social change, of social justice, of culturally-tailored socialism, or capitalism with a moral conscience. Party members must learn to view religion as separate from the state and be the champions of that man-made laws that are collectively crafted by living, breathing and thinking human souls. That document called “The Constitution”, that embody the spirit of a nation with common dream and aspirations and future must be the made to be the bedrock of nationhood.

Oftentimes development and the institutionalization of national policies are stylized as top-down, commanding, and of late draconian and punishing practices. For one familiar with the process of creating shared vision in an organization, this kind of transmittance of developmental philosophy is not only unacceptable but in due course will be a reason for a revolt of the masses.

We must examine and scrutinize our “commanding heights,” as the Russian leader Vladimir Lenin would say about our economic model and our ideology and our base and superstructure. We must align these with the question of human nature: as human beings what do we want and what do we need, and how do we differentiate between what we want and what we need, so that we will not be confused and our society will not be evolving catastrophically.

Malaysia – is at a historical juncture of suicide; a bipolar nation breaking down into pieces. We had a dream. That dream is destroyed by the Pied Piper who is projecting himself to serve god and fellow men but in reality, is now having money serve him; that pied piper leading us to Armageddon of our own nation-state.

Where did we go wrong? Why are we living this nightmare? How do we craft a new Malaysian dream?

Hard Times for the nation-state

In spite of exposure to the world via internet, news, social media, and travel, the vision of what could be in Malaysia has become a dark and gloomy one. Visions are hopeful and positive aspirations that can be shared as a national narrative, an encapsulated version of what could be called “The Malaysian Dream”.

However any dream has been suppressed with healthy political debate muzzled, academic freedom muzzled, criticism muzzled, where those who dare to dream or criticize the neo-feudal establishment are caste away through various means and neutralized.

The ideological apparatuses are now unashamedly used by the power elite to control, cajole, and coerce the rakyat not only into cultural subservience and political submission but also to instil fear of governmental wrath should citizens speak up truth to power to raise consciousness of injustices. The power elite, those that are ruling the country and whose power is derived not only from elections, arguably dubious in its recent outcome, are those whose hegemony is derived from a massive control of wealth through this convenient system of the Constitutional Monarch; a system that works in symbiosis in the overall framework of “Malay Hegemonic and Trumpeted Superiority,” as leit motif.

This is not just a one sided affair. The opposition forces in Malaysia have also become intellectually bankrupt, have lost any passion for Malaysia, and are locked into their own introspection. Of late, especially after the 13th General Elections and after the incarceration of Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, and since the beginning of the Mahathir-Najib mahabharatta and vendetta in one, the Opposition itself has gone through as series of implosions breaking it into pieces leading not only to the inability for the coalition to come to terms with issues to be championed for the next elections, but also the implosion in its member party itself, PAS. The birth of Parti Amanah Negara (PAN), formed by those who no longer have the faith of the progressiveness of the Islam in PAS, signify the new forms of implosion leading to “new politics” in the coalition. Still, the Opposition has successfully been broken up rendering it difficult to play the role of contender of Barisan Nasional. The rakyat has lost faith in the Opposition, especially with the loss of DS Anwar as its mover and shaker as well as a Malaysian “prime-minister-in-waiting”.

This has come to the point where people may not even turn out to vote for the opposition just to protest against the government because of the ‘hopelessness’ they are displaying in terms of providing any alternative national narratives, dreams, and aspirations for a modern Malaysian society. Political analysts and social commentators these days are having difficult time writing about the possible triumph of the Opposition coalition in the coming elections. Internal politics in PKR especially since the much-criticized “Kajang Move,” and the plan hatched as a dawn raid for the Selangor Chief Minister’s position, the ongoing and perhaps no-exit-to-an agreement over the implementation of the “hudud” and the open secret of the hardliners in Pas wishing to make Talibanistic Islam as a model of Malaysia’s Islamic state – these two major factors add to the internal political combustion of the Opposition, rendering it now too weak for the disillusioned rakyat to have faith in a much-needed change. Even the crumbling ruling party, especially the one plaguing UMNO as a consequence of Najib Razak’s escapades, fiascos, and the metastasizing effect of the 1MDB, is benefitting from the implosion of the Opposition.

Global exposure, technology, and education have been wasted on Malaysians who are locked within a Malay-centric psychic dome that is completely opaque to what could be. Whilst globalization as a phenomena of movement of peoples, ideas, technology, and goods demand citizens of the world to adapt and prepare for the challenges of a multipolar, multi-cultural, and multi-perspectived world the Malay mind is still caged by its educational leaders to remain monocultural and to defend the rights to be exclusive and sheltered from the prospects and challenges of the world. This is designed and manufactured so that the incomprehensibility of the war cry and white noise of “Ketuanan Melayu,” or “Self-Ascribed and Trumped Notion of Malay Superiority,” can be maintained as a reason to live, work, and play.

No one today dare talk about what could be the best way to realize a society based on the simple principle of unity in diversity. Those calling for the need to remove the veil of racism, cast aside the garment of prejudice and suspicion, and embrace the idea of multiculturalism are made public enemies. These speaking up for the idea that all those born and breed in the country – Malays Chinese, Indians, etc. — are now Bumipteras or sons and daughters of the soil, are shunned against almost to the point of being charged as seditious people that do not know anything about the history of Tanah Melayu and ought to be charged for sedition.

This is the dilemma of speaking up against the self-imprisonment of Malaysians caught in a historical time-warp and not able to see the prospects and possibilities of an emerging Malaysian and cosmopolitan society.

That is the discourse on a true Malaysian identity and a good society that has become a new haram, or a taboo, and displeasing to the power elite.
For this trade, the right to think and express, the Rakyat get in return a vision of introspection that makes the dark Middle Ages look like the Renaissance period in Europe.

More sadly while the rest of the region is moving forward, the Malaysian elite are content with holding Malaysia back to the risk where what we know today could and will implode and bring a brave new world of misery and disappear.

Imploding Questions

The big questions of nation building and bangsa are imploding.

Malaysia has no structured and streamlined operational government any more. It is run by kleptomaniac leaders who are purely concerned with getting what they can for themselves and demanding that they be condoned for it.

The states are failing, many not financially viable anymore, run by more morally bankrupt leaders who take their ques from their feudal lords who they pay alms to for the right to rob the country morally.

There is no such thing as proper federal state relations operating in Malaysia; UMNO tore up the constitution long ago and just ad lib as they go along.

The young of the country are bypassed for the old guard whose “Use by” dates have long gone.

Sabah and Sarawak have been raped and put into subservient position vis the federal government which is run by a crony elite.

Islam is now a political tool of persuasion and control. It’s a tool of the government, of which PAS hand delivered to the government with their insistence on HUDUD without Tawhid.

Education is another handy political tool of subservience. It seems to produce new graduates who cannot t think for themselves in fear of offending. People are being programmed to obey in Malaysia’s higher education institutions, after being taught how to go through life without questioning the status quo in the secondary system.

Today in Malaysia, the rakyat have not experienced good governance with any big picture vision. Rather they have been subjected to a government that is ad hoc and acts on whims. Nobody talks policy in Putrajaya. Policy makers only talk greed. Mega projects are mega bucks, and everyone wants a slice.

Government is a winner takes all mechanism, where those outside can eat the crumbs that the elite don’t want (or more rightly cannot handle).

So let us ponder about what could be past the introspection of UMNO, the leadership of today’s neo-fuel elite, corporate cronies, and opposition forces.

A vision for a new Malaysia

Amidst the chaos engulfing the country circa the 58th Malaysia Day, what is left is hope, although hopelessness lie in the inability to remove those corrupted sectors – individuals, institutions, and ideology. Malaysia needs a vision, a new national narrative that all can debate and get behind to rebuild the country to the potential it really has. That vision was there before Mahathir took power and transformed it into total power over the course of his 22-years in power. The challenge indeed is to liquidate Mahathirism and start this nation-state at Ground Zero with the following changes to be made:

1. A debate on Malaysia: A national debate on what Malaysia could and should become a national priority. There is an imperative urgency to this. This dialogue must be done openly through the media, schools, universities and all possible forums. It must begin with a true retrospective local of our history, so that it is appreciated, with a ‘no holds barred’ situational audit undertaken publicly on the nation’s political, social, and economic on the present situation today. One when the past and present is honestly reflected up can a future direction be chartered for all and sundry of what we should all call ‘the great nation of Malaysia’. Given the dire state Malaysia is in, with the institutions crumbling and critical consciousness needed for progress disappearing, it is imperative that systematic effort be engineered and architectured to make the citizens be able to think critically and morally. The ‘hang-up’ on the current narratives of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ and ‘Hudud’, and the acceptance of corruption of the highest order, is keeping Malaysia locking into the past, without hope of ever seeing a bright future where we can be proud of the nation we should be calling ‘great’.
2. A clear separation of powers: A return to a national unity government with checks balances and power sharing until the country is out of crisis is mandatory if the country is going to be free of the past. This requires political parties to set aside their differences temporarily, come together and work on an agreement to save the nation from further descending into chaos. Each party owes its voters the willingness to see through a country that stops bleeding from years of conflict, corruption, and cultural degeneration.
3. A transcultural-philosophical Islam: A return of the path of a progressive interpretation of Islam that would be an asset to the country. Focus should be given on the big Islamic issues in economy, business, corruption, and work towards the creation of universal set of morals that society will be proud to live within. Malaysia has travelled the mistaken path of Arabization since the days of “Islamization Project” at the onset of the Mahathir Era. Decades of success of the institutionalization of a spectrum of Islamic concept s and applications have yield what is today a process of inching towards Talibanism. This is particularly evident in this administration of Najib Abdul Razak in which there seems to be a loss of control of the political will to monitor the spread of “intolerant-Salafist” version of Islam. Absent is the flourishing of Islam that promotes critical inquiry and philosophical discourse reminiscent of the rigour and splendour of Islam in Cordoba, Spain at the height of the Age of Transcultural-Philosophical” Islam if there is a designation to that period.
4. A responsive educational system: Innovative education models like the Switzerland system where students are able to master multiple languages should be considered as models to be adopted in multilingual Malaysia. In many places of Europe students are able to attend universities and undertake their work in one of possibly two or three languages. In addition students need encouragement to question what is, and this must start in the classrooms of the nation. No longer should asking questions be considered disrespectful, but rather praised as the ability to think critically. In addition, if Malaysian universities are to excel, they must be de-politicized. VCs must be selected on their ability as professional educators rather than loyalty to the BN Government. No more should BTN connections ever be the qualification needed for a person to hold the highest offices within universities. Reform of Malaysia’s universities must start at the top and be allowed to filter down through autonomy and true meritocracy. Without any changes at the top, Malaysia’s higher institutions of education are doomed to continue their spectacular fall in international rankings.
5. A new federalism: This is required in Malaysia where there is a genuine respect and acceptance for the division of powers between states and the federal government. This is all laid out within the Constitution of Malaysia but has been abused and ignored by successive BN Governments who have acted to centralize power spurred on by the motivation of greed. State Governments need to be nurtured where good leaders need to be found and developed to look after state interests, independently of any Federal Government. This would be a completely new political paradigm for Malaysia and help bring Malaysia’s leaders closer to the rakyat. National development and management needs to be a cooperative area, free of party politics. Governments must respect the will of the people and work within those wills, whether a State Government be BN, DAP, PAS, or PKR. In addition, BN state Governments must learn to operate independently from the will of the Federal Government leadership, and act on what they have been elected for, the protection of state rights, and development.
6. A new deal for Sabah and Sarawak: This urgent development is needed; one that follows on in the spirit of federal-state relations, where the 18 and 20 point agreements must be honoured by all, as part of the history and heritage of the formation of Malaysia. New talks about autonomy within the federation must be undertaken within the wide framework of federal-state relations to get the countries bureaucracy working in coexistence and cooperation.
7. An all-our war on corruption: Malaysians must attack corruption fearlessly and take a lesson from China. Corruption is an Achilles heel of Malaysian Government and is drawing the nation down to a failed state syndrome. A country where corruption prevails has no morals whatsoever. The news of corruption and the nation’s leaders being able to get away with it is not the examples the young generation of Malaysia should be taking their leads from. Radical shock treatment is needed here and it may have to be a death penalty, even though this is an abhorrent punishment. What must be made clearly understood to all is that corruption is not acceptable anymore in the nation of Malaysia.
8. A civics-minded populace: Malaysians must also play a role in everyday government and this is why local government should be democratized. Local people should stand for local elections for local government and learn the role of authority and responsibility. Local government is the third tier of government which has had little transparency. Local government is actually more relevant to the everyday lives of the rakyat and it’s time for the rakyat to take this responsibility. People with political party affiliations should not be allowed to run public office, so that city councils can remain independent.
9. A new breed of leaders: It’s time to bring forward the young leaders of this nation into the political arena. No more should politicians whose ‘use by’ dates have long gone take up all the positions of power. It’s time for the younger generation to take over. Within this, the gender balance of national leadership needs a drastic tilt towards more female representation.
10. A major political paradigm shift: Malaysian politics needs a massive paradigm change away from personality, race, and nepotism and move towards policy. The same stories and narratives about race and privilege are getting Malaysia nowhere. In fact it’s going backwards relative to the rest of the region and becoming deeply introspective. All political discussions should be in terms of policy within the framework of Malaysia’s institutions. That is true constitutional Government at work.
11. A powerful senate: This means revamping the National Senate to become a true house of review instead of a house of reward and convenience it has become. The Senate should be a true state house where the interests of each state and territory is looked after by members directly elected by proportional representation, rather than the appointment system currently in place. In, addition the Senate should have the power to call inquiries into issues of national interest, and the power to block budget Bills, as a check and balance on the Government of the day.
12. A passage to decentralization: As Malaysia is a complex country, its time through federal-state relations and local government to decentralise government operations within the country. Malaysia is not a communist country, but insists on operating as one through centralized planning and centralized decision making. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has become enormously powerful and this power and authority, as well as responsibility should be channelled back to local areas where decisions affect the people living there.
13. A people-first economic philosophy: It’s time for massive market and economic reforms to take place to modernize the Malaysian economy to one that is influenced through market forces rather than regulation protecting the power elite and their cronies. Import permits (APs) must be done away with to allow a level playing field develop in the Malaysian business world today. The current heavy regulation and artificial monopolies that exist in Malaysia just go to keep a small section of society wealthy in the name of the New Economic Policy (NEP). There must be transparency, along with the emphasis on sustainability when land is handed out to corporations. The national land bank is held in trust for all Malaysians and should not be a mechanism to make a favored few ultra-rich. Rather than build luxury resorts where the local economies see little benefit, true community projects should be planned and developed. The gap between those who have and those who have not is widening. Market reforms are urgently needed.
14. A shared decision-making: Consultants must be stopped from being the instrument that is making so much policy within the Malaysian Government today. Pemandu and the corridor authorities are on a gravy train racking up massive consultancies to develop policy for implementation. The policy making process must bring in public processes that involve the public into the process of determining their own destinies and develop more consultative government.
15. A broader choice of political parties: On the political front, parties should be broken up and reorganized into strong grassroots state organizations that pick their own state leaders. State members should select their own parliamentary candidates and political leaders, so that states can operate government independently. National party offices should operate only as peak bodies and facilitators. Such a move will distribute political power back to the grassroots within the parties and prevent any one group dominating the political organization. This means that there may be a much larger number of political parties representing Malaysians much better than the narrow choices available today.
16. A thinking-feeling-doing civil service: Malaysia once had one of the best civil services within the region. However, Mahathirism whittled away at the independence of the civil service until today it is a zest pit of political cronies there to serve those in power. The civil service needs to become independent again and made more efficient where the spending wastages are eliminated. Meritocracy must be brought into the civil service as a major uncompromising principle if the service is going to become independent and professional.
17. A new paradigm in economic planning: There is a need for Malaysia to find new industries to invest in. The current portfolio of Malaysia’s earners is very narrow. The country is now suffering from low petroleum and commodity prices, and needs to be urgently diversified so the country can be brought to new levels of prosperity for the next generation of Malaysians.
18. A return to cottage-based industries: However it is not just large industries that must be sought as winners. The country must focus on developing community based industries across the country. These small scale rural industries must not only be compatible with but act as a means to enhance the nation’s various indigenous cultures. This should include food production and be centred around local trade so that local communities can be self sufficient. Self sufficiency in food production may assist Malaysia withstand the coming ‘Euro’ type economic calamities that are occurring today in countries like Greece.
19. A new peg for the national currency: With the reputation of the Ringgit partly destroyed by the Kleptocractic elite and massive capital flight from the country, the Dinar and Dirham should be encouraged as an alternative local currency arrangement. Not only would the Dinar hold value (being based on the value of gold), but it would serve as alternative medium of exchange, that is not subject to the forces that have caused the Ringgit to sink in value. This could be supplemented by encouraging local savings cooperatives that are run by the local people, for the local people and are owned by the local people, as alternatives to the large Malaysian Banking Corporations owned by the elite. This will help curb speculation within the Malaysian economy.
20. A newer vision of a foreign policy: Malaysia’s future relies upon being a contributor and hard worker within the region the nation is domiciled within. Current foreign and economic policy towards the region is ad hoc and requires an intellectual revamp to place the nation within the region as a cultural and economic power once again. A new thought out foreign policy is needed so Malaysia can play a leading role within ASEAN and its entry into the AEC at the end of this year.
21. A new Malaysian citizenship spirit: The nation must be made to be Malaysian once and for all. Malaysia is one country and cannot be considered in part. There can be no such thing as first and second class citizens anymore. This Malaysian brand of apartheid is morally reprehensible and must be abolished once and for all.

Essentially, below is a grand plan or the big picture of change that need to respectively be created and painted in order for Malaysia to offer a pathway to the realization of the ‘Malaysian Dream,” preceded by key premises.

We cannot escape from the idea that there ought to be winners and losers, whether it is in the way we give grades to students, design economic policies, organise the political system or, ironically, even in the way we understand religion and God and how these relate to what Mohandas Gandhi would call the harijan (children of God).

The continuing issues of succession plaguing the leadership of the major components of all the ruling parties, for example, reflects a virtue-less leadership. It even reflects the system of dictatorship and authoritarianism that we have allowed to take root in all parties. We are seeing the development of another dangerous excess of authoritarianism – the development of political dynasties. We continue to see this culture in the Malay and Chinese political parties as well.

If all that energy is used to design a better system of participatory democracy and philanthropy, and to reach out to other ethnic groups to collaborate in solving the issue of poverty, we, as Malaysians, will become a miracle nation. Poverty is not the problem of Indians or Malays or Chinese – it is the problem of Humanity.

How can the rich be saved if the poor are multiplying in large numbers? We will have a society that will need more sophisticated surveillance system in order to reduce robbery, kidnapping, etc.

The poor look at rich and ask themselves: “Am I poor because I am lazy? Or is he rich because he works a hundred times better? Or is it the system we build that will continue to make the rich richer and the poor poorer?”

What resources do the rich have à-vis the poor to compete in a world that is increasingly technological and technicist and informational? We have created a system of ethically-based structural violence. It is a complex problem but one can certainly make sense of it all.

We need to bring back ‘virtue’ to the forefront of our political philosophies and into our economic paradigm, and next use it to design a virtuous foundation of our economic system. From a virtuous foundation we will then see a healthier characterisation of how we design and reorganise our lives as economic beings.

Education, and education alone, though slow and tedious as a process of transformation, will be the most powerful tool of cognitive restructuring and the teaching of virtue. Education for peace, social justice, co-operation, tolerance and spiritual advancement will be the best foundation of this mode of operation.

How do we even begin creating a republic of virtue if we do not yet have the tools of analysing what a corrupt society is and how corrupt leaders are a product of the economic system created to reproduce more sophisticated forms of corruption?

We must engineer a revolution of our very own consciousness. From the revolution in our minds, we move on to the revolution of our consciousness, and next to our collective consciousness. Gradually, as we realise that a better collective consciousness can be created, we will be aware of the oppositional forces that are making real human progress disabling.

We must now become makers of our own history and help others do the same. We must first learn to deconstruct ourselves and draw out the virtue within ourselves, even if the process can be terrifying. We must then each create a manifesto of our own self and de-evolve from then, until we tear down the structures within and outside of ourselves and reconstruct the foundations of a new republic.

Our first move

In conclusion, here is the essential question: Where do we go from here — from the premises of change and considerations we outline above, to a course of action framed thematically? What ideas do we need to move in order for our nation to progress the way our common dream pictured? Here are our concluding thoughts on a new Malaysia one which needs the following:

“ … a brand new political will, radical political change, an overhaul of the system, a fresh new and different mandate, a prison complex big enough to incarcerate the long-time corrupt ones, a plan to redistribute wealth, to dismantle educational apartheid, a rewriting of Malay and Malaysian history, a re-threading of the moral fibre of the armed personnel, a massive arrest of political tyrants of past doings, a restructuring of the casino capitalist economy, a stronger local government established, a clampdown of racist and hate-groups, a return to the rule of law, a return to agricultural society, an experimentation with a radically new form of communal-styled living, a dismantling of systems that allow global corporate giants to continue to prey upon the natives, a return to the cooperative system, strengthening of labour, a re-education of political official on management, ethics, and political philosophy, the separation of religion and state, the dismantling of useless cultural and religious rituals, a restructuring of society based on the principles of radical multiculturalism and the celebration of transcultural philosophies, the reduction of TV time and TV channels, the introduction of the reading of the great works of arts, humanities, and literature from the cradle to the grave, the curbing of rhetoric on Islamic or any religious state, the compulsory teaching of philosophy from the cradle to the grave — all these and more to overturn the system on its ugly head.

As Malaysia’s most revered founding father said in 1957, proclaim in the country’s independence:

” … But while we think of the past, we look forward in faith and hope to the future; from henceforth we are masters of our destiny, and the welfare of this beloved land is our own responsibility: Let no one think we have reached the end of the road: Independence is indeed a milestone, but it is only the threshold to high endeavour-the creation of a new and sovereign State. At this solemn moment therefore I call upon you all to dedicate yourselves to the service of the new Malaya: to work and strive with hand and brain to create a new nation, inspired by the ideals of justice and liberty-a beacon of light in a disturbed and distracted world. … “

Indeed, when people believe in the future of their nation, it will be strong. That belief in Malaysia must be rekindled and recreated.

*Dr. Azly Rahman is a long-time columnist for Malaysiakini, an author of seven books on Malaysia and the complexities of hypermodernity and globalization, and teaches course in Global Politics, Culture, American Studies, Education, and Philosophy. He currently resides in the United States.

Recently, the NDA government expressed its intention of revamping the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML). It has stirred commotion in Nehruite and Congress circles. They see something sinister in it, like an ideological assault on Nehruvian philosophy.

To reinforce their adherence to the personality cult and swear by Nehruvian loyalty, they do not hesitate to misinterpret, rather distort, the idea of revamping the said museum. The truth is far from it. Revamping carries no apprehension of denigrating the stalwart of India’s freedom struggle.

What the Government stated was that it desires to expand the content and coverage of the NMML in a way that it assumes the status of a national museum representing the saga of a crucial era of Indian history, viz. the freedom struggle and the building of the Indian Republic.

We think no proposal of changing the name of the museum is on the anvil; there is no need or sense in doing so.

Nehruites need no briefing on the role of a large number of their hero’s close associates and colleagues, who waged freedom struggle with him hand in hand. These veterans decided to sink or swim together. Nehru always held them in great esteem, a sentiment they reciprocated with equal warmth.

However, post-Nehru generations of Indians, inquisitive about the role of these veterans, their struggle and the aftermath of freedom, quite naturally ask why so many of celebrities and colleagues of Nehru should not find their proper place in the annals of history, written, oral or visual. If the Modi government responds to this question, it will be only serving national history and its architects.

There are many stars shining brightly in the firmament of India’s freedom and post-freedom struggle. They all carried the flames of patriotism within their bosom; they were not ordinary leaders whom the nation can afford to deny a place in the roll call of honour. If Dr. Ambedkar gave India a masterpiece of Constitution that has gone down in the history of humankind as the second Magna Carta, the Sardar welded the parceled and fragmented India into one solid unit which gives new meaning, content and strength to the Indian nation. If the Modi Government honours them by juxtaposing them and their aura to that of the leader with whom they collaborated and steered the ship of the State, it will undoubtedly add something to the status of Nehru rather than take away from it.

Half a century has passed since Nehru left us. During this period, India has taken long strides along the path of development and freedom. This is the age of research and revaluation. Facilitated by digital technology, our youngsters have developed sharp and precise sense of inquiry and academic research. They delight in probing our past and envisioning our future. They are assessing our leaders to appreciate their contribution. At the same time, they are on a faultfinding mission also essentially not to repeat blunders.

For example, in the case of Nehru, they pause to unravel the Nehru-Gandhi clannish mystique. Dynastic rule for so many decades in a democratic and egalitarian India of post–independence era is a strong irritation to the new generation of Indians. It brings to memory our revulsion of medieval potentates in the East. It has created an impression among many people in and outside the country, that Indian democracy is incapable of wriggling out of personality cult and giving true content to democratic dispensation.

Since everything in India, from farms to factories, roads to airports, crèche to colleges, projects to prisons, dams to tunnels, railway junctions to metro co-terminuses, sports stadiums to space centres, everything bears the impress of Nehru-Gandhi name-plate, thanks to a host of sycophants and pseudo-nationalists, the youth ask whether India remains mortgaged to Gandhi-Nehru dynasty until eternity? Here personality cult has become all-pervasive.

There could be more disturbing questions. Young researchers want to know whether Nehru‘s personality was really as tall as has been projected by his protégés and beneficiaries, especially the euphoric media. They ask this question after evaluating his contribution and assessing the impact of his shortcomings.
As a public leader, Nehru was not an extraordinary orator. Apart from a mediocre conversationalist in Hindustani, he had no stunning linguistic skills to mesmerize his audience through oratorical flabbergast just because he had no mastery over any of the vernaculars. Yes, he wrote and spoke good English, thanks to his stint at Cambridge. Yet he did not win any formal academic degree on his own merit. In a public address in Srinagar, he had a slip of tongue saying that he could clear studies in natural science by greasing the palm of his examiners.

Nehru could not seek refuge behind the universal truth that man is fallible. He was the Prime Minister. The fallout of his fallibility was horrendous on national plane. In his vainglory, he showed a Prime Minster who practiced obduracy while publicizing democracy. Eleven out of twelve members of Selection Committee of Congress High Command preparing to select by secret ballot the prospective candidate to be the Prime Minister of India, voted for the Sardar. Nehru threatened Gandhi with resignation from Congress if he were not the Prime Minster. Gandhi succumbed and trivialized the spirit of democracy. The Sardar saved the situation by withdrawing in favour of Nehru. Who was a greater patriot?

Against the wishes of his Cabinet colleagues, including the Deputy Prime Minister, Nehru went running to the UN Security Council to bail him out in Kashmir. He did not even consult the Parliament. We are reaping the whirlwind from the wind that has blown from governance with arrogance.

The Sardar resolved the issue of 560 small and big princely states of India by incorporating them into the Indian Union. Nehru monopolized J&K conundrum boasting only he had the gift of the gab to resolve the festering sore. Sixty-eight years have gone by. We invested men, money and material, and today Pakistani and ISIS flags flutter freely on housetops in Kashmir.

In Jammu, Praja Parishad nationalist resistance movement exposed Sheikh’s masked profile under which he dispensed autocratic, parochial and communal governance. In a public speech in Jammu, Nehru howled he did not know who this Premnath Dogra was and what he stood for. Four years later, Nehru removed his bosom friend from power, put him behind bars, and initiated a case of sedition against him. A decade later, and just days before his death, Nehru sent the same bosom friend to negotiate a deal on Kashmir with General Ayub Khan of Pakistan, who contemptuously turned down the offer of a Confederation brokered by Nehru-Sheikh combine. Neither the Sheikh nor Nehru, the “democratic duo,” had taken their respective law making bodies into confidence. Can we stop researchers from conducting in-depth inquiry into the sordid phenomenon like this?

The so-called Non-Alignment Movement of Nehru that made a mockery of Indian democracy and foreign policy met with an ignoble end even during his own lifetime. When China attacked us in 1962, Nehru begged US for weapons, ammunition and war machine. The young researchers ask was Nehru a democrat, a Marxist, a Fabian, a humanist, a nationalist Muslim or a Trishunka hanging between earth and sky.

Once I asked my late friend and guru Dr. N.N. Raina –- the father of leftist movement in Kashmir –why he declined the offer of Nehru to be his private secretary, and instead, proposed the name of Dwarkanath Kachru, the guru said,” He (Nehru) is a half-baked socialist and I am a diehard Marxist-Leninist. How could we two pull together?”

Curiously, in his first and last meeting with Stalin in Kremlin in 1949, Indian Ambassador Dr. Radhakrishnan was taken aback when Stalin bluntly told him that as long as India had “the running dog of British Imperialism as her Prime Minister, nothing would change.” Stalin had in his mind the sudden declaration of cease-fire when Indian army was poised for a full-blooded attack on Muzaffarabad in 1948. When Indian forces captured Uri and were preparing retake of Krishanganga Valley, a message from Clement Attlee, the British Labour Prime Minister came to Nehru saying “thus far and no further”. Those who know the map of the region understand the subtleness of Attlee’s comment. Nehru could not wriggle out of the hangover of Lord Curzon’s notorious “Forward Policy in Asia”. The Indus Water Treaty is now coming under severe criticism of serious researchers.

This notwithstanding, Nehru’s scientific and techno-savvy temper, his love for modernity and open society, his inherent desire for world peace and a social order of respectable standard and finally his receptivity to the freedom of press were his marked qualities.

*The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University, India

The US government has been relying on its standard narrative that the Syria crisis emerged spontaneously after an “Arab Spring” inspired protest was violently suppressed by the Syrian government. The entire US intervention was justified on these grounds. Thus the Obama Administration, as it did in Ukraine, has attempted to disavow any role in fomenting the uprising and thus any responsibility for the violence that ensued.

But like much else in US foreign policy the narrative is wholly false, constructed to propagandize the American people in favor of US intervention and shield the US government from any fallout.

In fact the US government had long had its sights on regime change in Syria, starting at least with the Project for a New American Century’s plan peddled to George W. Bush to overthrow five countries in five years and remake the entire Middle East. The neocons always like to think big, but like any slimy salesman they never deliver as promised. Their Iraq “cakewalk” proved a deathwalk.

In 2006, according to a secret State Department cable made public by Wikileaks, US Embassy Damascus drafted an extensive memo outlining nine “vulnerabilities” of the Syrian government with corresponding “possible actions” on how the US can exploit these “vulnerabilities” to destabilize the government of Syria.

The State Department cable was authored by William V. Roebuck, who was at the time the Political Counselor at the US Embassy in Damascus. Roebuck has since been rewarded for his “good work” on destabilizing Syria and now serves as US Ambassador to Bahrain, where one presumes his role is rather the opposite of what it was in Syria.

Roebuck’s bio suggests he has been somewhat of a regime change rock star: He managed the fallout from US regime change operations in Egypt, Libya, and Iraq, with a stint at the US Embassy in Israel as well.

What did Roebuck advise the US to do to Syria in 2006? Exploit the Syrian government’s fight against Islamist extremists in attempt to undermine Assad’s position in the region.

That’s right: use Syria’s fight against al-Qaeda against it.

Perhaps it’s best to let Roebuck speak for himself. The Syrian government’s “vulnerability” is:

Extremist elements increasingly use Syria as a base, while the SARG (ed: Syrian government) has taken some actions against groups stating links to Al-Qaeda. With the killing of the al-Qaida leader on the border with Lebanon in early December and the increasing terrorist attacks inside Syria culminating in the September 12 attack against the US embassy, the SARG,s policies in Iraq and support for terrorists elsewhere as well can be seen to be coming home to roost.

How to exploit that vulnerability? In Roebuck’s own words:

Possible Actions: — Publicize presence of transiting (or externally focused) extremist groups in Syria, not limited to mention of Hamas and PIJ. Publicize Syrian efforts against extremist groups in a way that suggests weakness, signs of instability, and uncontrolled blowback. The SARG,s argument (usually used after terror attacks in Syria) that it too is a victim of terrorism should be used against it to give greater prominence to increasing signs of instability within Syria. (emphasis added).

The US had long planned to overthrow Assad well before 2011 and had obviously spent a great deal of time, effort, and money cooking up plans to exploit whatever “vulnerabilities” he may have had to help make that overthrow happen. Roebuck captures that essence in the summary of his 2006 US Embassy Damascus secret cable:

The bottom line is that Bashar is entering the new year in a stronger position than he has been in several years, but those strengths also carry with them — or sometimes mask ) vulnerabilities. If we are ready to capitalize, they will offer us opportunities to disrupt his decision-making, keep him off-balance, and make him pay a premium for his mistakes.

“If we are ready to capitalize…”

Yes, they were ready to capitalize. And more than 200,000 people have been killed as the US “capitalized” on vulnerabilities produced by Assad’s fight against terrorists unleashed on his country by the US attack on Iraq. At this point, US foreign policy toward Syria has become too grotesque to even contemplate. In another time there would be a Nuremberg readying the dock for Roebuck and anyone else associated with this mass murder. These days the media just keeps churning out a steady diet of US regime propaganda.

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

Low oil prices, if sustained, could mark the beginning of a long-term drop in upstream investment. Oil prices reflect supply and demand balances, with increasing prices often suggesting a need for greater supply. Greater supply, in turn, typically requires increased investment in exploration and production (E&P) activities. Lower prices reduce investment activity.

Overlaying annual averages of the domestic first purchase price (in real terms) on oil and gas investment reveals that upstream investment is highly sensitive to changes in oil prices (Figure 1). Given the fall in oil prices that began in mid-2014 and the relationship between oil prices and upstream investment, it is possible that investment levels over the next several years will be significantly lower than the previous 10-year annual average.

Oil production is a capital-intensive industry that requires management of existing production assets and evaluation of prospective projects often requiring years of upfront investment spending on exploration, appraisal, and development before reserves are developed and produced.

Previous investment cycles provide insights to how investment responds to crude oil price changes. In 1981 and 1982, after crude oil prices significantly increased, investment topped out at more than $100 billion (in 2014 dollars) and then averaged $30 billion to $40 billion per year into the early 2000s as crude oil prices fell and remained in the $20-$30 per barrel (b) range. From 2003 to 2014, investment spending increased from $56 billion to a high of $158 billion as crude oil prices increased from $34.53/b to $87.39/b, including several months of prices reaching over $100/b. EIA’s 2015 Annual Energy Outlook Reference case projects real domestic first purchase prices to average about $70/b in 2020. This could result in substantially lower annual oil and gas investment over the 2015-20 period than the annual average of $122 billion spent during the 2005-14 investment cycle crest.

Oil and gas investment represented 1% of U.S. gross domestic product in 2014. The sector’s fixed assets totaled $1.5 trillion, approximately 3.8% of total U.S. private fixed assets, and the sector’s 2014 investment spending of $158 billion represented approximately 5.7% of total U.S. private investment in fixed assets. During the high point of prices in 2012-14, when real U.S. oil prices averaged $94.20/b, oil and gas sector fixed asset investment totaled $458 billion, or 5.8% of U.S. private fixed asset investment over the three-year period. During a comparable period of high oil prices (1980-82), oil and gas fixed asset investment was $314 billion, or 8.1% of U.S. private fixed asset investment, adjusted for inflation.

Crude oil prices are a key driver of upstream investment, but several other firm-specific factors also influence decision-making. Besides managing existing assets and maintaining and replacing property and equipment, E&P firms have a portfolio of prospective projects of varying cost, risk, and technical complexity. Portfolio reviews occur as project proposals mature at varying points of time and then go through management for approval. Among many other factors, management consideration is shaped by the financial metrics of the project, alignment with the firm’s priorities, project congruence with periodic spending reviews, and the firm’s assessment of short- and long-term commodity price, production, and consumption trends.

While E&P firms have their own future expectations, upstream investments are generally not developed solely on current commodity prices, but instead are structured to provide returns under a wide range of price outcomes. Additionally, company investment cycles cannot be easily separated into specific periods, but instead depend on specific project approvals. The sum of anticipated costs for these approved projects make up the investment plan in any given year.

U.S. average gasoline and diesel fuel prices decrease

The U.S. average retail price of regular gasoline decreased five cents from the previous week to $2.33 per gallon on September 21, $1.03 per gallon lower than the same time last year. The West Coast and Rocky Mountain prices each fell eight cents to $2.91 per gallon and $2.61 per gallon, respectively. The Gulf Coast price declined seven cents to $2.03 per gallon. The East Coast price decreased five cents to $2.20 per gallon, and the Midwest price was down one cent to $2.27 per gallon.

The U.S. average price for diesel fuel fell three cents from last week to $2.49 per gallon, $1.29 per gallon lower than during the same time last year. The Rocky Mountain and East Coast prices each decreased three cents to $2.52 per gallon and $2.55 per gallon, respectively. The Midwest, Gulf Coast, and West Coast prices all declined two cents to $2.45 per gallon, $2.34 per gallon, and $2.71 per gallon, respectively.

Propane inventories fall

U.S. propane stocks decreased by 0.6 million barrels last week to 97.1 million barrels as of September 18, 2015, 18.0 million barrels (22.7%) higher than a year ago. Gulf Coast inventories decreased by 0.6 million barrels and Midwest inventories decreased by 0.3 million barrels. Rocky Mountain/West Coast inventories increased by 0.2 million barrels and East Coast inventories increased by 0.1 million barrels. Propylene non-fuel-use inventories represented 4.7% of total propane inventories.

Peace in Yemen will continue to be elusive unless the United Nations shifts its mission from sponsoring an inter-Yemeni dialogue to mediating ceasefire negotiations between the actual warring parties, namely Saudi Arabia & allies and the de facto representatives of Yemenis who are fighting to defend their country’s territorial integrity and independent free will, i.e. the Houthi – Saleh & allies.

Convening its 70th session while celebrating its 70th anniversary this year, the United Nations is unlikely to reconsider its stand on Yemen, but it must do, at least to provide a face – saving exit strategy for Saudi Arabia if not to stop a snowballing severe humanitarian crisis in the country.

The United Nations Mauritanian special envoy to Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed will sooner than later face the fate of his predecessor Jamal Benomar, who resigned his mission last March acknowledging its failure.

The Saudi insistence on dictating a fait accompli on Yemen is undermining the UN efforts to bring about a political solution, which was made impossible by the Saudi – led war on Yemen.

The legitimacy controversy

The UN sponsored Yemeni – Yemeni talks in the capital of the Sultanate of Oman, Muscat, and elsewhere will continue to be deadlocked. They are a non-starter. The Saudis have held their Yemeni allies captives of their dependence on Saudi financial, political and military support without which they could not survive internally.

The UN and Arab League recognition of them as the legitimate representatives of Yemen was counterproductive. They are viewed by most Yemenis more as Saudi puppets than legitimate delegates of their people.

Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, who is recognised by the UN and the Saudi – led coalition as the legitimate president of Yemen, arrived in Aden last week aboard a Saudi military aircraft and his safety was secured during his three – day stay there by military bodyguards from the United Arab Emirates. The arrival of his prime minister Khaled Bahah a week earlier was not different.

Conferring UN and Arab League legitimacy on them serves only to turn both organisations into biased parties to the conflict if not partners to it or at least accomplices and compromises their credentials as mediators.

The Houthis are portrayed by the Saudi – led propaganda as a sectarian fanatic and violent intruders into the Yemeni society or as agents of Iran who are waging a proxy war in Yemen, but the Houthis are not aliens. Their ancestors ruled Yemen for some one thousand years. They represent more than one third of the country’s population. Their role could have been strengthened by Iranian support and weakened by their religious speech, but nonetheless they are uncontroversial native integral component of Yemen’s national history and society.

Similarly, their ally in fighting off the Saudi – led war on Yemen, ex – president Ali Abdullah Saleh, is part and parcel of Yemeni political infrastructure. More than a three – decade ally of Saudi Arabia, when Saleh resisted a Saudi transition plan he hardly survived a bombing of his Friday prayers. Despite his individual ruling style and a wide spread corruption of his governance, he is credited with building a state infrastructure, a national army, a tolerable pluralistic political life and a relatively civil freedoms that were the envy of his Arab compatriots in the north who are still living under the Middle Ages systems of government and, more importantly, making the unity of Yemen a fact of life. When his representative credentials are questioned by his former Saudi allies it is noteworthy to remind them that his “al-Mutamar” party still controls the majority of the last democratically elected Yemeni parliament.

The “external” Iranian interference in Yemen and Iran’s sectarian support for “Shiite” Yemenis, in addition to a self – proclaimed role in defence of a controversial legitimacy of a Yemeni president, are the main raison d’être cited by Riyadh as the casus belli of the Saudi ongoing six – month old war on Yemen.

However history and realpolitik facts refute such Saudi claims and render them as merely thinly – veiled justification for installing a puppet regime in Sanaa by the brutal and inhumane force of an external invasion.

The current Saudi war on Yemen could be a “rite of passage” for the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), particularly the United Arab Emirates (UAE), but not the Saudi Arabia as claimed by Rami G. Khouri (1).

Long history of Saudi military intervention

Long before there was an “Iran threat” or a “Shiite threat,” the Saudi ruling family never hesitated to interfere in Yemen militarily or otherwise whenever Yemenis showed signs of breaking away from Saudi hegemony towards a free will to determine their lives independently.

In the 1930s the Saudis engaged in a war on the Mutawakkilite Imamate of Yemen and succeeded in annexing the Yemeni provinces of Asir, Jizan and Najran to their kingdom, thus creating a border dispute that was not settled until 2000, but the current Saudi war on Yemen seems to reignite it.

Then, they occupied the Yemeni port of Hodeida on the Red Sea and attacked the Yemeni capital Sanaa. Yemen at the time was a similar conservative “kingdom” bound, like the Saudis, by treaties with the British colonial power.

From 1962 to 1970 the Saudis interfered militarily on the side of the “Shiite” Yemeni “royalists” whom they fought in the 1930s against republican revolutionaries who sought to usher Yemen into the twentieth century out of the Middle Ages. The Saudi military intervention led the Pan – Arab leader of Egypt Gamal Abd al-Nasir to rush to the rescue of the Yemeni republicans, thus regionalising a Yemeni internal affair into an Egyptian – Saudi war among the “Sunnis.”

History it seems is repeating itself nowadays, but the Saudis have so far failed to embroil Iran in Yemen as they did with Egypt then. Instead, the kingdom is itself plunging deeper into the Yemeni quicksand.

“In 1977, then, Saudi Arabia conspired (together with Salih) to the assassination of modernist President Ibrahim al-Hamdi, who was determined to loosen the stranglehold of the kingdom over Yemeni politics,” Tobias Thiel (2) of The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) wrote on last April 2.

In the aftermath of the emergence of the Islamic Republic of Iran into the regional scene, “the House of Saud expelled around 800,000 Yemeni guest workers to punish the newly united republic for its stance in the 1991 Gulf War (Kuwait war), plunging the country into an economic crisis” and “the kingdom simultaneously supported both sides – Sunni Islamists and Marxist separatists – in the 1994 war of secession,” Thiel added. Both those events had nothing to do with the so –called “Iran threat” or the “Shiite – Sunni” sectarian rivalry; both were inter – Arab and inter Yemeni conflicts.

“Finally,” according to Thiel, “Riyadh has backed the Salih regime against the mass protests in 2011 and has – as elsewhere – tried to stifle the democratic opening.”

Launching the Saudi war on Yemen last March had regionalised a Yemeni internal conflict, undercut short a Yemeni successful national dialogue sponsored by the United Nations, undermined the territorial unity of the country, which was then compromised only by the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) that was isolated in the far south eastern part of Yemen, destroyed the infrastructure of the Yemeni state, created a snowballing severe humanitarian crisis and rendered the possibility of a Yemeni – Yemeni political solution a mission made impossible by both the mutual bloodshed and the Saudi insistence on shaping by brutal force the future ruling regime in Yemen on Saudi terms.

Riyadh intervened militarily in Yemen when the Saudi – led GCC initiative for a “transition” on their terms in Yemen broke down in 2014. The Saudis planned the “transition” in Yemen to be a show case that could be replayed in Syria where they have been arming and financing a similar “regime change” for the past five years. The failure of their “show case” in Yemen doomed their plan for Syria.

Historically, Sanaa and the northern rough mountainous provinces failed all Arab and non-Arab invaders. The Ottoman Empire at its zenith could not subjugate it. It is the bedrock of Yemen’s independence and self determination. There the hardcore of the Yemeni anti-Saudi invasion is entrenched and there this invasion will most likely meet it defeat.

The so – called “liberation” of Aden by Saudi and UAE military intervention could serve only as a recipe for a perpetuated civil war and regional capital of a divided Yemen. Hadi is unlikely to deliver in Aden what he failed to achieve when he was in Sana’a.

On last March 22, the former UN special envoy Jamal Benomar, addressing the UN Security Council via video conference, warned that, “the situation is on a rapid downward spiral” that is “leading the country away from political settlement and to the edge of civil war”. The status quo is “inviting a protracted conflict in the vein of an Iraq-Libya-Syria combined scenario,” he told an emergency UNSC session. Benomar resigned his UN mission acknowledging its failure. His successor is more likely to come to the same conclusion sooner than later.

The presence now of reportedly between 5 – 10 thousand ground GCC troops in Yemen is proof that the aerial onslaught had failed and that the so-called pro-government forces are merely a Yemeni make – believe address for the thinly – veiled Saudi – led external invasion.

The introduction of GCC ground troops into Yemen is more a show of the failure of the so – called Yemeni pro – legitimacy and pro – Saudi forces than a display of GCC military prowess.

Quoted by the Qatari News Agency (QNA) on September 18, the Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, tacitly acknowledging his country’s failure in Yemen, said that he “personally … suggested Israeli help as our only hope to end the status quo … His Highness King Salman put this proposal forward for further consideration.”

Ruling out any open Israeli contribution to the US-led war on Iraqi forces in Kuwait in 1991, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the US “leading from behind” in the ongoing war on Syria is an instructive strong reminder that any Israeli role in the Saudi – led war on Yemen will most likely be ruled out as well, at least in public, because it would be definitely counterproductive.

It is high time that the UN moves to facilitate an exit strategy for Saudi Arabia from Yemen.

Notes:
(1) http://america.aljazeera.com/, September 16, 2015. Rami G. Khouri is a senior public policy fellow at the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut and a senior fellow of the Harvard Kennedy School.
(2) Tobias Thiel is a PhD Candidate at the LSE’s Department of International History. His dissertation is about contentious politics, collective memory and violence in post-unification Yemen. He has spent the past three years in Yemen conducting field research.

By Preety Sahu*

The state of Assam is frequently ravaged by the fury of the mighty Brahmaputra and its tributaries causing untold human misery. The floods have once again this year hit the state thrice successively, within a short span of three months. The havoc caused is beyond description. Around five million people are affected by the deluge, and nearly eight million displaced. Not less than 21 of the state’s 27 districts are now hit by the third wave of floods.

Despite being regularly hit by floods leading to multifarious challenges, the state is deprived of everything it deserves. It is an irony that Assam’s flood problem is being treated as a regular event, both by the central and state governments, and by the media.

According to the National Flood Commission, the area liable to floods in Assam stands at 31.60 lakh hectares. The region, thus accounts for as much as 9.4 per cent of the total flood-prone area in the country. In order to address the flood issue, there is a full-fledged Flood Control Department in the state headed by a cabinet minister. In 1981, the Brahmaputra Board was set up with the main purpose of implementing schemes to harness the river. Yet, the most significant step taken so far to prevent flood-borne harm is setting up of a master plan that envisages two massive multi-purpose dams on the Dehang and Subansiri rivers – tributaries of the Brahmaputra.

Official estimates show that since 1954, various government agencies have completed as many as 631 flood control schemes and constructed about 4,458 km long dykes along the major rivers across the state. However, the following years have shown no noticeable improvement of the situation. It is evident from the fact that damage caused by floods every year has not revealed any reduction. Plans after plans made have been treated like usual business. To the question as to when Assam will see a permanent solution to the flood issue it has come to live with as long as it can remember, “I do not know”, is mostly the response of Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi. Government of Assam is mainly doing the rescue work in addition to air dropping of cheera (flattened rice) or baby food.

The apathy of the central government is also surprising. The Assam government has pointed out that in 1998, during one of the worst flood years, Assam received Rs.59.90 crore as central aid, but Uttar Pradesh was offered Rs.300 crore. Four months after the Assam government submitted a memorandum to the Centre, two inter-ministerial teams have visited the state this month to assess the damage caused by floods. The sincerity of the Centre towards the northeastern state is being questioned, comparing government’s efforts during the Jammu and Kashmir and Uttarakhand calamities with the one in Assam. New Delhi has also been accused of blocking relief funds to Assam. Despite continuous demand by the state government and local civil society organizations like Assam Sahitya Sabha, AASU (All Assam Students Union) etc. to declare the flood in Assam a ‘National Disaster’, no concrete move has been made, and all pleas have fallen on deaf ears. The query arises, how important is the flood havoc in Assam for New Delhi. Doesn’t a loss of Rs.1, 200 crore (1998) merit special consideration? Or is it, as often alleged, a fallout of out-of-sight-out-of-mind syndrome?

Again, an evaluation of the Indian media’s moral-social responsibility towards Assam floods so far indicates that most of national media sadly treats it as a routine story. “What is seen as usual rarely gets importance as news in Indian media,” says veteran journalist Ashis Biswas. Most recently, a case of murder mystery involving a prominent media industrialist finding a plot in Assam has hogged media attention in India. During the same time, there has been miniature coverage in most national newspapers and news channels about the floods in Assam. The most serious spate of flood in Assam is reduced to the category of fillers by most media entities. The local media is running single word headlines like ‘proloy’ (cataclysmic disaster) to define the ferocity unleashed by the floods.

Also, media covers news only in one part of the year when floods completely submerge the state, that too a mention here and a mention there. Such media treatment appears fruitless. Such reporting cannot invoke impactful awareness or concern in other parts of the country. It kills not only the opportunity for people to demonstrate required sympathy but also the possibility to pressurize the government to be more responsive towards the victims.

For a state with nearly 2.66 crore (26.6 million) people, where flood obstructs a large part of the population from accessing essential human needs every year, it is a problem more serious than insurgency. There may not be an immediate solution to stop floods in Assam once and for all. Yet, steps that can be taken to rehabilitate the victims should be sincerely implemented. While political parties are busy with impending state elections, the 2015 Assam floods should serve as an alarm call for them. Keeping in mind the state assembly elections, New Delhi has to realize that it cannot afford to ignore Assam or the northeastern states. Otherwise it has to put up with the political and economic consequences of the same.

Moreover, as the fourth pillar of democracy in India, it is high time for media to realize its moral, social duty towards the flood-hit people of Assam. Instead of reporting immediate damages caused by floods, media focus should rather be on the distress people face in the long run, year after year.

*Preety Sahu is Research Scholar, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. She can be reached at editor@spsindia.in

By N. Sathiya Moorthy*

While jailed former president Mohammed Nasheed might have done enough damage to his case and cause by initially refusing to prefer an appeal against the trial court verdict, his celebrated overseas legal team might have become an additional cause for concern. By demanding sanctions against Maldives at a news conference after a meeting with their client in his prison, Amal Clooney (London) and Jerad Gesner (Washington) might have denied themselves a visa to enter the country in the future.

It’s unclear if the overseas duo, along with a host of others, were only campaigning for Nasheed’s early release or were also actively engaged in guiding his local defence on the ongoing appeals process. However, the response to them came not only from the government but more so from Cherie Blair, lawyer-wife of former British prime minister Tony Blair, whose Omnia Strategy consultancy firm had been hired by President Abdulla Yameen’s administration for an effective international campaign in its favour.

“The next stage will be to pursue targeted sanctions, travel bans and any other action and recourse that we have against the government (of Maldives) until this matter is resolved,” Haveeru Online quoted Amal, wife of celebrated actor George Clooney, as saying. In a joint statement issued by the foreign ministry and Omnia Strategy on Wednesday, Blair was quoted as saying that the Maldives should not be penalised for bringing a person to face justice. The use of sanctions threatens the Maldives’ economic stability, she said.

“Sanctions are imposed in exceptional circumstances to force compliance with international law, where there is a threat to peace, or where they are imposed in response to a specific policy. They ought not to be used when dealing with a single individual,” Blair said. She pointed out that Maldives was a young democracy, recently undergoing a period of transition. All current systems and institutions should be subjected to a detailed period of review and reform where appropriate to enable the state to progress, she added.

Foreign Minister Dunya Maumoon, for her part, said the threat of sanctions by Nasheed’s international legal team was “deeply regrettable”. She said Maldives’ judicial institutions are demonstrating a clear commitment to upholding the rule of law. “The international community is entitled to raise legitimate criticisms. However, the appropriate forum is the courts where the matter at issue concerns a legal process,” Haveeru Online quoted Minister Maumoon as saying in the joint statement.

Taking on UNHRC

Even without the overseas consultants getting more directly involved, not stopping with advising and guiding their respective clients, the Nasheed case was moving increasingly into the international arena. In a separate statement and context, the foreign ministry took exception to the refusal of Hugo Swire, state minister at the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), to meet with the government’s ‘legal representatives’ after agreeing to meet them along with Minister Maumoon in London.

Maumoon herself cancelled a sideshow at the ongoing UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) session in Geneva, organised by Amnesty International, and the government dubbed as “wholly inappropriate” UN Human Rights High Commissioner Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein’s call for Nasheed’s freedom. In his inaugural speech to the 30th UNHRC session, Prince Zeid reiterated that the Nasheed trial was “flawed” and that law in Maldives “continues to be manipulated for political ends”; to which the government said that such “characterization” of the situation Maldives was completely “baseless”.

Zeid had also labelled Nasheed’s transfer back to prison as a serious setback. In a possible reference to the search of Nasheed’s home for evidence on the purported government decision to convert his entire jail term to house arrest, he said that the “pursuit of a further criminal investigation against his family” too was a setback. Refuting Zeid’s statement, the government continued to insist that Nasheed’s transfer to house arrest “was only a temporary measure”. It also said that Zeid’s demands were ‘wholly inappropriate’ when the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was already seized of the matter, and sought to influence its conclusion.

At the same time, the Yameen government continued playing the yo-yo on ties with the international community. In a statement before he left on Haj pilgrimage – Vice-President Ahmed Adeeb is holding formal charge – Yameen celebrated the golden jubilee of Maldives joining the UN. As may be recalled, that independent of British Minister Swire’s refusal to meet the government legal representatives and long before it, Maldives had openly threatened to quit the Commonwealth – and more than once in the past couple of years – after the latter had taken strong positions on Nasheed’s behalf since he lost power in 2012.

Highlighting that Maldives had since pioneered the cause and concerns of small nations, particularly in terms of their security, climate change disaster and the like, Yameen in his statement claimed that the nation’s admittance into the UN was a sign of ‘international acceptance’. In her turn, Foreign Minister Maumoon said that joining the UN was the ‘most important foreign policy decision’ that the country had taken, and also pointed out how it was done within three months of Maldives obtaining Independence.

HC rejects state appeal

In the midst of all this, the high court rejected the prosecutor-general’s suo motu appeal for a review of Nasheed’s trial court conviction and sentence, after the former president had refused to do so, insisting instead that the government had powers under the law to do so, if it so desired. However, after the high court rejected the prosecutor general’s plea, Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) indicated that the state-initiated appeal itself was aimed at scuttling his chances, but the PG’s office said they would be appealing the high court verdict in the Supreme Court.

For his part, President Yameen claimed that he had done everything possible for Nasheed, and that he was unconcerned by threats of sanctions. Yameen said that following the high court’s decision Nasheed now had the option of appealing to the Supreme Court. Even if Nasheed’s lawyers threaten sanctions, “this president will not violate due process”, he insisted. It’s the line that the Yameen government has been taking ever since Nasheed’s arrest, trial and upgrading of original criminal charges into ‘terrorism charges’, but the international community, particularly the West, seems to be unconvinced.

Reiterating that there were no longer political prisoners in Maldives, President Yameen stressed that any high-profile politician facing criminal charges had nothing to do with the government. In an obvious reference to the UN panel hearing on ‘arbitrary detention, he added: “There is no one in detention arbitrarily”. According to him, under the presidential scheme, coupled with the ‘separation of powers’ (in the 2008 Constitution) advocated by international partners, the “president does not even have such powers”.

Again playing the yo-yo, he made a pointed reference to the prevailing scheme in the US – an ardent backer of global ‘human rights concerns’ in general and president Nasheed in particular. “When the US Supreme Court delivers a verdict, are letters written to President Barack Obama? They don’t do that now, do they? It’s because a Supreme Court verdict has nothing to do with Barack Obama. The judiciary is a separate and independent body,” he observed.

For all this however, the Clooney-Geisner visit was marred by social media expose of what was claimed to be a ‘leaked’ conversation between the duo and Nasheed in his prison. The government promptly denied any hand in the same. For her part, Clooney also did not want to attach importance to husband George’s observations — coinciding with her Maldives visit — against the Nasheed arrest and human rights situation in the country.

*N. Sathiya Moorthy is Director, Chennai Chapter of the Observer Research Foundation. He can be reached at: sathiyam54@gmail.com

By Rekha Bhattacharjee*

While Australia’s Prime Minister changed in a dramatic leadership spat less than two weeks ago, it is believed that the elevation of Malcolm Turnbull as the 29th PM of Australia would not adversely impact the bilateral relationship between India and Australia.

After months of pulsating suspense over the imminent challenge by Malcolm Turnbull, the end of Tony Abbott’s reign as Prime Minister of Australia came rather swiftly on September 14. Ironically, the former PM of Australia had rubbished the suggestions in the morning that a leadership challenge from Malcolm Turnbull was imminent.

“I’m just not going to chase all of these rabbits down all of the burrows that you’re inviting me to go down,” Abbott told reporters in the morning while dismissing the rumours or “Canberra games” as the former Prime Minister described those. Within 12 hours or so of making the colourful statement, Abbott was defeated by Turnbull in the leadership spill.

Now as Turnbull has been elevated to the top position, the political commentators are busy analysing the implications of the ‘knifing’ of the previous Liberal Prime Minister.

In what has come to be known as the “revolving door” prime ministers, Australia has seen swearing in ceremony of no less than five Prime Ministers in just over five years.

What is bothering the antipodean political pundits is the fact that Australia is beginning to be seen as politically dysfunctional all over the world. Though the majority of the political commentators see the quick changes at the top as an aberration, few skeptics are of the opinion that “revolving door” of Prime Ministers has become a new normal.

The change of tenant at 5 Adelaide Avenue in Deakin suburb of Canberra also leads to another question: would there be a change in the foreign policy under the new occupant of the Prime Ministerial abode (popularly called The Lodge)?

Writing from an Indian perspective, the question which comes to mind is whether there would be any significant change in the bilateral relations between India and Australia post aforementioned leadership fight.

Australian Minister for Trade and Investment Andrew Robb is quick to dismiss any suggestion of such a seismic shift in the bilateral relations under Turnbull. The new Prime Minister, according to Robb, remained extremely focussed on further developing the relationship with India.

“There is an enormous amount of upside in the relationship at so many levels including in trade, investment and in the deepening of business to business linkages,” the minister for trade said while speaking to this writer.

“We continue to work towards the conclusion of a bilateral economic cooperation agreement where Australian services, for example, have a lot to offer in terms of helping to build capacity in the Indian economy,” the Minister said.

“Deepening our economic relationship with India is important to Australia as we seek to aid the diversity of our economy in this post-mining boom period,” Robb added.

A few months back, the Trade Minister had expressed his optimism over the proposed Australia-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA). It is most likely that the negotiations would continue with the same vigour as under the Prime Ministership of Tony Abbott.

It would be pertinent to mention here that the business-friendly Turnbull has his eyes set firmly on the way the economic reforms are being carried out under the leadership of Narendra Modi in India.

“Charismatic new leaders in the world’s two most populous nations, President Xi of China and Prime Minister Modi of India, are this year pressing ahead with ambitious economic and political reform plans,” Turnbull had said while opening a important lecture ‘Assessing the Future of the Asia-Pacific – US/Australia Dialogue’ earlier this year.

Indian High Commissioner to Australia Navdeep Suri shares the views expressed by Trade Minister Robb. He is also of the opinion that the ascension of Turnbull would not have any significant impact on the bilateral relations between the two Indian Ocean Rim countries.

“Ours is a mature relationship underpinned by strong institutional linkages. I am confident that the relationship will continue to grow under the new government as well,” Suri told this writer.

From the Indian perspective, Turnbull’s India policy would become apparent in the not too distant future when he makes a decision on the uranium sale to the power-hungry South Asian country. A joint parliamentary standing committee on treaties had recently raised objections over the uranium sale to India. However, a member said the committee had been satisfied all nuclear material in India could be easily accounted for and tracked..

*Rekha Bhattacharjee is a Sydney-based senior journalist. She can be contacted at vijay@hotkey.com.au

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy in his appearance at Moncloa Palace to assess the results of the elections in Catalonia, underlined that “those in favor of segregation were never backed by the law and, as of Sunday, we know that they do not have the support of the majority of Catalan society either.”

According to Rajoy, although some sought to make the elections held on Sunday in Catalonia direct elections and thus start a process to break away from the rest of Spain, what they did in fact do was elect their representatives in the Regional Parliament.

However, the results from the ballot box confirm that “not even as many as four out of ten Catalans are committed to a break-away process,” Rajoy said.

Rajoy congratulated all the people of Catalonia for the high turnout recorded in these elections and for the “democratic maturity and responsibility” shown.

Govern for all the people of Catalonia

In his speech, Rajoy called on the Regional Government that comes out of the new Regional Parliament to “govern for all the people of Catalonia, to overcome the divisions, tension and confrontations that have marked recent years, to replace monologue and unilateral imposition with constructive and loyal dialogue, because it was once again shown yesterday that Catalonia is very plural.”

In this effort, Rajoy said, they will receive “all the collaboration from my government, provided this is within the law and from a standpoint of full institutional respect,” because “a strong and supportive country, such as ours, stands up to its challenges from a position of unity and with the cooperation of everyone.”

The Spanish Prime Minister expressed his willingness to listen and to talk. Dialogue with all the political groups is “very healthy and very democratic”, but what we do not seek to do is “to break the law, the expression of the will of the majority or the rules we have enacted to maintain our co-existence,” Rajoy declared.

In this regard, Rajoy asserted that the Government of Spain will continue to oversee “respect for the Rule of Law, the equality of all the Spanish people and the rights and liberties of one and all.”

The world today is a safer place because of the brace UN peacekeepers. On this occasion, let us remember and pay tribute to the hundreds of peacekeepers and staff who have sacrificed their lives in the line of duty over the years. Let us also recognize and commend their achievements, said President Maithripala Sirisena at the Leaders’ Summit on Peacekeeping at the United Nations on Monday.

Current contributions by Sri Lanka to UN Peacekeeping stand at 529 including troops, Military Observers and Civilian Police, Sirisena further said.

In response to current gaps in UN peacekeeping Missions Sri Lanka pledged Two Combat Transport Companies, two Field Engineering platoons, one infantry battalion, two Special Force Companies, one Combat Engineering Company, three Infantry Battalions, one Explosive Ordinance Disposal Company, one Force Protection Company and two Formed Police Units.

Following is the full text of the speech by the President:

Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies & Gentlemen,

I thank you Mr. President, and also the Leaders of the countries that are co-hosting this Summit for convening this important meeting at a critical time in the evolution of UN peacekeeping operations.

For over five decades, Sri Lanka has been making modest contributions to UN peacekeeping efforts.

We consider Sri Lanka’s cooperation with the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations as an extension of the Government’s policy of positive engagement with the UN following the Presidential Election in January this year.

Current contributions by Sri Lanka to UN Peacekeeping stand at 529 including troops, Military Observers and Civilian Police.

On this occasion, I affirm Sri Lanka’s commitment to increase its contribution to UN peacekeeping.

We are committed to ensuring the best possible training and assessment of peacekeepers in Sri Lanka to uphold the highest standards of peacekeeping.

UN peacekeeping operations have come a long way from its modest beginnings. Today they have evolved into complex operations. This is an occasion to focus our attention on some of the challenges facing current UN peacekeeping operations.

The report of the High Level Panel on Peace Operations identifies Protection of civilians as a core obligation of the UN. The report observed that UN personnel must use every tool available to them to protect civilians under imminent threat. Sri Lanka recently accepted the Kigali Principles on the Protection of Civilians in peacekeeping. We hope that more countries will join this initiative.

We also hope that this meeting will focus on the importance of providing more resources to Peacekeeping Missions to carry out their mandates.

Mr. President,

Sri Lanka is pleased to reiterate our continued commitment to UN peacekeeping.

We are honoured to pledge significant contributions from the Sri Lanka Army, Air Force and Police.

In response to current gaps in UN peacekeeping Missions we are ready to pledge Two Combat Transport Companies and two Field Engineering platoons.

For commitments to enable more rapid deployment, we pledge one infantry battalion, two Special Force Companies, and one Combat Engineering Company.

For regular deployment, we are ready to pledge three Infantry Battalions, one Explosive Ordinance Disposal Company and one Force Protection Company.

In addition, we are ready to contribute two Formed Police Units.

The world today is a safer place because of the brace UN peacekeepers. On this occasion, let us remember and pay tribute to the hundreds of peacekeepers and staff who have sacrificed their lives in the line of duty over the years. Let us also recognize and commend their achievements.

You often hear inequality has widened because globalization and technological change have made most people less competitive, while making the best educated more competitive.

There’s some truth to this. The tasks most people used to do can now be done more cheaply by lower-paid workers abroad or by computer-driven machines.

But this common explanation overlooks a critically important phenomenon: the increasing concentration of political power in a corporate and financial elite that has been able to influence the rules by which the economy runs.

As I argue in my new book, “Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few” (out this week), this transformation has amounted to a pre-distribution upward.

Intellectual property rights—patents, trademarks, and copyrights—have been enlarged and extended, for example, creating windfalls for pharmaceutical companies.

Americans now pay the highest pharmaceutical costs of any advanced nation.

At the same time, antitrust laws have been relaxed for corporations with significant market power, such as big food companies, cable companies facing little or no broadband competition, big airlines, and the largest Wall Street banks.

As a result, Americans pay more for broadband Internet, food, airline tickets, and banking services than the citizens of any other advanced nation.

Bankruptcy laws have been loosened for large corporations—airlines, automobile manufacturers, even casino magnates like Donald Trump—allowing them to leave workers and communities stranded.

But bankruptcy has not been extended to homeowners burdened by mortgage debt or to graduates laden with student debt. Their debts won’t be forgiven.

The largest banks and auto manufacturers were bailed out in 2008, shifting the risks of economic failure onto the backs of average working people and taxpayers.

Contract laws have been altered to require mandatory arbitration before private judges selected by big corporations. Securities laws have been relaxed to allow insider trading of confidential information.

CEOs now use stock buybacks to boost share prices when they cash in their own stock options.

Tax laws have special loopholes for the partners of hedge funds and private-equity funds, special favors for the oil and gas industry, lower marginal income-tax rates on the highest incomes, and reduced estate taxes on great wealth.

Meanwhile, so-called “free trade” agreements, such as the pending Trans Pacific Partnership, give stronger protection to intellectual property and financial assets but less protection to the labor of average working Americans.

Today, nearly one out of every three working Americans is in a part-time job. Many are consultants, freelancers, and independent contractors. Two-thirds are living paycheck to paycheck.

And employment benefits have shriveled. The portion of workers with any pension connected to their job has fallen from just over half in 1979 to under 35 percent today.

Labor unions have been eviscerated. Fifty years ago, when General Motors was the largest employer in America, the typical GM worker, backed by a strong union, earned $35 an hour in today’s dollars.

Now America’s largest employer is Walmart, and the typical entry-level Walmart worker, without a union, earns about $9 an hour.

More states have adopted so-called “right-to-work” laws, designed to bust unions. The National Labor Relations Board, understaffed and overburdened, has barely enforced collective bargaining.

All of these changes have resulted in higher corporate profits, higher returns for shareholders, and higher pay for top corporate executives and Wall Street bankers – and lower pay and higher prices for most other Americans.

They amount to a giant pre-distribution upward to the rich. But we’re not aware of them because they’re hidden inside the market.

The underlying problem, then, is not just globalization and technological changes that have made most American workers less competitive. Nor is it that they lack enough education to be sufficiently productive.

The more basic problem is that the market itself has become tilted ever more in the direction of moneyed interests that have exerted disproportionate influence over it, while average workers have steadily lost bargaining power—both economic and political—to receive as large a portion of the economy’s gains as they commanded in the first three decades after World War II.

Reversing the scourge of widening inequality requires reversing the upward pre-distributions within the rules of the market, and giving average people the bargaining power they need to get a larger share of the gains from growth.

The answer to this problem is not found in economics. It is found in politics. Ultimately, the trend toward widening inequality in America, as elsewhere, can be reversed only if the vast majority join together to demand fundamental change.

The most important political competition over the next decades will not be between the right and left, or between Republicans and Democrats. It will be between a majority of Americans who have been losing ground, and an economic elite that refuses to recognize or respond to its growing distress.