Pakistan’s Karachi Stock Exchange remained volatile for most part of the week. Despite this volatility the benchmark KSE-100 managed to cross the 34,000 mark and closed at 34,262 levels, up 0.93%WoW. The gain came primarily on the back of a breather in global crude oil prices helping a rally in index heavy Oil & Gas sector as well as earnings surprise by select scrips.

Activity in the market failed to recover and average daily trading volumes for the week was recorded at 165 million shares as compared to 161 million shares exchanging hands a week ago.

Major news flows affecting the market included: 1) MTB cut-off yields registered a decline for 3, 6 and 12 month tenors, 2) PkR/US$ parity losing 0.96%WoW in the interbank market to close at Rs105.4 high, 3) LSM growth rising to 4.1%YoY for 2MFY16 as compared to 2.9%YoY during the corresponding period last year, 4) ECC approving extension for the reduced 0.3% WHT on banking transactions till 7th of November and imposition of 10% RD on yarn import effective becoming effective from 1st of next month, 5) Ogra recommended Rs5.28/ltr increase in petrol prices and 6) KSE approving schemes of its integration with the Lahore and Islamabad stock exchanges besides changing its name to Pakistan Stock Exchange Limited. Scrips that led the bourse included: INDU, DAWH, AGTL and HCAR, while laggards were: FFBL, SSGC, EFOODS and ICI. Foreign interest remained dull where net foreign outflows for the week were recorded at US$20.15 million, up considerably as compared to net selling of US$2.63 million a week ago. With results season coming to a close, movement in global oil prices is likely to set the tone for market’s performance next week. On the macro front, CPI numbers for Octover’15 are likely to increase market expectations for another rate cut in the upcoming monetary policy statement to be issued in November. Any surprise with a below consensus CPI reading can help cyclical stocks. Any further weakness in Rupee can benefit textiles on positive sentiments.

United Bank Limited (UBL) has posted consolidated profit after tax of Rs7.02 billion (EPS: Rs5.58) for 3QCY15 as compared to net profit of Rs5.8 billion (EPS: Rs4.71) for 3QCY14, up by a robust 18%YoY. This has effectively taken 9MCY15 earnings of the bank to Rs20.4 billion (EPS: Rs16.21) as compared to earnings of Rs17.2 billion (EPS: Rs13.94) for 9MCY14. Alongside the result, the bank announced third interim dividend of Rs3.0/share, cumulating 9MCY15 pay out to Rs9.0/share.

Key 9MCY15 result highlights included: 1) NII up 27%YoY on balance sheet growth, 2) provision expenses worth Rs2.6 billion as compared to expense of Rs1.2 billion during corresponding period last year, 3) impressive 16%YoY non-interest income growth led by significant capital gains and 4) an in-control 8%YoY increase in expenses. The sequential uptick in profitability (29%QoQ) was primarily on normalization of tax rate to 34% post adjustment of one-time super tax (effective tax rate of 50% in 2QCY15). Also a decline in provisions by 58%QoQ further lent support to earnings growth.

Fauji Fertilizer Company (FFC) has recently announced its results for the third quarter of CY15, posting net profit of R3.68 billion (EPS: Rs2.89) lowered by 23%YoY as compared to profit of Rs4.8 billion (EPS: Rs3.77) during the corresponding period last year.

During 3QCY15 revenue decreased by 21%YoY/20%QoQ due to hike in urea sales price per bag which was made after the government increased the tariff for feedstock & fuel gas. Farmers and distributors were hoping for subsequent reversal in prices owing to pressure on the government which later materialized and thus delayed buying decision for stocking. Gross profit also declined due to the same reason.

Financing costs rose due to increase in long term borrowings which was made in order to finance new projects undertaken by FFC. Net profit decreased by 23%YoY due to fall in revenue however net profit increased on QoQ basis by 56% as company booked heavy tax provision during 2QCY15. Revenue and net profit during 9MCY15 also declined mainly due to bad performance in third quarter.

Fauji Fertilizer Bin Qasim (FFBL) also announced its third quarter results of CY15, reporting net profit of Rs181 million (EPS: Rs0.19) declining by significant 81%YoY compared to Rs961 million (EPS: PKR1.03) during the same period last year.

During 3QCY15 revenue also decreased by 45%YoY/42%QoQ due to plunge in DAP off take and wait for subsidy on DAP bag price. Gross profit also declined by 46%YoY/28%QoQ due to shrinking DAP margins. Therefore, net profit also decreased by 81%YoY/63%QoQ.

Financing costs increased by 38%YoY during 9MCY15 owing to mammoth increase in short term borrowings which were made to finance inventory. Revenue and profit during 9MCY15 also experienced declined due to the plunge in revenue.

By Maksim Tsurkov

The State Oil Company of Azerbaijan doesn’t rule out the possibility of transporting Russian gas to Iran through Azerbaijan, SOCAR’s president Rovnag Abdullayev told reporters Oct.30.

He was commenting on the information about the gas supply by Russia’s Gazprom company to Iran.

Azerbaijani gas pipelines can well be involved in these operations, according to Abdullayev.

“We haven’t received such a proposal and if the route is advantageous, it shouldn’t be ruled out,” he added.

Earlier, Russia’s Energy Minister Alexander Novak said that Russia and Iran are agreeing on swap gas supply. He noted that Russia could deliver gas to Iran’s north and receive the same volumes of gas (as liquefied natural gas or pipeline gas) from Iran’s south through the swap transactions.

Double-speak and hypocrisy with lollypop politics based on religion and violence to gain more emotional support from their set camps in Kashmir and at home seems to be the name of the game for Pakistan.

By Adfar Shah and Dr Bulbul Dhar*

Pakistan’s self-acclaimed political or strategic morality on Kashmir, its jugular vein rhetoric has only slightly shifted to diplomatic hypocrisy, reflected in the recent cancellation of NSA level talks and the continuing small wars at the border. Boycotting cricket-a favourite of both the Nations speaks volumes about their supposed commitment to ‘resolving’ the deadlock. The moral pretentiousness on Kashmir, shaped by low politics is part of their very core and is manifest in the critical internal issues, especially in their frontiers like FATA, Baluchistan, amongst others. The insincerity of Pakistan’s rhetoric is becoming very apparent with the monster of terrorism raising its ugly head time and again, along with other concerns like radicalism and economic issues.

Double speak and hypocrisy with lollypop politics based on religion and violence to gain more emotional support from their set camps in Kashmir and at home seems to be the name of the game for Pakistan. Declaring February 5 as Kashmir day and announcing a holiday or inviting top Kashmiri separatists is an instance of symbolism. The gap between rhetoric and practice of resolving the long pending issues is clear for all to see.

The modus operandi is the ‘Politics of Rehnuma’. The logic being – anyone, even a Pakistani marrying a Kashmiri becomes a ‘Kashmiri Rehnuma’ overnight and starts representing the Kashmiri along with the atmosphere of conflict, especially on Pakistani electronic media. There is no question that the masses hardly know these leader(s) or indeed identify with the ideology this newly manufactured leadership claim to espouse and represent. It is a very subtle and insidious system-supportive propaganda that is being methodically operationalized ostensibly without overt coercion”, by means of what can be called a propaganda model of Leadership. Present today, as one of the biggest curse’s for the Kashmiri masses is manufactured leadership in Kashmir and projected as the torch bearers of Kashmiri People! These self proclaimed leaders speak on the behalf of the Kashmiri people with no connect what so ever with what the people actually want or subscribe to.

The central question here is – who really in Pakistan feels for Kashmir- its people or its politicians? And who in Kashmir actually suffers – its people or it’s so called leaders? Hypocrisy, Noam Chomsky defines is the standards which we set for the others but hardly apply the same on our own selves. Our case in hand epitomises this, with Pakistan focussing on the Plight of Kashmiri people on the Indian side leaving no Political space for the Pakistan occupied Kashmir’s (PoK) dissenting voices. Pakistan is completely sidelining the plight of the Kashmiri people on its own side, i.e. the PoK or indeed the rest of Pakistan! With insecurity and terrorism rampant in FATA, KPK, SWAT, Balochistan, Sindh, amongst many other areas and where law and order has become a joke, Pakistan’s stand on rights and moral concern for the people living in Kashmir is very difficult to digest. Pakistan still pays little attention to the poor tribals killed as terrorists by her western allies in the frontiers areas – in the name of war on terror (GWOT), but sits on a moral pedestal regarding the supposing violation of the people living in Kashmir. It treats Kashmir as the root cause of conflict between the two nations without acknowledging its iron hand rule in PoK, the so called Azad Kashmir.

It is indeed a rattled Pakistan which is constantly bringing up the issue of Kashmir in the UN. By time and again reiterating the discourse of UN resolutions of 1948 and its implementation, Pakistan is trying to make use of a raw nerve in Kashmir. The agenda of its power elite is certainly not developing a friendly atmosphere for bilateral talks and discussing issues face to face unconditionally. Pakistan’s unnecessary and unhelpful noise is of no help whatsoever to Kashmir or Kashmiri’s. It is clear that it has no impact on the future of Kashmir or Kashmiri’s except to further delay peace and progress. Pakistan’s frustration is manifest in its immature reiteration of its nuclear power status, forgetting that India too has an equal standing! Such a discourse and such a hate diplomacy and the Pakistani stance that conditional talks and multilateral talks only will bring security stability for Kashmir is fraught with enormous dangers for Jammu and Kashmir.

Where development, peace and harmony are the need of the hour, an alarming situation has been created with young and educated youth continuously joining militant ranks with issues of security further deteriorating. Notwithstanding the fact that some blame goes to the Indian forces, local police and the holistic atmosphere of corruption, underdevelopment and violence.
What Pakistan is creating is a no-win situation, by the maintenance of continuous border skirmishes and infiltration in J&K. On one hand it continues its small wars and on the other makes assertions that Kashmir is an unfinished agenda of partition which should necessarily go to its kitty focusing on the religious factor. Such a communal ideology today is hardly subscribed by any sane and secular inhabitant of Jammu and Kashmir, though one needs to acknowledge that there is an expression of dissent against India as well.

Pakistan forgets that there is much more to solve and talk beyond Kashmir, but in order to prove its artificial sympathy to their cadres they rake up Kashmir issue without actually any working design in mind. There is no seriousness towards a peace process and a resolve towards a better future for the suffering common Kashmiri’s person who continues to get killed and being branded a terrorist, or police man, or informer, etc. Such misplaced sense of a morality with its propaganda model of manufactured Leadership can never be favourable for the resolution of the Kashmir issue, as ego clashes and politics of hatred so far have only created uncertainty, bloodshed, violent generations, backwardness, crisis and a dangerous status quo. Hollow or high moral ground will hardly benefit anyone or build peace but talks with India without ego diplomacy can benefit suffering Kashmiris.

This article was first published in The Pioneer

(Adfar Shah is Associate Editor at Eurasia Review & Editor for Kashmir Affairs at Analyst World. Dr Bulbul Dhar James is the Associate Professor at the Department of political Science at Jamia Millia Islamia,New Delhi. Mail at adfer.syed@gmail.com)

The budget for Iran’s Department of the Environment is no match for its expenses and its many concerns: numerous international promises, the growing water crisis, droughts, a shortage of forest rangers, protection of the Iranian cheetah and other endangered wildlife species, repeated forest fires, 200 environmental projects in the Persian Gulf, the low-carbon economy, the crisis in lagoons and wetlands, the fight against dust particles and, last but not least, the drying out of Lake Urmia.

These are just some of the highlights of the Environment Department’s responsibilities. Meanwhile, most of the department’s budget is used to pay the not-so-high wages of its staff. Mohammad Darvish, a spokesman for the department, said recently that low pay in the department has destroyed all motivation.

He added that the department’s budget of 174 billion toumans is “pitiful”.

A PITIFUL BUDGET AND GROWING CRISES

In view of the painful state of Iran’s environment, it is extremely important to review the budget of the Environment Department, which is the most poorly funded Iranian government agency.

While the department’s budget has increased by 70 percent in the past two years under the Rohani administration, rising from 90 billion to 174 billion toumans, compared to the rate of environmental destruction in the country, this figure is insignificant.

The inadequacy of the budget becomes more apparent when we see it in the light of the total national budget of 219 trillion toumans, with an administration that is presenting itself as a supporter of environmental issues. A significant portion of the department’s budget is used up to pay the wages of its 6,000 employees. Even the budget of the Policy Council for the Seminaries of Sisters is 20 billion toumans higher than the budget for the Environment Department.

Mohammad Darvish, Director of Education and Public Participation for the Department of the Environment, reports that the budget for the Gatvand Dam, a national crisis that is elevating the salt content of Karoon River and destroying agriculture in Khuzestan, was 20 times the total budget of the Department of the Environment. He adds that “recovering from a wound such as the drying of Lake Urmia” requires at least a budget of 15 trillion toumans.

THE PROCESSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

The Rohani administration has implemented a number of plans to reduce greenhouse gases. Two hundred projects alone are aimed at cutting 70 percent of oil and gas pollution affecting the air, soil and water in the Persian Gulf region by 2020. They include the strict observance of waste disposal standards by oil and gas facilities and, most importantly, improving gasoline quality.

Iran is considered the tenth top producer of greenhouse gas emissions.

The government has also presented the United Nations with its “Low Carbon Economy” plan, which must be implemented by 2020.

Plans addressing environmental projects are weighed down by lack of adequate equipment and technologies. This has limited Iran’s ability to tap into renewable sources of energy in past years. International sanctions have been a strong factor contributing to this technological weakness. With the removal of the sanctions, there is hope that the government will invest in the development of renewable energy sources, that is if the funds for such developments are secured.

The removal of sanctions will present the government with the opportunity to invest in much-needed waste management and wastewater technologies, water-filtration equipment, the renewal of public transportation vehicles and systems, forest fire-fighting equipment and improving automobile standards. The question remains whether the government will choose to fund such investments.

By James Borton

Academics, marine biologists, retired military personnel, senior State Department officials, and NGOs continue to add their voices to a growing Washington chorus on the complex and challenging South China Sea (SCS) territorial disputes. At a recent Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies Program, “Promoting Sustainable Usage of the Oceans–Security, Collaboration and Development,” The Maritime Alliance in collaboration with Foreign Policy Institute, addressed a range of topics, including promoting sustainable ocean development, global collaboration for sustainability and security and development in the South China Sea.

As one of the SAIS presenters, along with distinguished University of Miami marine biology professor John McManus and retired US Marine Corp. Lt. General Wallace Gregson, we took aim at China’s continued unsustainable fishing practices and reckless reclamation in the Spratly Islands.

Because this region is one of the most important large marine ecosystems in the world, rich in marine living resources and a mainstay for the livelihood of the local community in SCS nations, policyshapers are taking note of the necessity to create more marine protected areas.

Professor McManus has been lobbying for over 20 years through scientific papers and conferences like this one in Washington for marine protected areas, especially in the Spratlys.

“Vietnam, a claimant nation, already has marine reserves, so this involves extending this practice to the Spratly area. It is usually difficult to institute conservative harvest and protection practices when there is the threat of competition from outsiders. Vietnam stands to lose a great deal if the current situation continues and results in a general decline in fisheries across the South China Sea,” claims McManus.

Of course, talks of cooperation and conciliation are overlapped by constant intimidation and unlawful engagements over resources and land claims. In our panel discussion, the speakers affirmed the immediate need for a more sustainable use plan that would freeze current claims on the Spratlys and establish an international peace park.

The Philippines and Vietnam have time and again chosen to look at the South China Sea as a sea that binds rather than divides claimant nations by trying to promote cooperation on common interests.

Marine scientists, including those from Taiwan, believe that a carefully managed park will safeguard the declining number of fish species and to protect valuable coral reefs. McManus, along with Dr. Kwang-Tsaou Shao and Dr. Szu-Yin Lin of the Biodiversity Research Center from Academia Sinica, Taiwan, co-authored a 2010 paper advocating the establishment of an international peace park in the South China Sea, which would “manage the area’s natural resources and alleviate regional tensions via a freeze on claims and supportive actions.”

According to McManus, China reclamation constitutes the most rapid rate of permanent loss of coral reef in human history. As an environmental policy journalist, I have written often on the South China Sea’s environmental security. Environmental scientists say the dangers are increasing as the conflicting sovereignty claims heat up between China and eight East Asian nations bordering one of the world’s most strategic maritime routes, which boasts an irreplaceable ecological harvest of atolls, submerged banks, islands, reefs, rock formations and 3,000 species of fish.

The protection of the marine ecological environment is a global issue. The ocean’s sustainability is vital for all life. The challenges in this fragile and interconnected marine web are profound, including climate change, destruction and damage to marine ecosystems, loss of biodiversity, and the degradation of the natural environment through overfishing.

In 2002, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), which the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei are members of, and China signed a declaration of conduct in the South China Sea and committed to pursuing efforts to “resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force.”

Nevertheless, China’s actions have been anything but compliant.

Policyshapers are interested in exploring alternatives and so the marine protected area is now gaining more currency. The suggestion that sovereignty claims might be temporarily suspended requires much more than Wilsonian beliefs. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines peace parks as “transboundary protected areas that are formally dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and to the promotion of peace and cooperation.”

There are arguably many stellar examples:

The Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park created in 1932 between Canada and the United States. This agreement led to collaborative research, eco-tourism, and increased partnerships.

The Red Sea Marine Peace Park established in 1994 between Israel and Jordan in the northern Gulf of Aqaba. This pact led to normalization of relations and fostered coordination of marine biology research on coral reefs and marine conservation.

The Torres Straight Treaty signed in 1978 between Australia and Papua New Guinea resolved, after a decade of negotiations, numerous political, legal and economic issues.

The Antarctic Treaty forged in 1959 is an excellent example of a multilateral peace park and solidified collaborative scientific research and conservation practices.

The Joint Oceanographic and Marine Scientific Research Expedition in the South China Sea, a cooperative bilateral exercise between the Philippines and Vietnam initiated in 1994 and followed up with three more until 2007 covered the southern part of the South China Sea.

Since Washington acknowledges the transnational and multilateral nature of South China Sea environmental issues, ASEAN is the logical institution in the region to provide a framework and to champion environmental security in Southeast Asia. China’s unilateral actions in their dangerous reclamations violate the terms of the ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC-SCS). Unfortunately, China’s attack on the ecological heart of Southeast Asia has not resulted in any condemnation from ASEAN.

Marine scientists like Dr. Edgardo Gomez from the Philippines and Dr. Nguyen Chu Hoi in Vietnam know that healthy coral reefs provide food, storm protection, and cultural identity to coastal communities. The challenge for Washington and the world is to offer a solution to protect these rain forests of the sea.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

On October 19, the British government announced a raft of new security measures designed to counter the domestic Islamist threat. They were the outcome of an intensive exercise undertaken by the UK civil service over the summer, while parliament was in adjournment.

The new measures, among other things, enable parents of children under 16 to request the cancellation of their passports; there is to be a ban on radical preachers posting material online; new extremism disruption orders will prevent individuals from engaging in extremist behaviour; law enforcement and local authorities will be given powers to close down premises used to support extremism.

Together these and other steps add up to the UK’s Counter-Extremism Strategy, the first effort by a world power to tackle domestic Islamism head-on. There is to be no shilly-shallying around the nature of the danger facing Britain – and, by extension, the civilized world – nor the multi-faceted effort that needs to be taken to counter and conquer it.

The groundwork for this initiative was laid in a seminal speech delivered on July 20 by the UK prime minister, David Cameron. Uniquely among world leaders who have spoken on this issue, Cameron addressed his Muslim co-citizens candidly. Without beating about the bush, he asserted that condemning violence was not enough. Too many ordinary decent Muslim citizens, he maintained, while thoroughly disapproving of violence, allowed themselves to be seduced by Islamism to the extent of subscribing to intolerant ideas which actively promote discrimination, sectarianism and segregation, thus fostering the very climate in which extremists can flourish. It was clear from what he said that Cameron places high on his list of “intolerant ideas” the mindless anti-Semitism that is endemic to extremist Islamism.

Cameron also singled out ideas “based on conspiracy: that Jews exercise malevolent power; or that Western powers, in concert with Israel, are deliberately humiliating Muslims, because they aim to destroy Islam. In this warped worldview, such conclusions are reached – that 9/11 was actually inspired by Mossad to provoke the invasion of Afghanistan; that British security services knew about 7/7, but didn’t do anything about it because they wanted to provoke an anti-Muslim backlash.”

Cameron pointed out that the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences often reveal that they were first influenced by what some would call non-violent extremists.

“It may begin,” he said, “with hearing about the so-called Jewish conspiracy, and then develop into hostility to the West and fundamental liberal values, before finally becoming a cultish attachment to death. Put another way, the extremist world view is the gateway, and violence is the ultimate destination.”

The adherents of this ideology, he claimed, are overpowering other voices within the Muslim debate, especially those trying to challenge it.

To counter this threat, he asserted, Britain intends to confront, head on, the extreme ideology that underpins Islamism – the cultish worldview, the conspiracy theories, and its malevolent appeal to the young and impressionable. The new strategy will involve exposing Islamist extremism for what it is – a belief system that glorifies violence and subjugates its people, not least Muslim people – and will contrast the bigotry, aggression and theocracy of Islamism with the liberal, democratic values that underlie the Western way of life.

A key part of the action programme will be to tackle both the violent and the non-violent aspects of the creed. Cameron was clear that this would mean confronting groups and organisations that may not advocate violence, but which do promote other parts of the extremist narrative.

“We’ve got to show that if you say ‘violence in London isn’t justified, but suicide bombs in Israel are a different matter’, then you too are part of the problem. Unwittingly or not,” he said, “and in a lot of cases it’s not unwittingly, you are providing succour to those who want to commit, or get others to commit to, violence.”

He insisted that condemning a mass-murdering, child-raping organisation was not enough to prove that a person was challenging the extremists. The new strategy would demand that people also condemn the wild conspiracy theories, the anti-Semitism, and the sectarianism.

Acknowledging the religious aspect of Islamist extremism has proved a stumbling block for many previous attempts to combat the problem. Britain’s Counter-Extremism Strategy will face the issue fairly and squarely. As Cameron pointed out, simply denying any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists doesn’t work, because these extremists are self-identifying as Muslims.

“They all spout the same twisted narrative, one that claims to be based on a particular faith. It is an exercise in futility to deny that. And more than that, it can be dangerous.”

To deny that Islamism has anything to do with Islam, claimed Cameron, means that the critical reforming voices from within the faith are disempowered – religious heads who can challenge the scriptural basis on which extremists claim to be acting, and respected leaders who can provide an alternative worldview that could stop a teenager’s slide down the spectrum of extremism. The UK’s Counter-Extremism Strategy will empower, support and fund those individuals and organisations from within the Muslim community that are dedicated to countering extreme Islamism and its nihilistic philosophy.

Although an independent Counter-Extremist Project has been running in the US for the past year, and a European counterpart, CEP Europe, was launched in Brussels on June 29, the only government to have grasped the nettle is the UK’s. Britain alone seems to have taken on board the extent of the threat facing the civilized world, to have analysed the issues coolly and hard-headedly, and to be in the process of devising a comprehensive strategy for countering it. In short, the UK is seizing the initiative in the major struggle of our times – a war to the death between a liberal way of life, rooted in parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, and those intent on destroying those values and substituting their own narrow and extremist version of sharia, not shared by the majority of the world’s Muslims.

It is a war the world can, must, and surely will, win.

Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo gave his clearest indication that he intends to reform and modernize his country’s economy with an announcement during his first US visit that he intends to join the Trans Pacific Partnership. He went on say that he hoped to do so in two years’ time, but that the international community would need to be patient with him and Indonesia as the changes and reforms required for the country to be able to fully operate within the TPP agenda would take time.

President Obama was said to be surprised by President Widodo’s announcement, however, to those who have followed the Indonesian President’s first full-year in office closely, it may seem more like a natural next step. While there will, without doubt, be internal opposition to this move, the news suggests that after a year in office Indonesia’s president – fondly called Jokowi – is finally beginning to see a way out of the protectionist policies that are weighing down the country’s economy and consumer optimism. GDP in the third quarter expanded at its slowest pace in nearly six years (4.7%, lower than the 6% deemed vital for creating enough jobs for the country’s sprawling young population). Meanwhile, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines registered strong growth rates, making Indonesia South East Asia’s worst performer, after Thailand’s junta-approved economy.

The TPP is a trade agreement between 12 countries – Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Vietnam, the US, Canada, Mexico, Peru and Chile – the details of which were concluded earlier in October after a lengthy period of debate  (the agreement was originally hoped to have been sealed sometime in 2012). Indonesia has chosen to remain apart from the agreement – until economic realities caught up with Jokowi, eager now to use any reason to whip up his abysmal approval ratings.

Details of the final TPP deal mean that in order to become part of it, Indonesia will have to change current policies around the legal and institutional framework for conducting trade and resolving trade related disputes, the status of foreign workers in the country, to name but a few. Indeed, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development said in its key findings earlier this year that the country needs to tackle protectionism and corruption to jump-start its economy.

Reviewing and modernizing key policies and rules in Indonesia would be a huge step towards building an economy that can withstand future global changes and, perhaps of more importance, pave the way to take a larger market share of the US and other potential trade partners, which would, in turn, reduce its reliance on China’s own struggling economy.

After hemorrhaging support, President Widodo’s August cabinet reshuffle briefly buoyed sentiment and could be one of the reasons why the country jumped on the TPP bandwagon. Technocrats were named in key economic positions: Darmin Nasution, a well respected economist, was chosen to serve as chief economic minister, while Tom Lembong, a Harvard-educated banker, was anointed trade minister. The latter had a pivotal role in shoring up Indonesia’s banking sector following the Asian Crash in the late 1990s.

Another potential reason behind President Widodo’s decision could be the increasingly obvious realization that staying outside the deal would only increase the economic benefits of Indonesia’s neighbors and rivals, as Jakarta would register major losses across multiple manufacturing sectors.

Significantly for Indonesia, Vietnam – Indonesia’s direct competitor within textiles and footwear – looks set to gain a significant share of the US market through the agreement, which will likely be at the loss of Indonesia’s business. Significantly, with its well-developed garment infrastructure already in place, the TPP could help Vietnam rival China as the exporter of choice across the globe. Indeed, research by Credit Suisse estimates a 10% gain in GDP for Vietnam from the agreement.

Another big winner from the deal is Malaysia, for which Credit Suisse says a 5% increase in economic output is likely, especially as exports of palm oil, rubber and electronics will find new accessible markets where they enjoy comparative advantage in the US, Canada, Mexico or Peru. Although export-dependent, Kuala Lumpur has followed a well-balanced economic structure, by offsetting its dependency on oil and other commodities with rising electronics exports – facts that will go a long way after the TPP is implemented. Malaysia’s Prime Minster, Najib Razak, chose to enter the TPP early, despite criticism from within; also China is the country’s main export partner, so this agreement will go a long way to help diversify its reliance on an economy whose fortunes suffered after Beijing’s slowdown. If that sounds familiar, it’s because these details that are strikingly similar to those faced by Jokowi.

While the path to the TPP isn’t a straight forward one, it is one the country’s leadership now appears ready to tread, and, could pave the way for further partnerships for Indonesia, including becoming a part of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP, which it has been argued, would bring a larger boost to Indonesia’s economy. But, while the potential gains may well be greater than those from the TPP, the difficulties to achieving membership to RCEP from Indonesia’s current level are also greater which makes it more difficult challenge. Therefore, it seems right that Jokowi has set his sights on TPP first.

Farther afield, it’s not just Indonesia, but also the Philippines, Taiwan and South Korea who have announced their interest in joining the framework. Never mind the chatter on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail, the one-trade-deal-to-shape-all-future-trade-deals TPP agreement is growing stronger every day and now looks set to create a vast economic space under the leadership of the US.

Turkish soccer has offered President Recep Tayyip Erdogan more headaches than likely votes as the Turkish leader battles to ensure that his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) will secure a majority in snap parliamentary elections on Sunday.

Polls on the eve of the election predict that the AKP will increase its vote by six percent compared to the June election, enough to form a single-party government.

Mr. Erdogan, a former soccer player, called Sunday’s elections after his AKP failed to secure the necessary majority in elections last June to form a government of its own for a fourth time. The failure delayed Mr. Erdogan’s plans to make his presidency executive rather than ceremonial as it is currently envisioned in the Turkish constitution.

The rise of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) that won 13 percent of the vote in June deprived Mr. Erdogan and his AKP of a majority. A breakdown in peace talks with Kurdish guerrillas in southeast Turkey, the eruption of renewed hostilities and various towns declaring themselves autonomous may win Mr. Erdogan nationalist votes in Sunday’s vote, but is likely to cost him in predominantly Kurdish towns and cities like Diyarbakir.

Turkey’s deep-seated political and ethnic fault lines were being drawn in advance of the election on the soccer pitch with even clubs believed to be close to the president doing Erdogan few favours.

In Diyarbakir, the rise of the HDP prompted the city’s soccer club, Diyarbakır Büyükşehir Belediyespor (Diyarbakir Metropolitan Sport), to earlier this year defy the Turkish Football Federation (TFF) and replace its Turkish name with a Kurdish one, Amedspor. The club also adopted the yellow, red and green Kurdish nationalist colours.

Kurdish nationalist feeling was fuelled by Turkey’s reluctance to help Syrian Kurds when they last year were besieged in the Syrian town of Kobani by fighters of the Islamic State (IS), the jihadist group that controls a swath of Syria and Iraq. Many Kurds believe that Turkey for a long time turned a blind eye to IS because it saw it as a buffer that could prevent the rise of a Kurdish entity in a part of Syria.

Kurdish nationalism on the pitch is being offset by major soccer clubs seeking to drum up Turkish patriotism by starting competition matches with military salutes. Storied Istanbul club Besiktas JK recently wore shirts proclaiming that “martyrs don’t die,” a reference to scores of Turkish soldiers that have died in attacks by and clashes with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

The divide is as much nationalist as it is social. Many of the soldiers are lower class young men who hail from poorer parts of Turkey and were unable to pay a $6,000 fee that would have allowed them to avoid military service. “In this war, the rich are not dying,” said Mehmet Guner, president of the Association of Martyrs’ Families.

The recent disruption of a moment of silence at the beginning of a European championship match in honour of 102 victims of the bombing earlier this month of a peace march in Ankara highlighted yet another Turkish fault line. Fans whistled, jeered and chanted Allahu Akbar (God is Great) as the Turkish and Icelandic national teams observed the silence.

If all of those problems weren’t enough, Mr. Erdogan is also getting grief from those clubs he is close to. Trabzonspor AS president Ibrahim Hacıosmanoglu, angry over his team’s draw with Gaziantep SK as a result of a controversial penalty, ordered the referee to be detained overnight in the stadium until Mr. Haciosmanoglu visited him in the morning.

As if that were not sufficient reason for controversy, Mr. Haciosmanoglu caused an uproar with remarks that appeared to denigrate women.

Mr. Haciosmanoglu’s outburst spotlighted the close ties between Turkish soccer and politics as well as widespread misogyny in the sport.

It took a 3 AM phone call by Mr. Erdogan to get the referee freed.

“I told my managers – ‘Show Trabzonspor’s hospitality, order his tea and coffee and food, until the morning, until I come that referee will not leave that stadium,’” Mr. Haciosmanoglu said, initially refusing to take calls from government officials seeking to defuse the situation.

When the referee was finally set free at 3:30 AM, he was forced to run a gauntlet of hundreds of Trabzonspor fans who shouted abuse of him.

Referring to Mr. Erdogan, Mr. Haciosmanoglu declared after the president’s call: “I do not have to pronounce his name; everybody understands who I’m referring to. Turkey has a leader who serves this nation, a leader who will leave a strong country to my children in the future… I am ready to die for him.”

While Mr. Haciosmanoglu’s praise was what Mr. Erdogan wanted to hear, the Black Sea club leader’s subsequent warning of the fall-out of the match sparked protest from women activists and members of parliament. “The Turkish Republic will see what’s going to happen from now on. If we will die, we will die like a man, we will not live like a woman. Nobody has the power to make us live like a woman,” Mr. Haciosmanoglu said.

Sexism was also evident a week earlier when supporters of Fenerbahce, the political crown jewel in Turkish soccer with some 25 million fans, burnt a blow-up doll dressed in in rival team Galatasaray’s colours after holding a mock engagement party for it.

“Female students and academics…said the incident reflects on the one hand the pornographic face of the violence and on the other hand the hegemonic male mindset which puts women and the enemy on par,” journalist Sibel Yukler reported for news agency Jinha.

Finally, referee Deniz Coban, made a mockery of Mr. Erdogan’s successful battle to ensure leniency for match fixers when he days before his retirement tearfully apologized on national television for calls he made during a match between Kasimpasa SK and Caykur Rize SK, both teams close to the president, that ended in a draw. Mr. Erdogan’s family is from the Black Sea town of Rize while he played for Kasimpasa.

The acquittal in early October of scores of soccer officials of charges of match fixing, including Fenerbahce chairman Aziz Yildirim, may earn Mr. Erdogan some votes, but more importantly further highlighted the incestuous relationship between Turkish politics and soccer that often corrupts the sport.

The scandal, involving the arrest of 93 soccer executives in 2011, served as a precursor for a corruption scandal that rocked then Prime Minister Erdogan’s government two years later

It was not immediately clear whether the acquittal would persuade the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) to lift its two-year ban of Fenerbahce and one-year prohibition on rival Besiktas JK from playing in European competitions.

Mr. Yildirim was initially sentenced in 2012 to six years in prison and a $560,000 fine for forming a criminal, match-fixing gang. He served a year before being released pending retrial. Mr. Yildirim has long asserted that the case was politically motivated.

Irrespective of whether the match-fixing case was politically driven or not, it is symptomatic of the degree to which Mr. Erdogan over the last decade has further politicized a sport that has been tied into Turkish politics from its inception. It’s a legacy that could come to haunt Mr. Erdogan whose hunger for power appears to have trumped his love for the game.

The India-Africa Forum Summit in New Delhi this week has not generated much excitement among African media, academia, and think tanks. But it will be useful for the African bloc to have a strategic game-plan about the Africa-India relationship of the future, across such areas as trade and public health.

By Sanusha Naidu*

The 3rd India-African Forum Summit in New Delhi from 26 to 29 October is generating some hype among the Indian and international media, but the same excitement is missing from the African landscape. Even in the African think tank community, the response to the summit seems to be muted, except for a few organisations in South Africa and Kenya which have produced analytical commentaries in the run-up to the event.

Considering that this is one of the largest gatherings of African leaders and governments in India’s capital, why is the excitement not escalating among mainstream African media, academia, and think tanks? This is even more a question because South Africa will co-host the 6th Forum on China-Africa Cooperation in early December—and summits with two of Africa’s main trading and development partners in the same year make it even more important for the African voice to be heard. Sadly, this voice is rather faint at the moment.

Have African governments or even civil society sought, in any way, to define their expectations of the summit in New Delhi? A preliminary mapping of African media on the internet shows few commentaries about the summit. Neither does it look like many African analysts are being asked to provide insights to the Indian and international media about their perspective on the summit. The bulk of the analysis is informed by an Indian viewpoint.

With such a dearth of views from the African side, it is difficult to determine what Africa expects from the summit, or if the 51-plus African leaders and governments that will be attending have a broad strategic game-plan. It is also not clear to what extent the African participants will be speaking in one voice at the summit. Instead, the African side appears to be attending merely as guests who have not defined what they want to achieve in their engagement with India.

So what should the African bloc think of in terms of pragmatic summit outcomes?

The first expectation must be about less rhetoric and more coherence in the relationship between the two sides. While historical linkages are important, only these cannot define how India conceptualises its relationship with African countries. It would be useful for the African participants to have some policy coherence that includes concrete steps about how they will shape their relationship with India in the 21st century. Such a document can provide a roadmap for how Africa fits into India’s foreign policy agenda. It is also important for both sides to discuss guidelines for responsible and socially beneficial investment by Indian corporates in African economies.

The second expectation should be about how Africa’s engagement with India serves the continent’s interests in moving up the global value chain at a time when India’s role in global trade is growing. While India seeks to open duty and quota free market access for Less Developed Countries in Africa, this does not always allow Africa to develop its productive capacities and industrialisation prospects. Africa must become competitive if it wants to integrate into the low-cost labour-intensive global value chain.

The nature of its trading relationship with India therefore needs to change. African countries must use the opportunities presented through their trade and investment relationship with India to boost their own capacities and competitiveness, because New Delhi is not going to give up its comparative advantage in the global chain value chain.

The third expectation centres on Africa’s public health. Both sides must recognise that health diplomacy is more than just access to affordable drugs to combat HIV/AIDS or communicable diseases. The summit could open up a dialogue around collaborative research and development of public health capacities. This can become a significant platform for improving India-Africa health diplomacy.

Finally, Africa must insist that any engagement between India and other actors that involves the continent must be done in consultation with the African Union. For example, an agreement between Washington and New Delhi to train troops in six African countries before they are deployed on UN peacekeeping missions was announced in September. Such plans must reflect Africa’s interests first and foremost, and the continent’s role in these deliberations must not be confined to that of a junior partner.

The summit is also an opportunity for India to finally put to rest some of the critiques of its Africa policy, especially that Africa is not a priority in India’s foreign policy. The Modi government can counter this by publishing its first white paper on its Africa engagement. This will be a departure from the previous two summits and will give the third summit a strategic orientation. Additionally, a think tank forum and a civil society dialogue to complement the business linkages can further strengthen ties between the two sides.

Now we have to see what the summit delivers.

About the author:
*Sanusha Naidu is a senior research associate at the Institute for Global Dialogue in Pretoria, a research associate with the Department of Political Science at the University of Pretoria, and a project manager for the Africa-Emerging Powers Programme at Fahamu—the Pan-African Network for Social Justice Issues based in Nairobi.

Source:
This article was written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

By Joshua Kucera

Less than a month after its first-ever launch of a cruise missile from the Caspian Sea, the Russian navy has done it again, this time as part of a large-scale test.

The test, which Russia’s military said was aimed at testing its system of its missile command system, involved simultaneous launches of various sorts of missiles from land, aircraft and warships from Kamchatka to Komi to southern Russia.

For Caspian watchers, the most interesting element of the exercise was the launch of a Kalibr missile from the ship Velikiy Ustyug of the Caspian Flotilla. This, recall, was one of the ships — using the same type of missile — that participated in the long-range strikes against Syrian targets earlier this month.

That test was widely interpreted as a demonstration of Russia’s growing ability to strike targets from long distances. One American naval analyst said the test showed Russia’s capacity for “distributed lethality,” or dispersing its strike capability around many small sources.

“The Russians are adopting distributed lethality faster than the US,” said the analyst, Bryan Clark, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, in an interview with Defense News. “The arguments made for distributed lethality are to put firepower on a bunch of smaller ships, have them disperse, in turn increase targeting problems for the enemy, and you may be able to generate the same kind of firepower if you concentrate the platforms.”

Friday’s test is no doubt another demonstration of that ability, given the diversity of sources and types of missiles. This time, the Kalibr from the Caspian Sea was fired at a training target; neither the location of the target nor that of the ship was disclosed. Another test site was Russia’s Kapustin Yar training ground, near the Kazakhstan border, where short-range Iskander missiles were launched.

The implications for the Caspian region itself are likely secondary (as was the case with the launches against Syria); the sea’s role is largely as a staging ground with implications for other regions. But it is another demonstration that Russia sees the Caspian as a significant factor in its strategic calculations, and that in turn could either intimidate its Caspian neighbors, or make them more determined to build up their own defenses on the sea.

The Russian Ministry of Defense video of the Kalibr launch from the Velikiy Ustyug:

The third India-Africa Forum Summit this week in New Delhi may be the right opportunity for the Modi government to formulate a strong Africa policy, and hosting more than 50 heads of African states will give India a chance to deepen the relationship and open access to newer markets.

By Kunle Ajagbe*

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has turned to Africa, with a grand India Africa Forum Summit (IAFS III) in New Delhi this week, which has the potential to reset India-Africa ties and give an impetus to Modi’s foreign policy strategy.

The summit is the first exclusive platform for Modi, since his election in May 2014, to meet and engage with a broad swathe of African leaders. Modi is yet to visit Africa and has not set out an Africa policy—and this may be about to change. Over 50 heads of African countries are attending, which indicates the scale of this summit, since less than 15 came for the earlier two iterations in 2008 and 2011. [1]

The summit is likely to be high on symbolism and camaraderie too—for example, India, by stating that it is not a party to the Rome Statute (which established the International Criminal Court) has already denied a call by the ICC Office of the Prosecutor to arrest Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, who is wanted by the court for war crimes in Darfur.

In the last decade, ‘Africa’ summits have become an international ‘trend’. China has held five such summits since 2000, the last one in Beijing in 2012. Another summit of leaders from China and African countries is scheduled for December 2015, to be held in South Africa. U.S. President Barack Obama, too, hosted the first-of-its kind U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in August 2014 in Washington DC.  France, Germany, and Turkey too have convened their own events, to deepen their various strands of engagement with Africa.

Russia is absent from this mix, so far. But most other global powers don’t want to miss out on a share of the African pie of abundant natural resources and large growing markets. Lofty declarations and grand promises have been the flavours at these Africa-focused events. Will IAFS-III be any different? What would a successful Africa summit in India look like?

The robust African attendance in New Delhi is one indicator of success. But it is also important for India to formulate its ties with Africa in more strategic terms. For long, India’s engagement with Africa was cooked in the pot of non-alignment, anti-apartheid, and decolonisation. While that epoch is over, India’s Africa policy appears not to have undergone a much-needed transition.

Now though, India’s growing focus on Africa appears to be driven by a multiplicity of factors, including the need to project or retain national power abroad, and access Africa’s natural resources and markets. Hosting over 50 heads of African states gives India a chance to deepen the relationship and open access to newer markets.

But it faces stiff competition from China for both economic and geostrategic space in Africa. While India’s current trade with Africa is valued at around $70 billion [2], the trade volume in 2010 between China and Africa reached $127 billion [3].

According to Deborah Brautigam, U.S. academic and author, China has a dual approach to its economic ties with Africa: offer resource-backed development loans to oil and mineral-rich nations, and develop special trade and economic cooperation zones in several states, including Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Zambia. At other times, it provides low-interest loans to countries with low credit ratings and in exchange secures favorable rights to develop oil, infrastructure, and mining projects [4].

India has fallen behind China in Africa for long, and IAFS-III may be the perfect opportunity to tell Africa that it must look towards a stronger Indian economy that continues to grow. IAFS-III has the potential to offer something different: a rich and mutually profitable partnership for India and Africa.

Indian foreign policy must no longer be limited to disparate forays of the country’s companies into Africa. India must rework its Africa policy to draw on the power of its private sector, which is already present in many parts of Africa. India can also strengthen its Africa ties through science and technology, and it can tap into its strength as a medical tourist destination for many Africans. These are some of the markers with which India can now win new friends in Africa.

Author:
*Kunle Ajagbe is a partner at the Perchstone & Graeys law firm in Nigeria, where he heads its Corporate and Commercial practice, and its India Group. He is a director of the Nigerian-Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and a member of the Nigerian Bar Association and the International Bar Association.

Source:
This article was written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

References:
[1] Chand, Manish, India and Africa: Sharing interlinked dreams, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, 28 January 2015, <http://mea.gov.in/in-focus-article.htm?24742/India+and+Africa+Sharing+interlinked+dreams>

[2] Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Media Briefings, 17 October 2015, <http://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/25945>

[3] Office of the State Council, The People’s Republic of China, China-Africa Economic and Trade Co-operation, December 2010, <gov.cn/english/official/2010-12/23/content_1771603.htm>

[4] Brautigam, Deborah, ‘The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa’, Political Science, 2009, <https://books.google.co.in/books?id=X2g2rEMSdIYC&printsec=frontcover>

I caught a prominent TV preacher whom I respect accusing conservative talk radio of being too negative. He specifically criticized Rush Limbaugh. He said Rush finds the negative perspective in every news story. The preacher said God is in control and we must cast all our cares upon Him.

While as a Christian I believe that God has everything under control, Christians are called to make a difference; to be salt. As a conservative writer, I struggle with this issue of always reporting bad news. At times, I feel like the last thing people want to read is another article about how Obama and his army of leftists are warring against America.

But something inside me says someone must inform the people. Hosea 4:6 says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” All the average American Joe knows is he is working harder, but bringing home less. His wife notices a gallon of bleach cost a buck not long ago, now costs 3 bucks. Joe’s kids are calling him an extremist for owning guns. Other signs say things are not right. Average Joe doesn’t know why.

My calling and passion is to write in a way that every day American Joes who are not paying close attention will understand what is going on. And yes, sometimes the facts are extremely negative. I always pray for God to give me wisdom regarding how to add a little sugar to the bitter medicine; leaving patriots hopeful and inspired to continue fighting Leftists’ evil.

Years ago, conservatives lost another political battle. Depressed, I wrote an article about it. A publisher emailed saying he would not publish my article. It was too negative. I later thanked him. God has placed me in a role of leadership. The Bible says to whom much is given, much is required. Thus, I am not allowed to be depressed or at least state it publicly. Still, from time to time I must be reminded that God is in control. Patriots, our job is to stay faithful to our mission of restoring America no matter how many skirmishes we lose. And most of all, trust God.

As for the TV preacher criticizing Rush and other conservative talk radio hosts for always pointing out the negative, I think they should be applauded for providing a crucial service. The mainstream media lies to us every day. They are in cahoots with Obama, the Democrats, and other Leftists to deceive the American people at every turn.

And make no mistake about it. Everything the MSM reports and the Left does is intended to deceive Americans for the purpose of furthering their socialist/progressive, far left radial, anti-God and anti-American agenda. It is inescapable. The relentless furthering of the Left’s agenda is everywhere. Even where you least expect it; in cooking TV shows, home and garden TV and pro sports, the Left pushes its agenda in our face. Given time, the Left will figure out a way to interject homosexuality into lawn care. Thank God we have courageous voices over the airways sounding the alarm and telling the truth.

From time to time, Rush babies (young adults who grew up hearing Rush via their parents), call into his radio program to thank Rush for teaching them how to spot MSM liberal spin. The Left appears to own millennials.

Both mom and dad have to work for families to survive. Parents are not keeping a close watch on school boards the way they did when I was a child. Leftists dominate public education. They have had free reign to mold and shape our kids. Youths are taught that anything less than full embrace/approval of homosexuality is bullying and bigotry. Fairness and social justice means not holding blacks accountable for anything, including bad behavior. We cannot sit back and allow the Left’s imposed new norms to go unchallenged.

I have been frustrated with the Christian community for some time now. Obama is an anti-American zealot in the driver’s seat of a monster tractor tiller stretching from our Canadian border to the tip of Florida. It has massive sharp blades. He is steamrolling across America grinding up every tradition, institution, conservative principle, and value in his sight.

And yet, preachers instruct their congregations not to criticize or be negative — be more tolerant in the name of love. Meanwhile, Leftists are jailing Christians for not accepting what God describes as a perversion of His concept of marriage. In response to SCOTUS making homosexual marriage law, a prominent preacher said, “Don’t overreact, it’s just the world acting like the world.”

Recently, I was reminded that Jesus turned over the tables and drove the evil money lenders out of the temple using a whip. This kind of blows the whole passive Christian thing out of the water. No, I am not suggesting violence in any way, shape, or form. I am merely saying Christians must stand up and fight evil Leftists in responsible, legal ways. Show up at school board meetings to protest new liberal indoctrination initiatives. Fight the Left with your pocketbooks. As much as she hates their liberal politics, my wife is still addicted to Starbucks. Pray for her, folks.

I caught Matthew Hagee on TV preaching about the Left’s war on Christianity. His message was titled, “Enemy of the State”. Folks, I was blown away, blessed and encouraged by his courage and boldness in sounding the alarm. That’s what I am talking about.

Pundits say Americans are “war weary” as a reason not to fight ISIS. Well folks, that is not how the adult real world works. Decent people hate war. But sometimes, war is your only option. War weary or not, you fight until you win or the aggressor backs off.

Trust me when I say I am war weary in the battle to restore America from Obama and his evil minions. Like the TV preacher who criticized conservative talk radio, I hate negativity. I am tired of having to report the Left’s daily attacks on Americans. But this is my responsibility. To my TV preacher brother in Christ, I respectfully say, don’t blame the messengers.

The good news is that God is on our side and we will prevail.

By Malancha Chakrabarty*

India shares a glorious political past with Africa, with some of the initiatives going back to Nehru’s ideas of independent foreign policy, Non-Aligned Movement, and Third World solidarity. Compared to our political interactions, India’s economic ties with Africa have been of a fairly recent kind.

Economic liberalisation in India closely integrated the Indian economy with that of the world, putting India on a higher growth path. India’s foreign policy goals have also changed and India now aspires to play a major role as a global economic power.

Positive developments have occurred in Africa as well. Africa is no longer regarded as the ‘hopeless continent’ and is now home to some of the fastest growing economies of the world. It is also an important source of resources, particularly crude oil, which is essential to sustain India’s growth. Moreover, Africa is a huge export market for India. Indian private sector is also investing heavily in many African countries. As a result, India’s approach towards Africa has shifted from the ideological realm to economic diplomacy in the last two decades.

Cooperation in energy and agriculture are the two critical pillars in India’s economic engagement with Africa. Energy imports from Africa increased dramatically from mid-2000s and Africa now accounts for about 18% of India’s oil imports. Nigeria is India’s largest source of oil in Africa followed by Angola. Apart from oil, Africa is also an important source of coal (South Africa and Mozambique), natural gas (Algeria, Nigeria and Egypt) and uranium (Niger, Malawi, South Africa and Namibia).

India’s engagement in Africa’s energy sector is not limited to energy imports. Although widely regarded as a latecomer in Africa’s energy sector which was originally dominated by western companies and now increasingly controlled by Chinese state-owned companies, many Indian companies have made investments in African countries.

ONGC Videsh is the most active Indian company in Africa’s oil market with a total of five exploration projects in Libya, Nigeria, Egypt, and Sudan. Indian private sector companies such as Taurian Resources Private Limited and Varun Energy Corporation have also invested in the uranium sector.

Agriculture is another important sector in India-Africa partnership. Bilateral trade in agricultural goods has also grown rapidly. Agricultural goods currently account for about 11% of India’s total exports to sub-Saharan Africa and about 7% of India’s total imports from sub-Saharan Africa.

India’s agricultural exports grew more rapidly from 2010 onwards mainly on account of the huge non-basmati rice exports from India to Africa. Indian parboiled non-basmati rice is cheaper than Thai rice which makes it more competitive in the African market. Major destinations for Indian rice in Africa are Benin, Senegal, South Africa, and Liberia.

Beef, sugar and fish are other important agricultural exports from India to Africa. About 15% of India’s beef (buffalo) exports are destined to Africa. Africa has also emerged as an important source of cash crops such as shelled cashew, vegetables, nuts (fresh and dried), coffee, tea, and spices for India. Agricultural imports from Africa are likely to increase further in the future as many African LDCs stand to gain from India’s Duty Free Tariff Preference (DFTP) Scheme announced in 2008.

Africa’s agriculture sector presents a unique opportunity to Indian investors. So far, about 80 Indian companies have invested US$ 2.3 billion in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Senegal, and Mozambique. Indian investors have also articulated their plans to spend $2.5 billion on millions of hectares of land in East Africa, to grow products such as maize, palm oil and rice for export to India.

Many business enterprises such as Jain Irrigation and Kirloskar Brothers have established presence in several African countries in farm and related sectors. Many African countries have also offered land on lease to Indian farmers and a number of farmers from Punjab and Andhra Pradesh have already migrated to these countries.

The Andhra Pradesh government has also agreed to send about 500 farmers to cultivate 50,000 acres of land in Kenya and 20,000 acres of land in Uganda. Indian and African interests also coincide in multilateral trade negotiations at the WTO. African countries and India have moved several joint proposals such as Agricultural Framework Proposal and Protection of Geographical Indications in World Trade Organisation (WTO) and World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO).

Therefore, deeper engagement with Africa is imperative for India. Economic relations between India and Africa have intensified in the last decade but there is an urgent need to consider the role of other big players such as China and Brazil in Africa, particularly in the energy and agriculture sector.

Harping on India’s shared history with Africa may not be in India’s long term economic interest. India needs to do much more than hosting grand events in New Delhi. Its approach towards Africa needs to be much more structured, development cooperation in Africa must be closely linked to India’s economic interests, and financial packages to Africa must be more generous.

*Malancha Chakrabarty is an Associate Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation. She can be reached at editor@spsindia.in

By Mahendra Ved*

Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif may not have secured much from during his United States visit beyond a reference to the Kashmir dispute with India in the joint statement and another on “tensions with India,” but he has posed a difficult choice to the world on Afghanistan.

He has asked the world community to decide for itself whether he should ‘kill’ the Afghan Taliban, or facilitate their talks with the government in Kabul. Pakistan “cannot bring them to the table and be asked to kill them at the same time”, Sharif stated after his meeting with US President Barack Obama.

It is Hobson’s Choice for the world community as the US, the most significant player in the region, is widely perceived as losing interest and yielding space to China, a strong Pakistan ally, after having withdrawn much of the NATO forces from Afghanistan.

Indeed, Pakistan is China’s front man — no longer the US’s – returning to the centrestage of anything that can happen to post-NATO Afghanistan. It continues to host the Afghan Taliban and their new chief is known to be pro-Pakistan. Islamabad is playing its cards well, while also playing the victim of terrorism. Sharif’s statement is a testimony of this.

According to a joint statement issued after the Sharif-Obama meeting, Pakistan also agreed to ensure that all Taliban groups, including the Haqqani Network, “are unable to operate from the soil of Pakistan”.

This can hardly be taken seriously – and the US would know — when Taliban are all over Afghanistan. Some Pakistani operatives were found in Kunduz that was seized by the Taliban briefly.

How far and how well Pakistan has pursued this policy of hunting with the hounds and running with the hares needs debating to see through the duplicity in Pakistan’s Afghanistan policy.

It is a given that this policy has embroiled Pakistan in influx of narcotics for the last three decades and militancy at home for a decade. But that, while not providing any relief to the people of Pakistan, poses a serious threat to the entire region.

Whatever Nawaz Sharif’s posturing in Washington, it is clear who calls the shots in Pakistan. As Dawn newspaper’s editorial (October 25, 2015) puts it, the core issues discussed – Afghanistan, terrorism and nuclear/strategic — “are largely out of the control of the prime minister.”

It noted that the civil nuclear deal that Sharif had hoped to discuss was “leaked to the American media” prior to the visit.

Confronted by American pre-conditions that would impinge upon its nuclear programme, Pakistan chose not to pursue, leaving it for another opportune moment when it can bargain. Clearly, the army did not want to allow the Americans a new leverage.

The nuclear deal was very much on Islambad’s mind, though. The military attache at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington had recently held a media briefing to project his country as “a responsible nuclear power.”

Writing in this context, and reflecting on the rising clout of the military in the country’s affairs, the newspaper surmised: “It seems that the more relevant Pakistani guest in Washington may be Gen Raheel Sharif (the Army Chief) soon.”

As it was, the army leadership was part of the preparations for the Nawaz-Obama meeting. The army chief and the ISI chief, Lt. Gen. Rizwan Akhtar were earlier there.

One point remains unexplained. A few days before Nawaz’s US visit, his confidante Sartaj Aziz was replaced as the national security advisor by Lt. Gen. Naseer Khan Janjua, the former head of the Pakistan Army’s Southern Command. The army had been pushing for it. Sartaj Aziz was part of Nawaz Sharif’s team. It is unclear if Gen. Janjua was.

Sartaj Aziz passed on three ‘dossiers’ alleging Indian ‘interference’ and “efforts at destabilization.”
But, like UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon had done before, the US also took no note of these dossiers. The Pakistani media, noting that the dossiers were submitted, sought to know what the reactions from the recipients were.

There was considerable India-bashing on the expected lines as Nawaz petulantly complained of India’s ‘refusal’ to talk and harping on the Kashmir issue.

Sections of Pakistan’s media have contrasted Sharif’s insistence of little beyond “India and Kashmir” from his Indian counterpart discussing a wide range of issues from terrorism to trade and technology, and wowing the top American IT honchos and the Indian diaspora.

The US has come in for criticism in Pakistani media before, during and after the visit, both on the US-Pak ties and on what Pakistan perceives as ‘shift’ in the US’s South Asia policy, leaning towards “the large Indian market.”

“Time and again, the US has linked the terrorism issue to Pakistan needing to do more against anti-Afghan and anti-India elements. But then, there is little effort to try and help Pakistan find a viable partner in peace in the regional relationship with Afghanistan and India.”

So, the onus to find regional friends for Pakistan is on the US. Pakistan’s list of complaints against the US, India and Afghanistan just got longer as Nawaz fights the demons at home.

*Mahendra Ved is a strategic analyst. He can be contacted at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Kazakhstan and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) have signed a new agreement to support action on climate change and renewable energy solutions in the region, with a key focus on helping Pacific Island countries to participate more actively in international climate change meetings.

In August, the 2015 Pacific Leaders Forum concluded that the impact of climate change is the single largest development, and in some cases, the existential challenge facing Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS). With this in mind, Pacific leaders recognized the importance of amplifying the Pacific voice at international climate change meetings, especially the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (COP 21) in December. For the first time in over 20 years of United Nations negotiations, the international community is expected to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate at COP21, with the aim of keeping global warming below 2°C.

The US $678,000 Kazakhstan-funded project entitled ‘Supporting the Pacific Voice on Climate Change and renewable energy solutions’ will ensure Pacific priorities are heard at this global event and other key regional climate meetings. The project will also strengthen the ability of Pacific countries to develop national positions on climate change, and provide resources for Pacific countries to plan and implement a resource mobilizations strategy to raise funding for renewable energy targets.

At a signing ceremony in Bangkok today, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of ESCAP Dr. Shamshad Akhtarunderlined the global nature of climate change and welcomed the new trust fund agreement in support of the Pacific Islands: “It is hoped that this strengthened partnership with Kazakhstan will benefit the Pacific Island countries by enabling them to effectively participate in global negotiations on climate change and other sustainable development related meetings by developing national strategies on climate change and renewable energy. We also hope that this will lead to additional agreements and further collaboration in addressing the issues related to sustainable development and climate change,” said Dr. Akhtar.

H.E. Mr. Marat Yessenbayev Ambassador of Kazakhstan to Thailand and Permanent Representative to ESCAP highlighted the critical need to take immediate action on climate change in the region: “Without determined and coordinated action at a national, regional and, above all, global level to tackle climate change and build sustainable economies, all our futures are under threat.”

Kazakhstan is an important partner and emerging donor of ESCAP, providing its support to technical cooperation work in areas of environment, energy and financing for sustainable development, and through hosting ESCAP’s Subregional Office for North and Central Asia in Almaty.

By Fouad Farhaoui

The projection that African population will double by 2050, has increased the importance of the continent. The growing competition due to the interests of China, India and the other powers in energy and mineral resources, is wanted to be controlled by the USA.

The United States is trying to improve the relations with the key countries, with whom cooperation may be built in the future, on the purpose of achievement of its security initiatives toward Africa.

US President Barack Obama paid visits to Kenya and Ethiopia from July 25- 28, 2015. These visits is recorded as Obama’s third African visit since taking the office. Before 2009, Obama had visited first Ghana and then Senegal, South African Republic and Tanzania.

The noteworthy issue of his Kenya visit was basically its attendance to the works of ‘’International Initiative Summit’’ for 2015. Besides, visiting the African Union’s headquarter in Addis Ababa, Obama met with the some senior representatives from Ethiopia so as to address the current issues and the future problems of Africa.

Well, What is Obama’s Strategy toward Africa and the significance of his last visit that took place after the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit held in Washington D.C. in August 2014 then ?

The Principles of Obama’s Strategy towards Africa

Obama has paid great attention to Africa since coming into office. He, indeed, has taken several steps in addition to the ones taken by the former presidents. In fact, it is possible to read Obama’s policy towards Africa by basing it on three reference documents. First of them, is his speech delivered in Parliament of Ghana on July 11, 2009, the second one is ‘National Security Strategy’ released in 2010. Third one is a document entitled ‘U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa’ released in June 2012. It is deduced from these documents that Obama administration identified four main principles regarding the relations with Africa.

(i) Strengthening Democratic Institutions

In his speech in Ghana, Obama said ‘Africa doesn’t need strong men, it needs strong institutions’. Moreover, Obama used the term ‘supporting sustainable, strong and democratic governments’ in his speech and explained this as democratization process does not mean only holding elections. Because according to his statement, ‘No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers’. Accordingly, Obama’s words implies that African countries’ commitment to democracy can be assessed not only with operation of the election mechanism. Rather it can be evaluated with the extent of the adhesion to the principles such as accountability, transparency, institutionalization, free civil society, free press. After all, this was exactly indicated in the document entitled ‘U.S. Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa’.

(ii) Spurring Economic Growth, Trade, and Investments

U.S. National Security Strategy also points out to Africa’s role in the future of the global economy. Some countries on the continent have experienced a dramatic increase in the growth rate over the last twenty years. From this point of view, Obama administration tries to benefit from the ongoing economic transformation in Africa at the levels of trade and investments. Obama administration is encouraging American private sector in that direction and supporting medium and long term investments towards sustainable energy sector as well as agricultural sector related to the food security in Africa. Washington associates its aids and investments in Africa to the transparency steps in public sector.

At the same time, Obama’s strategy is based on integration of regional economic framework in Africa. In this regard, Obama administration encourages American companies to trade with Africa. White House covenanted to begin working with the Congress in order to incorporate incentives in addition to ‘African Growth and Opportunity Act’ for the purpose of providing wider space for African products in U.S. market.

(iii) Consolidation of Peace and Security

The US documents confirms that the fight against al- Qaeda and the other terrorist groups will be maintained. The US administration also focuses on working so as to encourage regional security cooperation by means of reinforcement of Africa’s military capabilities and reform programs regarding security sector.

Alongside terrorism, one of the other issues concerned by America is cross-border threats in Africa. Illicit activities such as smuggling of arms, drugs and consumer goods, poaching, and piracy are in this scope. Obama administration assured that it would support UN Peacekeeping Forces in Africa and work for African countries to act in a manner of stability protection policies.

(iv) Supporting African Growth and Opportunities

In this respect, Obama administration selects three main initiatives as the baseline: ’Global Health Initiative’, ‘Future of Food Initiative’, and ‘Global Climate Change Initiative’. Thanks to these initiatives, Washington is striving for encouraging reforms in public health sector in Africa through programs concerning AIDS, malaria, and reproductive health. In the context of supporting growth, the aid programs towards Africa is concentrated on promoting the participation of youth and women in the economic and political transformation process in Africa.

Obama Administration, Democratization, and Institutions in Africa

When we look at the 2016 US Department of State budget documents, what is seen is assistance programs for African countries is divided four category in terms of institutional structure and democratic life: (1) U.S. governance aims to contribute to the reconstruction of the government institutions after conflicts and to support the non-governmental organization as part of the specific programs toward countries with fragile character in post-conflict period. In this regard, Washington concentrates on Mali and Republic of cote d’ivoire as well as Liberia, Republic of South Sudan and Democratic Republic of the Congo. (2) Washington advocates non-governmental organizations rather than authoritarian and semi-authoritarian governments. Basically, Sudan and Zimbabwe are in this category. (3) When it comes to the countries which have both democratic and authoritarian components just as Rwanda and Uganda does, Washington is trying to support accountability and control programs for government institutions. (4) Allocation of U.S. assistance for the countries who aspires democratization such as Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, and Tanzania, seeks to supporting governmental institutions and increasing their capacity.

It is noteworthy that the President of International Foundation for Electoral Systems-IFES, William Bill Sweeny pointed out the significance of the successful completion of the election period in Nigeria, which was formerly postponed due to the security problems caused by Boko Haram , in a speech delivered in a Congress session themed ‘American Support for the Elections in Africa’ on March 18, 2015. As a result of the growing concern regarding rigging elections, Secretary of State John Kerry had exerted pressure on the authorities for a fair election by visiting the country shortly-before the elections in coordination with the UK which has a great interests in the country.

These pressures have bared fruit and President Muhammed Buhari thanked to Washington after winning the election held on May 28, 2015. Washington shows interests in some particular West African countries in order to enhance the relations within the context of supporting some positive political changes experienced by some African nations. We can remind that President Obama hosted the presidents of Benin, Guinea, Niger, and Cote d’ivoire within this framework.

U.S. Security Concern for Africa

When the security policy of Obama administration towards sub-Saharan Africa is scrutinized, some basic aspects of this approach is seen. It is observed that the United States has given weight to supporting UN peacekeeping operations in Liberia and Cote d’ivoire in Western Africa. It is remarkable that Washington doubled the subsidy that allocated to these countries. US$ 67.034 million aid that was given to Liberia in 2014, increased to US$120.880 million in 2015 and US$111 million for 2016 is estimated. As for Cote d’ivoire , sorting is as follows; US$77.436 million in 2014, US$145 million in 2015, and US$132,670 million in 2016.

In coastal and Saharan regions, Washington is rather giving primacy to Mali. In this context, Peacekeeping forces were assisted with approximately US$319 million in 2014. It means that Mali is the second biggest continent-wide aid receiver coming after Democratic Republic of the Congo. Figures that exceeded US$ 290million in 2015 is anticipated to reach US$266 million in 2016.

In terms of U.S. security concerns, third axis is East Africa, and Somali Peninsula, in particular, is acknowledged as the center of security threats resulting from radical al-Shabab. Washington is assisting African Union forces based on Somalia and training national forces participating African mission that includes Uganda, Burundi, Kenya, and Ethiopia.

As a considerable point, the USA will provide African forces in Somalia with direct financial assistance by allocating directly US$165 million in 2016 budget for the first time. In May 2014, the lease on Lemonnier Camp placed in Djibouti was renewed in the context of American growing interest towards Eastern Africa.

Stability in Central Africa constitutes the forth axis of security concerns in Africa. Civil War in South Sudan and crisis in Central African Republic have gained importance in recent years. On February 26, 2014 a special session was held in U.S. Congress and worsening in the political and security condition in South Sudan was evaluated. During the session, Donald Booth, the U.S. special representative to Sudan and South Sudan, indicated the necessity of consolidation of the civil peace and relations between two countries. In this regard, Washington participated in negotiations respecting crisis in this region pioneered by IGAD . During Obama’s recent visit to Kenya and Ethiopia, issue of South Sudan was addressed by both leaders.

Indeed, the U.S. growing interest in Africa is related to long-term strategies and its status in international arena. As stated by commander of AFRICOM, General David M. Rodriguez, doubling of the population in the continent will double the prominence of it. Besides, Chinese and Indian growing interest in African energy and mineral resources impedes the staidly integration of the US into the African issues. General Rodriguez describes the American policy with integration, programs, trainings, and operations in military context and at security level.

In this context, Obama embarked on a new security initiative during the first American-African Leader Summit held in Washington in August, 2014. First of it is ‘Security Governance Initiative’ from which six countries (Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and Tunisia) will benefit in the beginning. The objective of this initiative is fighting against groups such as Boko Haram, al-Shabab, al- Qaeda. Second one is ‘African Peacekeeping Rapid Response Partnership’. For this initiative annual US$110 million for three years is allocated. America endeavors to improve relations with key countries which have potential for further cooperation with a view to succeeding security initiatives toward Africa. National Security Strategy Report that released in 2010 addressed the role of the Washington- Kenya and Nigeria relations in the future.

In short, Washington, has exponentially grown its interests in African continent immediately after the end of Cold War. It has intervened in some crises directly and militarily as experienced in Somalia during George H. W. Bush Presidency . Clinton administration tried to participate in management of some crisis through negotiations in quest of economic opportunities. During George W. Bush period, Washington institutionalized relationship with Africa as seen in the example of AFRICOM. Obama administration has strived to control the competition with China and other powers who are interested in resources of continent and to prepare Africa for the future demographic, economic, and political transformation as well.

By Obja Borah Hazarika*

On October 15, 2015, the Thein Sein led-government of Myanmar and eight ethnic organisations signed the final version of a Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) which was under negotiation since August 2011. This agreement has been seen as a momentous achievement for Thein Sein ahead of the November polls. During the military rule in Myanmar there had not been any such collective agreement struck with the ethnic armed groups, making the NCA the first of its kind.

Several international actors, including India, China, the European Union, the US, Australia were involved in the process, both diplomatically and monetarily. The international community has been keen to engage the Thein Sein government in order to enable it in its transition to democracy. Representatives from the United Nations, the European Union, India and China and others witnessed the signing. Lessons learnt from Norway’s successful participation in the Sri Lanka ceasefire initiative with the LTTE in 2002 served as a precursor for the negotiations behind the NCA.

The scourge of ethnic armed rebellion has existed in Myanmar since it gained independence from the British in 1948. Violence between the military junta and the ethnic armed groups led to the displacement and killing of many people, disrupting normal life in large parts of the country. Reports of abuses and high-handedness on part of the military junta were also rife in areas where ethnic armed groups were known to operate. Discrimination against people of certain ethnicities was also reported in spheres like health, education, electricity access and other public facilities.

Ethnic groups represent about 40 percent of Myanmar’s population of 52 million, making them a sizeable group. The continuing denial of basic rights to these ethnic groups was one of the major shortcomings of the Thein Sein government, which had professed a determination towards reforming the ways of the junta after coming to power in 2011, almost half a century after military rule.

The NCA is being commented upon as being ‘historical’ and is seen as a remarkable landmark in the country’s history as it seeks to bring to an end the violence between ethnic armed groups and the junta, which has existed in Myanmar for over six decades. All the groups signing were removed by the government from its list of Unlawful Associations which allowed the prosecution of people related with the groups. Their removal could enable the groups to join the political mainstream. The main demands of these ethnic armed groups were federalism, autonomy and control over natural resources found in their native regions. With the signing of the NCA it is hoped that all these demands would be met.

The glory of the NCA however is severely dimmed with the absence of some of the most active and restive armed rebel groups. Among them is the largest, the United Wa State Army (UWSA), which has close to 25,000 members operating on the border with China. The Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO), whose Independence Army (KIA) controls large areas of north-eastern Kachin state and has regularly clashed with the Burmese army since a ceasefire collapsed in 2011, also refrained

The resistance by some of these groups to signing the NCA has been seen as a move provoked by China, although Beijing has denied these allegations. The Myanmar-China border of 2,200 km has often borne the brunt of ethnic conflict, drug trafficking and illegal trade. Such conditions hamper the development and life in China’s south-western Yunnan province. China is also concerned about the two million estimated Chinese nationals in Myanmar. China is thus keen on ensuring stability along its border with Myanmar, especially as recently violence between ethnic armed groups and the government of Myanmar has spilled over into Chinese territory.

China is also embittered with the increase in the involvement of the US and India in the internal matters of Myanmar, which occurred post the easing of US sanctions and the volte face in India-Myanmar relations since the early 1990s. There have been reports of China influencing some of the ethnic armed groups of Myanmar like KIO, supplying them with weapons; and it was also known that China was opposed to the NCA as it regretted the involvement of external powers like Japan and the US in the agreement.

India welcomed the NCA and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s special envoy for northeast R.N. Ravi and former Mizoram chief minister Zoramthanga were present on the occasion. India was intensively involved in the negotiations between the ethnic armed groups and the Thein Sein government, and Zoramthanga, a former rebel leader, held talks with both ethnic armed groups and the government as an interlocutor. India’s National Security Advisor Ajit Doval was also present on the occasion of the signing of the NCA.

The India-Myanmar border has also borne the brunt of clashes between the governments of India and Myanmar against the ethnic armed groups of both nations. India has been constantly negotiating with the Thein Sein government and the junta before them regarding reigning in the ethnic armed groups of India which have safe havens in Myanmar and connections with the rebel groups there. Joint operations have also been launched in the past by both governments against safe havens of Indian armed groups in Myanmar. As recent as June 9, 2015, there was an operation launched by India along the India-Myanmar border to destroy camps of insurgents from the Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland- Khaplang (NSCN-K) and the Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL) groups. India has welcomed the NCA as a step in the right direction to further resolution of all insurgency related issues.

Despite the NCA being celebrated as a historic moment in the history of Myanmar, the NCA has many a lacunae. The deal does not enunciate clearly the kind of balance of power between the central government and the ethnic regions which will emerge nor does it require the ethnic groups to disarm, apart from the fact that some of the main ethnic armed groups resisted signing the NCA. As the ethnic armed groups demanded a federal constitution, and no such agreement has yet been reached, complicated negotiations lie ahead, especially given the fact that these groups have been able to retain their arms. Gradual disarming of the groups should be factored into the peace process.

Notwithstanding the shortcomings, the NCA is no mean achievement given the fact that it is the first of its kind in the history of the country. The coming together of a collective of the ethnic armed groups, the government of Myanmar as well as international actors to formulate the NCA signals the success of peaceful diplomacy. Some of the groups like the Karen groups which have signed the NCA have been at violent loggerheads with the government for more than 60 years; the NCA has effectively put a stop to such violence, thus is laudable.

Although the NCA does not completely resolve the issue of ethnic armed groups and conflict associated with them, it does serve as a platform for further negotiations and should be seen as a basis for moving forward. Attempts should be made to ensure that the remainder of the groups enter the NCA. Durability of the NCA should be prioritized by the government and the ethnic armed groups by following the agreement, preventing clashes and bolstering negotiations to further the peace process and reach a suitable solution which is consensual and fulfils the demands of all stakeholders.

*Obja Borah Hazarika is an Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Dibrugarh University, Assam, and can be contacted at editor@spsindia.in

By N Sathiya Moorthy*

The one thing that stands out in the weekend arrest of Maldivian Vice-President Ahmed Adheeb for an ‘assassination attempt’ against President Abdulla Yameen is that the latter continues to not trust his own choices in senior Cabinet positions. Rather, President Yameen’s capacity at choosing his aides may have come under cloud after a series of misadventures of the same kind. With all of this, the dog-eat-dog ‘palace politics’ in the Indian Ocean archipelago is coming to light.

Vice President Adheeb was arrested on arrival to Maldives after 11 day-long official tour of China. When he was away, his friends and official aides, including two body guards had been sacked or arrested for their purported part in the blast on the presidential launch when Yameen was onboard and was returning from the annual Hajj pilgrimage on 28 September.

Defending Adheeb’s arrest in a national telecast, President Yameen said that his deputy had conspired to have him impeached with Opposition cooperation, and/or assassinated. Explosive material had been recovered from Adheeb’s aides, the President said.

Adheeb’s lawyers, like him, have claimed that he is innocent. They have since argued through the media that holding the Vice President in detention was ‘unconstitutional’, as he had a constitutional duty to step-in if and when the President was incapacitated.

Home Minister Umar Naseer, heading the National Independent Commission, probing the boat-blast, alongside the police, has said that they have enough evidence to get Adheeb convicted.

Be it as it may, Adheeb’s arrest on a charge of ‘high treason’ has brought into question Yameen’s own ability to choose his aides. Adheeb, before being chosen as the Vice President of this island nation became its Tourism Minister, which is among one of the most coveted and important posts in the Maldivian tourism-driven economy. He also went on to become head the SEZ Board for clearing special economic zone projects when the relevant law was passed.

His elevation as Vice President owed to his purported loyalty to Yameen. In fact, Yameen himself got the laws amended by Parliament to bring down the minimum age for the nation’s top posts from 35 to 30. Adheeb is 33.

Adheeb’s ascension to the position of Vice President was preceded by Yameen getting Parliament to amend the impeachment law and have the then Vice President, Ahmed Jameel Mohammed, impeached. Like Adheeb, Jameel was Yameen’s personal choice.

It’s not a stand-alone case of appointments and sackings. The nation has had two Defence Ministers in the past few months – Col Ahmed Nazim, having been sacked and arrested for ‘plotting to overthrow the President’, and successor, Lt-Gen Moosa Ali Jaleel, after the boat-blast (though no direct link seems to have been made).

Whither ‘Nasheed case’?

The events and developments since the boat-blast has pushed to the background the case for former President Mohammed Nasheed to be freed from the 13-year jail-term for the ‘abduction’ Criminal Court Chief Judge, Abdulla Mohammed, when he was in power. The international community that was up in arms against the Nasheed imprisonment now has another reason to rally against the current regime in Maldives, placing Nasheed’s case on the back-burner.

In electoral terms too, the MDP could have come under pressure as much as the Yameen camp and his Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM). The party’s March rally saw only around 2000 turn up to demand Nasheed’s freedom, though it is still has the highest number of registered members, at around 47,000 (in a population of 338,000).

As the things stand, the MDP would require Nasheed as their candidate to win any election and his legal right to contest the presidential poll in 2018 would depend entirely on an acquittal by the Supreme Court, where the Maldivian state itself has moved an appeal against his conviction by the trial court.

After his experience with Vice-President Waheed Hassan Manik, Nasheed still seems to be jittery over trusting anyone else from the party to contest the presidency, have him freed and then making way for him too.

Yameen’s charge that Adheeb had conspired with the political Opposition, and also MPs from his own party, to have him impeached could open a new line of political thinking. The President would have to prove his charge, particularly after his office had killed the early rumours about any Opposition role in the boat-blast. In the early stages, the Government even said that there was no blast, and thus no plot. Instead, it gave credence to the story of mechanical failure.

For the current political troubles for the nation, they had started only with Nasheed’s MDP passing an emergency resolution in December 2014, asking Yameen to hand over power to Gasim Ibrahim, founder of the Jumhoore Party (JP) though the latter in no way fitted into the constitutional precedence in the matter. Under the law, the Vice President and then the Speaker (for 60 days, to preside over fresh elections to the presidency) alone had the right – and Gasim was neither.

Today, Gasim, after Government action against his Villa Group of companies and constitutional amendment to keep those above 65 years from contesting the presidential polls, has become an ardent Yameen supporter.

Whether that could also mean that Gasim would be able to transfer his 25-per cent ‘transferrable’ vote-share, to Yameen in any future presidential polls as he could do in 2013, remains to be seen. Gasim is an outsider to ‘Male royalty’, and his rags to riches story had endeared him to a section of the aspiring youth, from a near-similar background – socio-economic and geographical.

Palace intrigues

For a nation of its size and population, Maldives too is known for ‘palace intrigues’ for long. In recent times, aides of VP Waheed would say that President Nasheed, in their time, did not share official responsibilities with him.

The Nasheed camp always felt that Waheed was not wholly trustworthy, though the VP was again a personal choice of Nasheed. Both proved right, and Nasheed resigned in a huff and Waheed took over – only to lose the 2013 polls badly.

The events of the past months, where the impeachment of the President is being freely talked about when his coalition has 60 MPs in an 85-member People’s Majlis, should tell a story of its own. If impeachment has not been attempted formally, it may have also owed to the fact that the other camp had also got smarter.

Yet, over the short and the medium-terms, and also the long term in the context of Yameen’s first presidency – he can have a maximum of two terms, if elected – the events of the past months have had a ‘de-stabilising’ effect not on the strength of the Government and the President, but on his own credibility too. In the months to come, Yameen will have to restore his credibility, particularly on the political front.

Leaving aside the massive FDIs that he has planned and hoped for, his leadership may soon have to fight a rearguard action to save the tourism economy – which depends on the ‘travel advisories’ issued by European Governments, in particular.

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

At lunchtime on October 30, 2015, a plane carrying Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in Guantánamo, back to the UK as a free man, to be reunited with his family after nearly 14 years without charge or trial in US custody, landed at Biggin Hill airfield. Soon after, Shaker was whisked away by his UK lawyers to receive medical care and to be reunited with his family, and, I am led to believe, he is doing remarking well considering his long ordeal.

The following statement was issued by his UK lawyers and I’m delighted to post it below. It reveals the eloquence, generosity and concern for others that has been a hallmark of Shaker’s words from Guantánamo over the years. All his many supporters should take heart from the fact that he says, “I feel obliged to every individual who fought for justice not just for me but to bring an end to Guantánamo,” adding, “Without knowing of their fight I might have given up more than once; I am overwhelmed by what people have done by their actions, their thoughts and their prayers and without their devotion to justice I would not be here in Britain now.”

Shaker Aamer’s statement, October 30, 2015

“The reason I have been strong is because of the support of people so strongly devoted to the truth. If I was the fire to be lit to tell the truth, it was the people who protected the fire from the wind.

“My thanks go to Allah first, second to my wife, my family, to my kids and then to my lawyers who did everything they could to carry the word to the world. I feel obliged to every individual who fought for justice not just for me but to bring an end to Guantánamo.

“Without knowing of their fight I might have given up more than once; I am overwhelmed by what people have done by their actions, their thoughts and their prayers and without their devotion to justice I would not be here in Britain now.

“The reality may be that we cannot establish peace but we can establish justice. If there is anything that will bring this world to peace it is to remove injustice.”

His UK lawyers, Irène Nembhard and Gareth Pierce at Birnberg Pierce, prefaced his statement with the following words: “Shaker Aamer is an extraordinary man who determined for 14 years that he would return to Britain in the face of the determination of the most powerful of states that he would never do so. He achieved this by unimaginable, heroic, sustained courage, the strength of his character and of his faith being for years his only resource. No one knows and no words can describe torture, isolation, despair, even less for the length and intensity that he has endured. He by the grace of God is now home and this is a new beginning. He has asked us to send the message below to everyone who has cared about him.”

By Catherine Johnston, Elmo C. Wright, Jr., Jessica Bice, Jennifer Almendarez, and Linwood Creekmore

The Defense Intelligence Enterprise is on the precipice of tremendous change. The global environment is experiencing a mind-numbing quantity and diversity of challenging crises. Perhaps not since the end of World War II have so many pockets of instability and change confronted the Intelligence Community (IC). These traditional security crises are compounded by global demographic, economic, and climate challenges that need to be viewed through the prisms of nontraditional disciplines.

Against the backdrop of this complex operational environment, the volume, velocity, and variety of data continue to grow at a dramatic pace.1 The early 21st century has seen groundbreaking disruptive technologies adopted on a global scale, and the pace of technology innovation and further disruptive developments looks to increase exponentially. Drivers of technology innovation are no longer simply government-funded initiatives; commercial and private industries are also involved. Individuals are increasingly empowered with a low barrier of entry for truly sophisticated technological fields. The IC must take advantage of this seemingly boundless information age by leveraging large volumes of data, using innovative technology, and employing common analytic strategies and tradecraft to provide the United States and its allies with critical information when and where it is needed.

The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) recognizes that the collective response of these defense all-source enterprises to such challenges will be significantly limited by the stark realities of fiscal austerity. The intelligence budget is unsustainable given fiscal pressures, and yet it is inadequate considering the scope and scale of current and future operational requirements. The solution will not be in lobbying for additional funds—mandated reductions and decreased budget authorizations must be adhered to—but rather in effectively transforming our tradecraft and technology. We are addressing the threat environment by aligning our priorities with the 2014 National Intelligence Strategy objectives: innovating the way we share data while safeguarding it, managing the defense intelligence analytic enterprise, investing in our people, and working with our partners.2 In this article, we examine in turn how we are doing in each of these four areas. The article then concludes with what the future of defense all-source analysis might look like.

Innovating Information-Sharing While Safeguarding Data

The defense intelligence ecosystem has evolved rapidly over the past 10 years, but our analytic methodologies have only incrementally adapted to the changing environment. As of 2012, more than 90 percent of the stored data in the world had been created in the previous 2 years.3 Historically, information in the IC was disseminated through single intelligence discipline stovepipes according to the specific sensor that detected it. This method of receiving data forced the all-source analyst to hunt for and gather information in these stovepipes—basically finding all of the disparate pieces of information and acting as the manual fusion engine for single-source reporting. Given the manual method of collecting information, we estimate that at least 70 to 80 percent of an all-source analyst’s work hours is spent searching and compiling information, and less than 20 percent is actually spent performing higher order analytics of the assembled data.4

The crux of this inefficiency is the onset of large electronic data sets that have created challenges for analysts in how they retrieve, mine, and amalgamate information to glean key insights. As automated data expand, analysts are overwhelmed, with no reasonable chance to find all the relevant information, much less analyze it. Instead, analysts spot-check roughly 1,400 data sources for information they believe will be most relevant.5 This introduces hidden biases, as analysts are more likely to seek data sources that reinforce their preconceived opinions. Unfortunately, data can become operationally useful only if we can make sense of it at the right time and in the right context. The intelligence analytic enterprise must find a way to ensure analysts can access data from areas, tools, and platforms not previously discoverable. This challenge is the driving force behind DIA’s analytic modernization initiative.

Working in conjunction with the Director of National Intelligence’s information technology strategy, the IC Information Technology Enterprise (IC ITE, or “I sight”), and the Mission User Group, DIA is facilitating this fundamental shift in the analytic environment. The IC ITE architecture will enable the Intelligence Community to become more transparent, efficient, and effective, moving us from an individual, agency-centric model to an enterprise model that shares resources and data. The common cloud-based data architecture will reconcile single-source, multi-source, and all-source collection and analysis in near real time. This new IT architecture provides a tremendous opportunity to reimagine our intelligence process in ways that eliminate dissemination stovepipes, increase multi-intelligence data-sharing, and integrate knowledge at the data layer, thus eliminating, or at least reducing, the existing linear and labor-intensive tasking, collecting, processing, exploiting, and disseminating process. IC ITE will significantly enable and make easier a number of cross-agency analytic modernization efforts, such as object-based production (OBP).

Object-based production is a concept being implemented as a whole-of-community initiative that fundamentally changes the way the IC organizes information and intelligence. Reduced to its simplest terms, OBP creates a conceptual “object” for people, places, and things and then uses that object as a “bucket” to store all information and intelligence produced about those people, places, and things. The object becomes the single point of convergence for all information and intelligence produced about a topic of interest to intelligence professionals. By extension, the objects also become the launching point to discover information and intelligence. Hence, OBP is not a tool or a technology, but a deliberate way of doing business.

While simple, OBP constitutes a revolutionary change in how the IC and the Department of Defense (DOD) organize information, particularly as it relates to discovery and analysis of information and intelligence. Historically, the IC and DOD organized and disseminated information and intelligence based on the organization that produced it. So retrieving all available information about a person, place, or thing was primarily performed by going to the individual repository of each data producer and/or understanding the sometimes unique naming conventions used by the different data producers to retrieve that organization’s information or intelligence about the same person, place, or thing. Consequently, analysts could conceivably omit or miss important information or erroneously assume gaps existed.

OBP aims to remedy this problem and increase information integration across the IC and DOD by creating a common landing zone for data that cross organizational and functional boundaries. Furthermore, this business model introduces analytic efficiency; it reduces the amount of time analysts spend organizing, structuring, and discovering information and intelligence across the enterprise. By extension, OBP can afford analysts more time for higher orders of analysis while reducing how long it takes to understand how new data relate to existing knowledge. A central premise of OBP is that when information is organized, its usefulness increases.

A concrete example best illustrates the organizing principle of OBP and how it would apply to the IC and DOD. Consider a professional baseball team and how OBP would create objects and organize information for all known people, places, and things associated with the team. At a minimum, “person” objects would be created for each individual directly associated with the team, including coaches, players, the general manager, executives, and so forth. As an example of person-object data, these objects would include characteristics such as a picture, height, weight, sex, position played, college attended, and so forth. The purpose is to create, whenever possible, objects distinguishable from other objects. This list of person-objects can be enduring over time and include current and/or past people objects or family or previous team relationships.

In a similar fashion, objects could be created for the physical locations associated with the team, including the stadium, training facility, parking lots, and players’ homes. The same could be done for “thing” objects associated with the team, such as baseballs, bats, uniforms, training equipment, team cars/buses/planes, and so forth.

With the baseball team’s objects established, producers could report information to the objects (for example, games, statistics, news for players, or stadium upgrades), which would serve as a centralized location to learn about activity or information related to the team. Also, relationships could be established between the objects to create groupings of objects that represent issues or topics. For example, a grouping of people-objects could be created to stand for the infield or outfield, coaching staff, or team executives. Tangential topics/issues such as “professional baseball players involved in charity” could be established as well. Events or activities (such as games) and the objects associated with them could also be described in this object-centric data construct. Moreover, the concept could expand to cover all teams in a professional baseball league or other professional sports or abstract concepts that include people, places, or things.

Similar to the example above, the IC and DOD will create objects for the people, places, things, and concepts that are the focus of intelligence and military operations. Topics could include South China Sea territorial disputes, transnational criminal organizations, Afghan elections, and illicit trade. Much like the sports example, IC and DOD issues have associated people, places, and concepts that could be objects for knowledge management.

OBP is dependent on implementation, evolution, and maturation of policies and technologies to set the conditions for IC and DOD transition to OBP as a core production process. OBP services—as they relate to object management, data storage and availability, access control, and security—will largely depend on the infrastructure, policies, and capabilities that come with IC ITE.

OBP services will be delivered as a back-end cloud-based platform service within IC ITE and take full advantage of enterprise security capabilities related to access control and auditing.6 IC ITE will establish and recognize the electronic identity for all users across the IC and DOD enterprises, with a computer-recognizable understanding of the types of data that each user is allowed to access, regardless of agency affiliation.7

This IC ITE capability perfectly complements OBP’s data-conditioning standards to “atomize” data. Within the OBP framework, as data are objectified, individual data fragments (such as individual facts about the object) will be tagged with a classification. This is effectively called atomization of data.8 Combining OBP’s data atomization and IC ITE’s enterprise capability to recognize user access privileges, object views will be assembled dynamically based on the role, authorities, and access of the individual user at machine speeds on enterprise IC and DOD data, regardless of agency affiliation.9 This is important not only for data access control measures but also for data-auditing purposes. Enterprise managers will have a retrievable history of the types of data each user accessed, potentially at the specificity of knowing which individual object facts were retrieved.

The path forward faces significant challenges. Existing stovepiped processes are well entrenched in DOD. Even in its early stages, IC ITE will change both analytic behavior and intelligence processes, though current pilot programs are not fully operational because the architecture is still stabilizing. Until we have a stable architecture, we must maintain the legacy system, data, and associated processes. IC ITE–enabled analytic integration and exposure to sources of data at the point of system ingestion will provide a much richer knowledge pool; however, this integration will require a concerted change-management program to standardize changes across the Defense Intelligence Enterprise and the IC.

Analytic efficiency, increased productivity, and a stronger, more robust intelligence enterprise are the promises of analytic modernization. These big data–enabled gains across the IC are particularly critical in a time of fiscal austerity and an increasingly complex operational environment. Austerity and complexity will compel the community to function as a cohesive, integrated, and responsive unit. The pilot programs are already driving cultural and behavioral changes for both collectors and analysts. Continued community innovation in data-handling methods will increase collection efficiency and analytical accuracy. Ultimately, these efficiencies will translate into heightened responsiveness and accuracy when meeting the demands of warfighters, policymakers, and national leaders.

In the future, an analyst will begin the day at both the operational and strategic levels by reviewing automated aggregated data and deciphering anomalies to instantaneously begin interacting with key strategic, operational, and tactical colleagues. Collectors and analysts working together in a networked, nonstovepiped environment will leverage collaboration to focus collection and analytic assessments when informing decisionmakers. Though these pilot programs are in their nascent stages, DIA is committing time and resources to ensure successful, full-operating capability. These pilot programs are the basic building blocks that will enable the true transformation of defense all-source analysis.

Managing the Defense Intelligence Enterprise

Leveraging the Defense Intelligence Analysis Program. A centralized management structure of the Defense Intelligence Enterprise is necessary to drive down duplication and create efficiencies across the enterprise to meet the mission in an era of declining resources and growing requirements. The Defense Intelligence Analytic Program (DIAP) Enterprise includes DIA, nine combatant commands, five Service intelligence centers, two subunified commands, and the Commonwealth partners. Functionally managed by DIA’s Directorate for Analysis, DIAP ensures resources are properly aligning to each enterprise member’s core mission areas as defined by the National Intelligence Priorities Framework.

Prior to 9/11, the DOD Intelligence Production Program (DODIPP) was the managing entity of analytic production components in the department. After 9/11, the establishment of DIAP dismantled the unpopular DODIPP in favor of a decentralized program that essentially allowed each member to perform the entire breadth of capabilities for its respective organizations, which in turn created enterprise-wide duplications and redundancies. DIAP shifted the focus from quantity of production to level of effort by measuring outcomes rather than counting products. In this case, “outcomes” refers to things that took place as a result of analytic effort, such as operations or special activities.

After DOD funding decreased in 2014 and 2015, DIAP was the only vehicle through which the enterprise could implement changes to defense intelligence processes adjusted to diminished resources. Today, DIAP manages risk mitigation and requirements prioritization. The new era of defense intelligence analysis demands collaboration among all analytic partners. Reduced funding countered by increasing requirements necessitates unified effort and much tighter integration among enterprise members. Primary responsibility resides where primary capability resides, and this critical synchronization of enterprise capabilities not only creates trust among members, but it also enables necessary transparency under the new paradigm of shared responsibility.

Technology Solutions to Provide Transparency. DIA is investing in the transparency needed to maximize the efforts of every analyst with a suite of initiatives and tools. The Source is a consolidated production portal that will function as an aggregator of all finished defense intelligence, regardless of organization, on one site. It will improve and increase discoverability for customers, reduce the likelihood of duplicative production, and bolster the expectation that intelligence analysis relies on the existing body of knowledge. The next generation of The Source and the underlying technologies, such as Defense Intelligence Online, will add tools related to production management, tasking, and individual profiles.

One capability enables analysts and customers to see trending analytic subjects based on usage from across the enterprise. This capability makes use of an existing technology that tracks intelligence use and aims to correlate production and usage data for better security, business analytics, and customer service. In addition, production data are mined to provide a “Find the Expert” capability that ensures customers are able to contact an expert for follow-on questions or for future collaboration across the enterprise on any given topic searched. By investing in better tools to capture analytic levels of effort (business analytics), we enable greater insight that allows every member of the defense intelligence all-source analytic community to understand where the enterprise must focus its efforts. Ensuring that these technologies and data schemas are common across the enterprise also ensures a transparent baseline of information to make more informed decisions.

Investing in Our People

Training and Career Management for Common Understanding. In the longer term, training and tradecraft that foster confidence and trust in products across the enterprise will need to be addressed. Currently, even if analysts find the right expertise or product, they must be confident that their own analytic rigor is mirrored in the products authored by outside organizations. Even with all of the tools and communication vehicles available to analysts, an uncoordinated product that is duplicative is easier than trying to leverage outside expertise for a collaborative, more holistic product.

To build the levels of professional trust and skills needed for this degree of sophisticated collaboration, DIA is making strategic investments in training, education, and professional development. We will establish and measure critical analytic skills for the Defense Intelligence Enterprise through the analyst professional certification program. The program will assess analyst knowledge and performance of critical skills and emphasize continuous analytic proficiency through lifelong learning. These shared skill standards will ensure analysts in the Defense Intelligence Enterprise are synchronized in their use of analytic tradecraft.

Improving and adhering to standards ensure that all-source defense intelligence analysts are equipped with the best tradecraft and skills to perform at peak levels. We have graduated two foundational Professional Analyst Career Education classes for new DIA analysts who received extensive formal training in their first 6 months. We also have developed a curriculum, which was rolled out in October 2014, geared for midlevel analysts and has graduated six classes. We are also refreshing our senior ranks with a 3-day executive version—the third class was just completed in September.

This robust training will give analysts the skills for foundational and advanced analytic tradecraft, and incorporate the latest intelligence and academic methods related to military capabilities, network analysis, sociocultural analysis, analytic design, and alternative futures. Most importantly, this professional development will ensure a superior level of tradecraft. Investing in common training standards will instill a culture of trust by creating analytic cohesion and transparency. This strategy is a cost-effective way for the greater Defense Intelligence Enterprise to minimize duplication and bolster existing networks to create analytic reserve strength. Moreover, DIA understands the need for hiring individuals with nontraditional skills who can operate in an environment where tools and methodologies must change as quickly as data evolve.

That said, the major challenge over the next decade is to develop intelligence officers who better understand the IC apparatus. Analysts must have a broader range of experiences outside traditional intelligence analysis, in both strategic and operational environments. We need analysts who understand nontraditional sources, work comfortably inside collection platforms, fully comprehend the strategic and operational needs of the broad set of defense customers, and can drive focused collection to address key intelligence gaps by using quantitative methodologies and innovative tools. In the fiscally austere future, actively managing intelligence officers will be critical to ensure a collaborative, trusting, and efficient enterprise.

Working with Our Partners

In an increasingly complex world with a wide range of collection targets, we must take advantage of not only our own intelligence assets but those of our foreign partners as well. DIA has always recognized the enormous value of coalition partners and the added value they bring to collection and analysis. Their collaborative participation has provided an important outside perspective that has informed our own in production of strategic defense intelligence in both joint and combined environments. We must understand the culture of our allies’ intelligence services and that their intelligence collection employs different methods, under different assumptions, and with different analytical lenses. Understanding these differences up front facilitates seamless exchanges during times of crisis, when relationships are put to the test and are the most valuable.

The United States and its allies possess comparative advantages in different regional and functional areas. This potential allied strength should be leveraged through delineating analytic areas on which we can be interdependent. For example, one of our allies may have a comparative advantage in a part of the world where the United States is less engaged. By relying on that ally’s expertise to cover that part of the “intelligence perimeter,” we can realign our focus on problems where our strengths lie. Such mission-sharing is a smart investment for the enterprise and the broader Intelligence Community.

This interdependence requires a high level of trust and mutual commitment between the United States and its intelligence partners, as well as the acceptance of some risk in those areas and the loss of the expert knowledge that comes with the day-to-day focus on them. Yet in a time of fiscal austerity, deepening partnerships will expand our capacity to understand the operational environment in mission areas with limited focus. This is a fundamental reason that DIA established its Five Eyes Center, with Commonwealth allies working alongside U.S. analysts to develop more efficient and effective intelligence-sharing practices while breaking down cultural-sharing barriers.

Impediments to better integration with our allies are a combination of a traditional reluctance to share sensitive information and policy and information technology issues. These barriers must be overcome. With analytic modernization efforts based in technology improvements, information-sharing becomes easier for even the most junior analyst. As that tagging of data is completed at the “atomic” level, making the information releasable without revealing sourcing becomes automatic. When analysts can see the shared knowledge, collaboration with allied partners becomes easier.

In the mid-term, DIA has placed resources and people to reexamine our security policies in light of the current information environment. When information is shared in near real time and highly dynamic situations render analysis perishable, we cannot afford a lengthy release process. We must put in place the proper authorities and develop agreements or understandings with allies to mitigate becoming mired in process. Over time, an ad hoc patchwork of agreements will do little to address the holistic concerns dealing with releasability. The IC challenge is to ensure the range of policy and authorities related to the complex question of releasability deals with the current operational environment and technology.

Our allies and partners have been an integral part of how we overcome the complex operating environment that requires both policy and technical solutions to optimize our collaboration. Synchronization of these efforts holds great promise for focusing and integrating the capabilities of DIA with those of our allies and partners.

The Future Look of Defense All-Source Analysis

The challenges that defense intelligence faces are complex and will require innovative solutions if we are to maintain a strategic advantage. Fortunately, more than a decade of integrated operations in the field has provided a blueprint. Joint operations have already proved that the hardest problems are solved not by a single intelligence discipline or single agency. Breakthroughs derive from technological advances that naturally enhance cross-intelligence discipline collaboration and elimination of organizational and cultural barriers. Yet the field is not the hallways of Washington, and the operational boundaries between brigades are not the interagency community. What worked in a forward area cannot always be generalized to another venue, and we do a disservice if we try to directly translate lessons that worked in an interagency task force in Afghanistan to a large and complex organization such as DIA without adapting such lessons to the scale of the organization and the unique processes inherent therein.

The operational interaction with intelligence will look different in the future. Historically, operators have been given a lengthy analytic paper or a large intelligence annex describing enemy composition, disposition, and most likely courses of action. In the future, using analytic models of enemy doctrinal templates, the IC will create a dynamic environment that will enable the warfighter and policymaker to interact with enemy weapons systems, command and control apparatus, and doctrine in a more dynamic, iterative environment.

A current example of this modeling and simulation (M&S) technique has been developed at DIA’s Missile and Space Intelligence Center (MSIC). MSIC analysts, in close cooperation with their National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), and Office of Naval Intelligence/Farragut Technical Analysis Center (ONI/FTAC) counterparts, are providing combatant commands with projected threat capabilities to counter U.S. contingency operation plans. These threat performance assessments, requested specifically by the planning elements at the major commands, have led to significant modifications to existing contingency plans, including target allocations; munitions selection platform routing; weapons tactics; targeting rules of engagement; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance placement. These innovative techniques, refined through years of iterative process improvement, are now adopted for use in the U.S. research, development, and acquisition communities.

Building on these M&S-based analyses for the combatant commands, MSIC is leading development of the next generation of integrated analysis capability. The Integrated Threat Analysis and Simulation Environment (ITASE) provides DOD with a modeling and simulation capability to predict the holistic performance and effectiveness of foreign and U.S. weapons systems and plans. ITASE, which is jointly developed by DIA/MSIC and NASIC, NGIC, and ONI/FTAC, establishes a standard solution for integrated weapons system modeling, simulation, and analysis across intelligence production centers. The environment brings together disparate weapons systems models from different IC organizations to evaluate complex scenarios, including examinations of antiaccess/area-denial and contested and degraded environments. This type of analysis is the future and is integral to how customers interact with the avalanche of intelligence data.

Leaders of large intelligence organizations must take what action they can to overcome obstacles that organizational history presents them. This future of a modernized analytic environment will succeed only when leaders foster the breakdown of single-source stovepipes, invest in the modernization of analysis, drive efficiencies across the enterprise, invest in people, and partner with our allies. The real art of such leadership is to identify the key elements that will change the organizational culture and to work to operationalize those elements.

Defense intelligence must become better organized, and the synchronization effort through the leadership of DIA can increase cooperation throughout the defense intelligence all-source analytic community, increasing the cogency of analytic effort and the effectiveness of collection. The challenges of big data that analysts face will be mitigated by how we develop our personnel and the tools and concepts we provide that optimize their abilities.

Ultimately, DIA must support the warfighter across the spectrum of military operations; that is the benchmark by which all of our actions must be measured. In the 21st century, warfighting effectiveness includes a great deal more than active combat; it includes the full range of military options open to our national leadership, from security force assistance to nuclear war. The Defense Intelligence Agency and the defense intelligence all-source analytic enterprise must position themselves for success now and in the future, creating a collaborative intelligence environment with allies, partners, and the Intelligence Community.

Source:
This article was published in the Joint Force Quarterly 79 which is published by the National Defense University.

Notes

1. General Keith Alexander, USA (Ret.), “Closing Remarks at Accumulo Summit, June 2014,” June 12, 2014, available at <http://accumulosummit.com/archives/2014/program/talks/>.
2. The National Intelligence Strategy of the United States 2014 (Washington, DC: Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2014).
3. Rosemary Heiss, “GEOINT IT Changing to Better Support Analysts, Integrated Intelligence,” Pathfinder 10, no. 1 (September–October 2012), 6–7, available at <www1.nga.mil/MediaRoom/Press%20Kit/Documents/Pathfinder%20Magazines/2012/2012_sept-oct.pdf>.
4. Steve Lohr, “For Big-Data Scientists, ‘Janitor Work’ Is Key Hurdle to Insights,” New York Times, August 17, 2014.
5. Heiss.
6. Chief Information Officer (CIO), Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), “Enterprise Audit,” DNI.gov, available at <www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/chief-information-officer/enterprise-audit>.
7. CIO, ODNI, “IdAM: Full Service Directory,” DNI.gov, available at <www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/chief-information-officer/idam-full-service-directory>.
8. CIO, ODNI, “REST Service Encoding Specifications for Security Markings,” DNI.gov, available at <www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/chief-information-officer/rr-security-markings>.
9. CIO, ODNI, “XML Data Encoding Specification for Need-To-Know Metadata,” DNI.gov, available at <www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/chief-information-officer/need-to-know-metadata>; CIO, ODNI, “REST Service Encoding Specifications for Security Markings.”