By Divya Kumar Soti*

The Joint Statement released after Obama-Nawaz meeting in Washington is mostly on expected lines, but Obama’s promise to support Pakistan’s efforts in arranging finances for Diamer Basha and Dasu Hydroelectric Projects in POK has come, for many in India, as a surprise.

It has come at a time when visuals of anti-Pakistan demonstrations in POK and Gilgit-Baltistan have been viral over the Internet. Question then is whether US promise to Pakistan on Diamer Basha and Dasu Hydroelectric Projects is to be seen as a discouraging signal to New Delhi? And whether Americans support Chinese strategic expansion into Af-Pak and Gulf through POK?

US policy stances on Kashmir have always been guided by larger geopolitical considerations concerning Eurasia which often go beyond India-Pak equations. In the current scenario however, they are more pinned on Pakistan in a rather negative sense given the fact that it is increasingly marked as a source of instability and reason for frustration of US military aims in Afghanistan. Ironically, still Pakistan is considered as indispensable for regional peace with hope that it can control its radical instincts.

Over the last year, US has tried to rope in China into Af-Pak as it is the only major regional player which is not distrusted by Pakistanis and at the same time on which US has some policy leverages due to various economic and geopolitical reasons. Thinking in Washington is that allowing China to develop strategic stakes in Af-Pak will make it work towards ensuring that Pak Army somehow roll back its terror sports in Afghanistan.

However, this policy is fraught with risks as Pakistani Army is aware of China’s dependence on it for checking India as well as because of complex situation within Taliban after death of Mullah Omar. Moreover, it is not known whether China is ready to put all its weight to make Pakistan dismantle its terror infrastructure as a substantial portion of it is directed against India.

What needs to be understood by the international community is that Pakistan’s terror infrastructure can not be dismantled in half or one fourth or two-third as it derives its life blood from a radicalized society having a craving for all around religious war and an unitary radicalization infrastructure that provide terror recruits to carry out war by terrorism against both India and Afghanistan.

This Joint statement which looks forward to Pakistan acting as a regional strategic stabilizer comes in the backdrop of statements of US military commanders in Afghanistan who constantly blame Pakistan for supporting Taliban and Haqqani Network,. This creates a contradiction as US considers Pakistan both as a source of regional instability which it fuels through its terrorist proxies like LeT and Haqqani Network and at the same time indispensable for restoring strategic stability by having the very capacity to dismantle them.

Indeed if this is the case, then the US is just hoping like always that Pakistan will become a good boy. There is no guarantee that DBD promise will fructify unless Pakistan delivers on Afghanistan and LeT and actually starts acting as a stabilizing factor in the region. Otherwise there are many chances that it will end up like the promise to deliver a full F-16 squadron which has now been downgraded to eight F-16s.

In a sense, Obama may have also tried to rescue Nawaz Sharif on domestic front. Nawaz Sharif’s US visit in September during UNGA session was being seen as a complete failure in Pakistan in comparison to Modi’s visit.

Pakistani PM had faced some very unpleasant questions from Pak Media persons on the US soil itself. Thereafter, reports surfaced in Pak Media as to how Nawaz Sharif was dumbstruck by scolding from US Secretary of State John Kerry over the failure to deliver on Afghanistan.

Rubbing salt on these deep wounds, a charge of contempt has been filed against the Pakistani PM for having addressed the UNGA in English instead of Urdu. The Supreme Court of Pakistan had mandated this September to make Urdu the lingua franca of Pakistan’s official conduct both at home and abroad.

Amidst all this, the Pakistani Army was able to get Sartaz Aziz replaced by Lt Gen Janjua as Pakistan’s new National Security Advisor (NSA). In such circumstances, Obama may have considered it fit to hand over some gifts to Nawaz Sharif which he could display on returning to Pakistan. It can also be seen as a balancing act by US as it has progressively lost leverages inside Pakistan which has almost fallen into Chinese lap and is inching closer to Russia.

This leverage developed by US through DBD promise is big one given the fact that it is being touted by the Pakistani media as a big breakthrough and an acknowledgement of US to Pakistan’s claim at least on POK if not one whole J&K. So, in case Americans go back on their promise in case of Pakistan failing to deliver on Afghanistan, it will be a big debacle of sorts for any government sitting in Islamabad.

The Murree episode has highlighted the fact that all the choreography by Islamabad and Beijing has certain limitations as it is not only very difficult to bring whole Afghan Taliban on the same page, but also difficult to bring whole of the Pakistani Army on the same page.

The rumors of US-Pak civil nuclear deal doing rounds in US media and policy circles also started on the premise that Pakistan’s fast growing nuclear arsenal is insecure and a major hazard for the World and thus needs to be managed in some way. Though it sounds like awarding Pakistan for being irresponsible, but the fact that no announcement was made in this regard after Obama-Nawaz meeting points out at the hesitation in Washington.

And if there were indeed any modalities of such deal worked out through behind the scene discussions, the Pakistani Army too may have said no to them. Going forward, the Pakistani Army will directly guide the process through its own man Lt Gen Janjua, who is now the new NSA.

There is now a strong lobby in US which wants to apply “first deliver, then desire” rule on Pakistan instead of paying Pakistani bills for defective services or pacifying it for dangerous nuisances it frequently creates. Lisa Curtis of Heritage Foundation who is an influential South Asia voice at Capitol Hill noted recently: “it makes little sense to bring Pakistan into the nuclear mainstream before it has entered the counterterrorism mainstream.”

In such a scenario, the best approach for India is to keep pushing for slow but steady US policy shift whereby it begins to clearly hold Pakistan responsible for instability in the region. Obama is constantly downgrading his Pakistan narrative over the last few years as he looks for some way out from the Afghan mess, there is a great need that New Delhi actively engages with developing school of thought in Washington which is not in favour of writing blank cheques to Pakistan.

Modi government should stick to the policy stand taken by it as Pakistan as a strategic stabilizer charade cannot survive for long and is bound to be falsified by Pakistan itself due to its compulsive basic instincts to spread instability.

*Divya Kumar Soti is an Indian national security and strategic affairs analyst. He can be reached at writing2divya@gmail.com

Wars in Syria and Iraq. The migrant crisis and challenge of controlling immigration flows in Europe. Regional conflicts in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. The role of China in driving global economic growth. Weakening leadership from the United States and Europe. The power shift toward the Asia-Pacific region…. These are just some of the “context elements” that are shaping the new world of economic disorder.

This new environment is one of rapid, unpredictable changes. So far, no system of global governance has been equal to the task of controlling it, or of evening out the growing imbalances in the political, economic, social and environmental landscapes.

Víctor Pou, professor of economics at IESE and an international relations expert, analyzes this environment in detail in a new book on international relations, geopolitics and world economics. The purpose of this book, he writes, is to “have an idea, and be as well informed as possible, about what is happening in the world in the early 21st century, and the possible future scenarios that await us.”

What the Future Holds

To anticipate what lies ahead, we must understand the implications of recent milestones in international relations.

With this in mind, Pou highlights some key trends that are likely to continue in the coming decades. They include:

• Economic and political power-shifts toward the Asia-Pacific region. Like many experts, Pou sees the rise of China as decisive for the fate of the 21st century. Whether it ascends peacefully or not, China will become a premier world power.

• Gradual loss of leadership by the United States. This is already underway; nonetheless, the U.S. will likely remain an energy leader due to the shale gas revolution.

• Moving toward the creation of a banking and political union in Europe. Such a union would make it possible to build a sustainable social model, counter the growing wave of Euroskepticism and recover some of the terrain lost in the global political and economic chess game.

• Progress in and consolidation of emerging powers. The forecast is good for some countries in Africa and Latin America, and India continues on its way to become the third global economic superpower.

• Sustainability advances. The rise of the emerging middle classes, their concentration in megacities and the subsequent pressure put on natural resources will finally push sustainability to the top of priority lists.

• Fragmentation of global economic governance. Currently, Western countries are overrepresented in important international institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. We will see emerging countries come into their own to counteract this and reset some agendas.

How Did We Get Here?

For Pou, the 21st century began in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. He divides the century so far into two stages: an extended opening decade spanning 1989 to 2001, marked by idealism in international relations, and a more turbulent second phase starting in 2001.

The first stage is characterized by the apparent triumph of democracy, integration processes and both economic and social progress stemming from capitalist and globalized market advances.

The second period begins abruptly with September 11, 2001 and continues through the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, peaking globally with the global financial crisis starting 2007-2008 and, at the European level, with the sovereign debt crisis in 2010.

We are still immersed in this second stage, according to the author, and we must face the reality, in contrast to past idealism, of the alarming advance of jihadist terrorism, of our inability to resolve many of the world’s festering conflicts, of our own dissatisfaction with many systems of governance (including democracy), and of the risks of leaving the economy in the hands of a wild, dehumanized capitalism.

Lessons Learned

If we have learned anything from the past hundred years, Pou concludes, it is that humanity is condemned to cooperate, although by nature we are essentially tribal. Hence there is a permanent tension between cooperation and conflict, and between economic integration and political divisions.

The 21st century adamantly expresses two needs: for a fair and democratic world government and for a new form of humanism to serve as the basis for a working, global economic system.

Any institution or government initiative on a global scale that aims to bring order to this hectic stage must recognize the need for a new world order and an economic system focused on seeking the common good.

By Felix K. Chang*

China and Japan sparred once again, this time at the United Nations.  Last week, China’s ambassador for disarmament affairs charged Japan with amassing excessive amounts of sensitive nuclear materials, notably 1,200 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium and 48 tons of separated plutonium (of which about a quarter is stored on Japanese territory).  That is sufficient, he claimed, for Japan to make 1,350 nuclear warheads.  Japan’s disarmament envoy shot back that his country’s nuclear program has safely operated under the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safeguards for more than 50 years.  He added that over that time Japan has consistently demonstrated its peaceful intentions and would not pose a threat to other countries.[1]  Given that he directed his response at China’s ambassador, one may have also taken it as a reminder of China’s recent aggressive behavior in the East and South China Seas.

The pointed exchange marked another episode in the downward path of relations between China and Japan.  It was not so long ago both countries got along.  Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, they enjoyed ever closer economic ties.  Many blame the current deterioration in Sino-Japanese relations on the tensions that arose over Senkaku Islands (or Diaoyu Islands in China) in 2010 or Tokyo’s purchase of them from private Japanese owners in 2012.  Certainly trade between the two countries has fallen ever since then.  (See table.)  But the dispute over the islands was just the spark.  China and Japan have substantially changed over the last two decades, both in absolute and relative terms.  Both countries have developed domestic insecurities that led them to view each other with greater concern.

On the surface, China does not seem to have any cause for insecurity.  Its ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is ostensibly at the pinnacle of its power.  The government at which it is the head has presided over a 35-year economic expansion that has made China the envy of the developing world.  It is even doling out largesse under the auspices of its “One Belt, One Road” initiative and through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) that will likely expand its influence across Asia and Africa.

Yet the CCP has reason to be anxious.  In its headlong push for economic growth, it often ignored public ire over government land grabs, pollution, and workers’ rights.  The party’s widespread corruption further dented its credibility.  Hence, despite the CCP’s best efforts to eliminate organized dissent, the number of public protests has recently risen.[2]  Meanwhile, China’s fast-rising economy, once the CCP’s shining achievement, is losing its luster amid sagging exports, bursting property bubbles, and rapidly mounting debts.  Seen in that light, China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative and AIIB begin to look more like a worried search for growth abroad (and work for its infrastructure-building companies) than a coherent strategy to connect Eurasia’s economies.

Adding to the CCP’s unease is the ever-smaller number of true believers in its Marxist-Leninist ideology.  Chinese President Xi Jinping’s efforts to promote Marxism have fallen flat.  So, the CCP has returned to nationalism to bolster its popular appeal.  A big part of that has always been showcasing the CCP as China’s savior from Japanese occupation (while largely omitting the role of Taiwan’s Kuomintang).  The CCP seems to believe that its ceaseless criticism of Japan proves that it still faithfully stands watch against any revival of Japanese militarism that could threaten China.

Linked to that narrative, the CCP has tried to show how much stronger China has become under its rule.  That was made clear in September when China celebrated the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II (and China’s victory over Japan) with a massive military parade in Beijing.  The martial display conveyed the message to the Chinese people that they should be confident in the ability of the CCP to not only defend China, but also govern it.  On the other hand, that Beijing felt the need to use such demonstrations of strength to dispel doubts about its political legitimacy probably worried its neighbors.

Meanwhile, across the Yellow Sea, Japan has grown insecure too.  It can no longer rest easy as Asia’s dominant economic power, a title that it lost to China a decade ago.  It is increasingly aware of its national vulnerabilities.  Japan’s population is ageing fast and shrinking.  That demographic shift not only has implications for every aspect of Japanese society, but also will make economic growth harder to achieve.  That is doubly concerning for Japan, which is still struggling to break free from a quarter century of economic stagnation.

Japanese leaders are all too well aware that China’s rise is remaking the regional hierarchy in Asia.  They realize that Japan cannot afford to remain forever quiescent, if it is to avoid being consigned to a subordinate role in the new order.  That has compounded Japan’s sense of unease, because Japan knows that it must keep the power gap between China and Japan from growing wider, even though it now has fewer resources with which to do so.  Fortunately for Japan, other Asian countries have begun to feel the same way.  India, the Philippines, and Vietnam have all embraced Japan.

Tokyo has taken advantage of that sentiment and become far more diplomatically active across the region, if only to prevent China from consolidating its power there.  As Xi has pushed China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe has never been far away.  Abe has travelled to Southeast Asia numerous times to ink economic, political, and even a few military cooperation agreements.  Last week, Abe began a five-country tour through Central Asia, which lies at the heart of China’s “One Road.”  A week earlier, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force dispatched a destroyer to participate in naval drills with India and the United States in the Indian Ocean for the first time.

Meanwhile, there has been a generational change in Japan.  Older Japanese who had been willing to accept Japan’s diminished international stature as penance for its militarist past are passing from the scene.  Younger Japanese who have no connection with that past believe that their country has proven itself to be a responsible actor in world affairs.  Today, a majority of Japanese believe that Japan has sufficiently apologized for its military actions during the 1930s and 1940s, which China relishes reminding Japan of at every turn.  Unsurprisingly, recent polls showed that only 7 percent of Japanese viewed China favorably (down from 55 percent in 2002).  Even more telling, China’s very unfavorable rating in Japan climbed to 48 percent.[3]

The domestic insecurities of China and Japan are unlikely to abate soon.  China’s insecurities, bound up with those of the CCP, will grow if the Chinese economy continues to slow.  Japan’s insecurities are tied to its long-term demographic trends.  Both sets of insecurities continue to drive a wedge between the two countries.  Even the non-governmental Beijing-Tokyo Forum, whose primary purpose is to improve Sino-Japanese relations, has found it harder to reach a consensus.  The forum, which invites high-level former government officials from both countries, has always managed to eke out a joint statement, even during particularly testy times in Sino-Japanese relations like 2012.  This week it concluded without managing even that.  For the moment, relations between China and Japan are on ice.  The region should be grateful that the latest row between the two countries occurred inside the United Nations and not out in the East China Sea.

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

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

Notes:
[1] “China Slams Japan’s Plutonium Stockpile, Frets About Nuke Armament,” Japan Bullet, October 21, 2015.

[2] See China Labor Bulletin.

[3] Pew Research Center, “Global Opposition to U.S. Surveillance and Drones, but Limited Harm to America’s Image,” July 2014; Pew Research Center, “America’s Global Image Remains More Positive than China’s,” July 2013.

A device that detects in saliva a biological indicator of a possible risk of type II diabetes is the development of a technological and scientific team of the Tec de Monterrey (Mexican University) in collaboration with the University of Houston. What makes this development unique is that it is adaptable to the cell phone and gives results in a few seconds, avoiding the annoying use of needles.

In other words, it is a cartridge adaptable to the mobile phone that will record wether a compound is present in saliva, which becomes visible if the patient has diabetes.

“It’s as simple as pregnancy tests, where the specific marker shows in a few seconds,” explained project coordinator Dr. Marco Antonio Rite Palomares, director of the Biotechnology Center of the Tec de Monterrey FEMSA.

The project is planned to be completed in two years, “We wanted a device which could identify a biomarker in a sample of saliva, and it had to emit fluorescent light so a cell phone camera could records it,” said Rite Palomares.

The multidisciplinary team united scientific experts to work in enzyme technology to make visible this marker and use an analytical process; also, they developed a micro device that can be integrated into a cell phone and where one can place a saliva sample showing the results through a software.

The director of FEMSA Biotechnology Center mentions that he considered using the camera phone to detect the marker in saliva, as the resolution is getting better each year. Afterwards it was considered to make it visible through an enzymatic reaction where the biomarker is fluorescent or emits light identifiable from the rest of the compounds through a strategy that has been used in other areas of technology and is now applied to biology.

“While the idea is to make the patient’s life easier, we also want to bring health care to the low-income population, helping to make and early detection before it can lead to more problems and take action to prevent high costs for the population and the government,” he added.

As part of the concluding phase of the development the team is seeking who may be interested in the mass production of the device.

Much of the national debate about widening inequality focuses on whether and how much to tax the rich and redistribute their income downward.

But this debate ignores the upward redistributions going on every day, from the rest of us to the rich. These redistributions are hidden inside the market.

The only way to stop them is to prevent big corporations and Wall Street banks from rigging the market.

For example, Americans pay more for pharmaceuticals than do the citizens of any other developed nation.

That’s partly because it’s perfectly legal in the U.S. (but not in most other nations) for the makers of branded drugs to pay the makers of generic drugs to delay introducing cheaper unbranded equivalents, after patents on the brands have expired.

This costs you and me an estimated $3.5 billion a year – a hidden upward redistribution of our incomes to Pfizer, Merck, and other big proprietary drug companies, their executives, and major shareholders.

We also pay more for Internet service than do the inhabitants of any other developed nation.

The average cable bill in the United States rose 5 percent in 2012 (the latest year available), nearly triple the rate of inflation.

Why? Because 80 percent of us have no choice of Internet service provider, which allows them to charge us more.

Internet service here costs 3 and-a-half times more than it does in France, for example, where the typical customer can choose between 7 providers.

And U.S. cable companies are intent on keeping their monopoly.

It’s another hidden upward distribution – from us to Comcast, Verizon, or another giant cable company, its executives and major shareholders.

Likewise, the interest we pay on home mortgages or college loans is higher than it would be if the big banks that now dominate the financial industry had to work harder to get our business.

As recently as 2000, America’s five largest banks held 25 percent of all U.S. banking assets. Now they hold 44 percent – which gives them a lock on many such loans.

If we can’t repay, forget using bankruptcy. Donald Trump can go bankrupt four times and walk away from his debts, but the bankruptcy code doesn’t allow homeowners or graduates to reorganize unmanageable debts.

So beleaguered homeowners and graduates don’t have any bargaining leverage with creditors – exactly what the financial industry wants.

The net result: another hidden upward redistribution – this one, from us to the big banks, their executives, and major shareholders.

Some of these upward redistributions seem to defy gravity. Why have average domestic airfares risen 2.5% over the past, and are now at their the highest level since the government began tracking them in 1995 – while fuel prices, the largest single cost for the airlines, have plummeted?

Because America went from nine major carriers ten years ago to just four now. Many airports are now served by one or two.

This makes it easy for airlines to coordinate their fares and keep them high – resulting in another upward redistribution.

Why have food prices been rising faster than inflation, while crop prices are now at a six-year low?

Because the giant corporations that process food have the power to raise prices. Four food companies control 82 percent of beef packing, 85 percent of soybean processing, 63 percent of pork packing, and 53 percent of chicken processing.

Result: A redistribution from average consumers to Big Agriculture.

Finally, why do you suppose health insurance is costing us more, and co-payments and deductibles are rising?

One reason is big insurers are consolidating into giants with the power to raise prices. They say these combinations make their companies more efficient, but they really just give them power to charge more.

Health insurers are hiking rates 20 to 40 percent next year, and their stock values are skyrocketing (the Standard & Poor’s 500 Managed Health Care Index recently hit its highest level in more than twenty years.)

Add it up – the extra money we’re paying for pharmaceuticals, Internet communications, home mortgages, student loans, airline tickets, food, and health insurance – and you get a hefty portion of the average family’s budget.

Democrats and Republicans spend endless time battling over how much to tax the rich and then redistribute the money downward.

But if we didn’t have so much upward redistribution inside the market, we wouldn’t need as much downward redistribution through taxes and transfer payments.

Yet as long as the big corporations, Wall Street banks, their top executives and wealthy shareholders have the political power to do so, they’ll keep redistributing much of the nation’s income upward to themselves.

Which is why the rest of us must gain political power to stop the collusion, bust up the monopolies, and put an end to the rigging of the American market.

By Yves Niyiragira*

On 25 Sunday October 2015, there were two general elections and a referendum in African countries. In Ivory Coast, citizens were electing a new president in polls that were boycotted by close to 40% of registered voters according to officials quoted by Radio France Internationale [1]. In the Republic of Congo, media outlets, opposition activists and the civil society also questioned the official turnout figures that they called “a fraud” during the referendum to allow President Denis Sassou Nguesso to extend his more than 30 years in power. On the same day, Tanzania held presidential and parliamentary elections that threatened to end more than five decades of the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM)’s dominance of the country’s politics and in which independent observers urged “more transparency” in the whole electoral process [2].

The above three experiences combined with a few other recent elections, namely in the Republic of Guinea on 11 October 2015 and in Burundi on 21 July 2015, lead to one key question: Do we need elections in Africa? If yes, which types of elections? And if no, what else do we have to substitute elections with in order to govern our countries better? To some readers, these questions might sound out of order or illogical, but there are fundamental issues that remain unaddressed every time an African country organises general elections. In the interest of this discussion, we will revisit five interlinked components of most African elections. They are, in no particular order, elections financing, voter education, manipulation by the ruling elite, failure to address real national problems and foreign interference. This article, though acknowledging the complexity of Africa as a continent, proposes a discussion on those five elements hoping that Africans can decide to take matters in their own hands.

ELECTIONS FINANCING

Resources, whether from the state or from the private sector, that are used before and during electoral processes are of great concern because they determine the nature of fairness and inclusiveness of the whole electoral exercise. In many cases, financial means are an automatic way of leaving out the electoral process many (and sometimes) able political candidates. Political parties and their candidates also use financial means to “buy votes” whereas the private sector uses their finances to influence or completely determine the outcome of an electoral process in order to get “protection” from the elected leaders.

The ultimate winners of this partnership between the state (or political parties and their candidates) and the private sector are the ruling elites and their close business people. The majority of ordinary citizens, especially those in disadvantaged urban neighbourhoods, the working class and those in rural areas are left out from that arrangement of getting influential people who have access to finances into leadership positions to the expense of much more qualified, but poor potential candidates.

There is need to limit the amount of private financing that goes to electoral processes so that influential business people do not always have their way at every election. Every African state should be able to finance equally political actors in addition to contributions that those actors get from their individual supporters. For elections to have any meaning, ordinary citizens need to be heavily involved by supporting their candidates throughout the whole electoral process. In addition, African governments need to provide funding to all political actors without any discrimination. If that is not done, elections will continue being a show of the ruling elite and their corporate allies.

VOTER EDUCATION

Another hindrance to achieving reasonable citizen participation in electoral processes is the confusion between Election Day and the electoral process. The two important players mentioned above, the ruling elite and the private sector, usually know the importance of keeping citizens away from politics. They want them to only appear at the “Election Day” and disappear for the next four, five or seven years depending on the country. This state of affairs is entirely wrong.

It is understandable that every citizen cannot be an expert in politics, but there is a minimum level of interest in politics that every citizen should have. At the end of the time, whether one votes or not, decisions that are taken by elected officials from the national to the very local level of governance affect every citizen in that country. As such, every citizen should feel responsible in helping to take decisions, either directly or by delegation, on societal issues such as education, housing, employment, health care, availability of food and water and a clean environment, among others. The management of those societal issues affects those who are politically active and those who are not.

Every citizen needs to contribute their views and opinions on issues that affect them, their families and communities. Participation on Election Day is not meaningful if the voter does not continue engaging those he or she selected to be in leadership positions. The ruling class and the private sector know well that when citizens are disinterested with politics they can do what they want provided that they have been elected or have financed their candidates to be elected. In a country that organises elections and does not provide opportunities for its citizens to continue dialogues with elected officials, those elections are meaningless. There should be proper mechanisms and channels to ensure continuous engagement between the electorate and elected officials at all levels.

The education of voters does not only deal with the issue of being an active citizen. It also requires citizens to exactly know why they are electing those candidates. This helps citizens to distinguish false campaign promises from plans that can be implemented once candidates are in power. Voter education also helps citizens to vote based on tangible plans of candidates rather than casting their vote because a certain candidate is from their region, religion, tribe or community. Being politically active and voting people because of their plans and not because of other politically incorrect considerations is a key condition to making elections more meaningful for ordinary citizens than they currently are.

MANIPULATION BY THE RULING ELITE

The third component is directly linked to voter education because an informed and active citizenry will be hardly manipulated. In many African countries, the manipulation of citizens by the ruling elite is arguably the biggest contributing factor to political disinterest and election boycotts that we see everywhere. This year of 2015 alone, we have seen leaders claiming that God had chosen them to lead their countries, whereas others have used their authority to argue that they are the only ones who can lead and hold their countries together. Others conduct “national dialogues” when their terms in office are over so that they can find a way of changing the constitution in the name of “popular will” or “national consensus” for them to add a few more decades to their already 20 to 30 years in power. As if that was not enough, other leaders have opted to creating militia groups or take up arms in order to stay in power when other means have failed. Finally, other leaders use racial, ethnic, religious and other types of divisive politics in order to scare or convince their electorate that they risk being decimated if they do not stay in power.

A well-informed and active citizenry would not fall into those traps whose only purpose is to serve the interests of the ruling class and their corporate allies. This type of manipulation or abuse of authority is what makes most elections a waste of time because some voters vote for the wrong reasons. They vote based on well thought out lies from the ruling elite. In some cases, it appears almost impossible for ordinary citizens to remove those types of leaders from power because they dominate national institutions. As such, there has to be some bold citizens who stand firm and use effectively positions that they have. Institutions such as national parliaments, constitutional courts and electoral commissions among others are very vital to championing that change. Even though leaders who want to stay in power usually easily manipulate the last two bodies, national parliaments that are the direct representatives of people ought to be the champions of ending that type of manipulation that is mostly from the executive. Other players such as religious leaders, the media and the civil society are vital in providing true information when all arms of the government are part of the manipulation or are also manipulated.

The other troubling aspect of the ruling elite manipulation is to change the results of elections thus denying citizens their rights to freely choose their leaders. We have seen instances where a leader organises elections every four or seven years, but that exercise is often not expected to bring about any changes in leadership. Examples are visible across the continent. When the entire ruling class is involved in the manipulation of total electoral processes, elections are a waste of time and not what Africa needs to solve its leadership challenges.

FAILURE TO ADDRESS REAL NATIONAL PROBLEMS

The fact that political leaders concentrate their efforts in rewarding those who helped them to be in power and preparing for the next elections is as well troubling because the leaders end up dedicating less time to dealing with real issues such as the quality of life of the people who elected them. As such, when a term ends without tangible results to show, leaders start using divisive politics or what some people call “petty politics” based on ethnicity, religion, region, race and political affiliation among other things in order to stay in power. A leader would say, “those people are the ones who made you this and that” instead of providing solutions to basic things because it is easier to blame others so that citizens do not elect them.

Most families’ daily concern is to provide for their children in terms of food, shelter, health care and education. This is what makes those families wake up in the morning to try their best to meet those basic needs for their children and their other dependents. Our politics should first deal with those fundamental needs before any other thing. There is a phrase championed by Western mainstream media of being “market friendly” or avoiding doing things that can “scare investors”. Our leaders have been duped by that media propaganda to the point that almost every African country fights to be the next destination of foreign investors who do not care at all about the wellbeing of African people. Before becoming “market and investors friendly”, African countries should first be able to meet the basic needs of those who have given them their votes.

In addition, most African countries have adopted an “inhumane capitalist system” that entirely leaves out the most marginalised members of the society. This is wrong and is not what “development” is. The meaning of development to many Africans is being able to feed their families, take their children to quality [government] schools, have affordable and quality housing. Seeing private buildings rising everywhere is not development. Constructing more roads and railways is not development. Development is putting people first and the markets last. This ability to understand the real needs of African people is also influenced by the understanding of international politics that is going to be discussed below.

FOREIGN INTERFERENCE

In the current globalised world no single national politics are isolated from the rest of the world. What happens in a given African country is heavily influenced by what happens in neighbouring countries and in other foreign countries that have interests in that particular country. With the rise of powers in the Global South such as China, India, Turkey, Brazil and South Korea, relations between African countries and the rest of the world have become complex. In addition to that North-South equation, there are also transnational corporations that influence political leaders across the world. As such, our African leaders have to deal with influence and pressures from the local politics, regional players as well as global ones without forgetting multinational companies that do no have geographical boundaries.

So, how can citizens understand those complex international relations in order to make informed decisions during electoral processes? In many cases, our leaders do not understand those relations themselves or understand them but fail to let their citizens appreciate the fact that relations that a country has with the rest of the world heavily influence national politics. Having this kind of understanding would help the citizenry to know when their leaders are colluding with multinational companies or other foreign players to embezzle revenues from their national resources. It can also help them to understand the different interests that various players whether governments or corporations have in their countries and choose leaders who can defend their national interests.

Of course the political elite can also use the term “national interests” to manipulate their citizens. They use it to scare them and make them believe that they are the only leaders who can protect their national interests against foreigners. For instance populist leaders who use the excuse of immigrants for their own political gains would not have any following with an educated citizenry. It is only political education that can enable citizens to understand all those dynamics so that electoral processes are meaningful for them.

In conclusion, this article has not sought to entirely argue against elections in Africa as a way of choosing leaders of our countries. It has rather attempted to remind readers of many and important flaws in the current electoral processes that need to be corrected if elections are to have any meaning at all. If we do not educate our people so that they are politically active, not just on Election Day, but also through out the term of elected officials, address the issue of financing of elections, refuse the manipulation of those in power and engage our leaders in constructive dialogues to solve real problems such as access to health care, education and food, then periodic elections will just be another expensive, but futile exercise. In principle, leaders ought to be stewards of the public goods on behalf of the people who have chosen them. Regular elections ought to be a way of reviewing the performance of those stewards at different levels of leadership and decide whether to keep them or give those responsibilities to others. What we see is totally different and raises further questions about leadership in Africa. The debate only begins!

* Yves Niyiragira is executive director of Fahamu, an organisation that works to strengthen social movements in Africa and publisher of Pambazuka News. The views expressed in this article are totally his and do represent Fahamu’s position on the topic.

SOURCES

1. http://www.rfi.fr/afrique/20151027-cote-ivoire-60-53-taux-participation-debat-election-presidentielle-cei-poeci accessed on 27 October 2015

2. Observers to “call for more transparency in Tanzania election” available on http://www.nation.co.ke/news/africa/Observers-to-call-for-more-transparency-in-Tanzania-election/-/1066/2931770/-/hwe1m8z/-/index.html accessed on 27 October 2015

Increasing numbers of Syria’s women and men, considered by this observer as this war-torn country’s ‘Monument Citizens’ have recently expanded the scope and range of cultural heritage site protection and preservation on behalf of humanity.

In addition to documenting heritage site damage through 3-D photography at the scene, many reconstruction projects are also underway. A few have been nearly restored including in Lattakia al Mahalbeh Castle, in Old Homs, and nearby Crac des Chavaliers, the 11th Century Crusader Castle, al Khawabi Castle , Tartous, Al Omari Mosque, Bosra, Tell Mozan, Al Hassakeh and the Citadels of Salah ad-Din, Masyaf, and the Damascus Citadel to mention a few.

Archeological site access remains the major impediment for Syria’s ‘Monument Citizens” according to archaeologist Mayassa Deeb, who put on hold her doctoral dissertation at Damascus University in order to supervise groups that photograph and then carefully package artifacts from around the country. Limited access may remain unchanged for the foreseeable future given current conditions in 2/3 of this war-torn country, now in its 5th year of conflict with displacement of more than half of its pre-conflict population of 23 million, including at least 120,000 more people just this month (between Oct. 5 and Oct. 22). This latest refugee exodus occurred in the Aleppo, Hama and Idlib governorates where terrified citizens fled toward the Turkish border as most people in Aleppo moved toward villages and towns in the government controlled countryside west of the city.

There are many impediments to the work of Syria’s irrepressible Monument Citizens given the vast archeological damage here. Some1,300 sites have been documented using recent, high-resolution satellite imagery technology. Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in more than 25% of more than 10,000 archaeological sites in Syria have also been targeted by looters with the frequency and severity of looting varying significantly depending of which faction in the conflict controls the specific area. As of 10/25/2015, more than 16,000 looter pits have been photographed just in the ancient city of of Apamea. A Dartmouth University study published last month in Near Eastern Archaeology confirms that at least a quarter of Syria’s archaeological sites have been looted in the past four years with the Islamic State (Da’ish) being the worst offender. But there have also been extensive losses from sites under the control of other forces and no group involved in the Syrian conflict has clean hands. This organized plunder has dwarfed the thefts by desperate civilians who continue to mine Syria’s heritage sites to pay for food. Looted objects are arriving in neighboring countries including Lebanon brought in by militia seeking to trade them for weapons. Among those reportedly active in Lebanon’s Bekaa valley are organized crime agents and middle men on behalf of ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and Free Syrian Army brigades.

Syria’s numbers of Monument Citizens are increasing and they come from all walks of life, local shopkeepers, youngsters whose nearby archeological sites have been an important part of their childhood, older Syrians who often feel a strong, seemingly genetic bond with this cradle of civilization, archeologists, some military personnel, museum staff, and people from the general population who cherish their and our cultural heritage and are adamant about protecting and preserving it. They sometimes work individually, but more frequently in pairs or groups, sometimes under the watchful eyes of friendly ‘lookouts.’ But youngsters sometimes take unnecessary risks from this observer’s fatherly perspective.

Syria’s ‘Monument Citizens’ insist that they eschew politics. “While I would admit to you that archeology can get political, governments come and governments go but our cultural heritage, who we are, remains for millennia. “one graduate from Damascus University’s Archeological college, who describes herself as a “cultural warrior” explained to this observer, adding, “If we allow our cultural heritage to be destroyed, given all the hegemonic invaders these days seeking advantages in our country, we may be destroying the only bond the Syrian people have left that can help heal this country once this war is over.” Her roommate added before beginning to sob, “Our children will never have the chance to see Syria the way we did growing up. Our neighborhood in Palmyra was our museum. This insanity must be stooped!”

As Der Speigel’s Katrin Elger, commented recently after a visit with some of Syria’s Monument Citizens: “From an archaeologist’s vantage point, all the major players in Syria’s proxy war are but a blip on history’s radar. Islamist fundamentalists, even superpowers like Russia and the United States are newcomers compared even to the youngest monuments in Syria.” I believe most Syrians would agree.

A major inspiration and role model for many of Syria’s Monument Citizens is the international patriot, archeologist Dr. Maamoun Abdel-Karim, Director-general of Syria’s Museums and Antiques. Shortly after conflict began, this tenured Damascus University Professor was summoned to take the lead in preserving Syria’s antiquities. As much of the world has come to know, Dr. Maamoun has been indefatigable is his work. His devotion has helped develop many unique contacts across Syria as he monitors and reports the latest damage while at the same time planning-and in several locations when security conditions permit, he is actually beginning and completing some restoration projects with his staff and Monument Citizens. His colleagues across Syria, often under the watchful eyes of ISIS or other Islamist groups in off-limits areas, use everything from WhatsApp or Skype when available, word of mouth or anonymous scribbled messages to advance their Monument Citizens work. In many areas, Dr. Maamoun has mobilized local Monument Citizens to protect heritage sites and in some cases, locals have persuaded rebels themselves to help. In others, his fellow Monument Citizens have documented and where possible, photographed the destruction creating a database for researchers,.

In Deir Ezzor, now an Islamic State stronghold on the Iraq-Syria border, volunteers aided staff of Dr. Maamoun and wrapped 16,000 cuneiform tablets in paper towels, packed them in plastic boxes, and shipped them to Damascus.: Each one was individually photographed, added to a and then carefully wrapped them in linen and placed in small Tupperware containers, which were then packed in wooden crates lined with thick foam for storage in a safe location.

The continuing invaluable work of Syria’s “Monument Citizens” reminds one of the global cultural heritage protection projects during WW II when in 1943 on orders from Supreme Commander General Dwight Eisenhower approximately 400 service personnel and countless civilians in Germany and elsewhere in Europe labored to safeguard historic and cultural monuments from war damage. The mandate of the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives Program (MFAA) was to protect and preserve cultural heritage sites and to stop the looting of antiquities. As the conflict came to a close, the ‘Monuments Men” primary mission evolved to locating and returning works of art and other items of cultural importance that had been looted, hoarded and in many cases sold by the Nazis and their collaborators. Earlier this month, the United States Congress granted the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to the WW II Monuments Men, in recognition of their heroic role in the preservation, protection, and restitution of monuments, works of art, and artifacts of cultural importance during and following World War II. They are the subject of George Clooney’s new film by the same name.

New teams of Syrian ‘Monument Citizens” are today forming dozens of 5-member 3-D digital camera photography teams to record every possible damaged and not yet damaged site wherever and whenever possible. Scores of Syrian nationalists have just begun an approximately 3-4-month key project known widely as the Oxford University Institute of Digital Archeology’s Million Image Database. This relatively new application of recently developed technology is a large-scale scholarly project targeting both object documentation, and trafficked object identification. Scores of Syria’s ‘Monument Citizens’ will use easy-to-use 3-D cameras to document archeological sites and objects in their area. Images and videos collected in the nearly 14,000 images capacity memory cards will be send for processing to the project’s technical team in the United Kingdom via uploads to the project’s website. Some of these images will be used to create detailed maps of Syrian sites, and to create 3-D models of buildings and artifacts that will be useable as blueprints for full-scale reconstruction. The project website is closed to the public to protect volunteer’s anonymity and also to ensure that the initiative remains a purely scholarly venture, not a social media platform for activists, according to Alexy Karenowska, the project’s director of technology. But Ms. Karenowska assures that as this project progresses through the work of Syria’s Monument Citizens, it will soon be available to the public. The images are to be collated in a huge, publically accessible database, available to all and under development in collaboration with UNESCO. Syria’s ‘Monument Citizens’ are helping create an ever-growing archaeological catalogue which brings together scholarly information about sites and artifacts, raises awareness of cultural heritage and cultural heritage preservation, and provides a new platform for the identification of trafficked objects. The database will be integrable with existing catalogues and lists of known missing or stolen items and employ the latest image comparison and feature recognition based search technology, removing the need for those inspecting suspect cargos or objects to have specialist knowledge.

There are also Monument Citizens operating outside of Syria. Examples include several who operate back and forth between southern Turkey and northern Syria who have done major work and have achieved an emergency preservation of the Ma’arra museum in northern Syria’s Idlib province, famous for its world-class collection of Roman and Byzantine mosaics from the 3rd to 6th centuries A.D. They have also placed more than 1,700 ancient artifacts in secured places.

A couple of other examples of ex-pat Syrian Monument Citizens. The Aleppo Project, also based outside Syria, released on 10/20/2015 its first 3D modeled reconstructions of this under siege former economic hub of Syria. Its website is an open collaboration among Monument Citizens who are planning for the future of a city torn apart by war. Its objectives include gathering as much information as possible about the past of the city, and plan for restoration projects to the day security conditions allow.

Another is the New Palmyra Project, which released its first 3D modeled reconstructions on October 20, 2015 of the ISIS (Da’ish) seriously damaged cultural heritage treasure. Three more Triumphal columns were destroyed this month as three ISIS victims were murdered at their base when they were blown up.

The Non-profit CyArk has digitally preserved scores of the world’s most famous cultural sites, this month announced its most ambitious effort yet – Project Anqa, a joint project with the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) to digitally document and preserve dozens of at-risk sites in Syria.

Another example of ‘Monument Citizen” self-directed initiatives across Syrian borders is a lovely Syrian refugee couple who this observer crossed paths with the other day in a muddy rain-drenched camp in Lebanon’s Bekaa valley and who explained their personal “Monument Citizen” work. The couple poses as buyers of looted antiques entering Lebanon from Syria and then they photograph and catalogue the photos.

Specialized 3-D digital camera in wide use documenting Syria’s
Endangered Heritage by “Monument Citizens.” Photo: Oxford University

An American interested in the subject of Syria’s Endangered Heritage was pleased to be able to present these Syrian ‘Monument citizens” with a 3-D digital camera and accessories (pictured) in aid of their stellar “cultural triage,” work protecting when possible and documenting Syria’s Endangered Heritage.

​None of the Monument Citizens this observer has been honored to meet in Syria gainsay the reality of our globally shared cultural heritage crisis in their country nor the urgent work and planning that needs to be done now.

May they succeed in their work and leadership in protecting and preserving our joint heritage and may we all hail Syria’s Monument Citizens as they work to save the future of our past.

Two of America’s four military branches declined over the past year, and the others are rated only “marginal” in their ability to protect American interests, according to the “2016 Index of U.S. Military Strength,” released by The Heritage Foundation.

This growing weakness, coupled with increasing strength and aggressiveness from potentially hostile nations such as North Korea, Russia, and China, makes for a growing and dangerous instability in regions throughout the world, the Index authors conclude. They identify North Korea as the preeminent emerging threat.

“Threats against American interests are stronger and more numerous than a year ago; key regions are more unstable, and our military capabilities have weakened further over the past year. These are very disturbing trends,” said Dakota Wood, senior editor of the Index.

All four branches of the military face severe readiness, capability, or capacity challenges. Three of the services were rated as “marginal” in their ability to contribute adequate combat power. The Army fared worse, earning a “weak” rating overall. Both Army and Marine Corps earned poor “capacity” scores, meeting only 64 percent of their manpower needs. The Navy and Air Force were rated as “marginal” due primarily to inadequate modernization and equipment replacement programs.

North Korea became the first country to be classified in the Index as a “severe” threat to vital U.S. interests. The nation garnered the rating after boosting its military capability, to include development of a likely nuclear-capable missile able to reach the U.S., and ramping up its hostile behavior—such as the November 2014 cyberattack on Sony and opening fire on South Korea this August during the South’s annual joint military exercises with U.S. forces.

The one-of-a-kind Index provides an in-depth analysis of global threats to vital U.S. interests and our armed forces’ ability to prevail against them. It concludes that, overall, U.S. armed forces do not have sufficient ability to handle more than one major conflict at a time. A two-war contingency has been a longstanding security objective.

The deterioration in America’s hard power continued last year primarily because of inadequate funding, the Index reports. The national defense budget has been cut 15 percent over the last four years. That has led to a shrinking military force operating aging equipment and a reduced ability to train that has lowered combat readiness levels over branches.

The Index analyzes three components that impact the security of the U.S.: the ability of the military to defend U.S. security interests, the nature and severity of major threats to those interests, and the environments (presence/absence of allies, geographic challenges, etc.) in which U.S. forces would have to operate.

Pope Francis will visit Mexico City in February 2016, Cardinal Norberto Rivera announced on Sunday.

“I have a piece of news that everyone already knows: the Holy Father comes to visit us, and he comes on the afternoon of Feb. 12. So from that day we will receive him with much love,” the cardinal said.

The cardinal made the announcement during Sunday Mass at Mexico City’s cathedral Nov. 1, Televisa reports. He suggested that the date of the Pope’s arrival in Mexico was “very close” to Feb. 12.

The Vatican has not yet made an official announcement of the trip.

On Oct. 6 Father Ciro Benedettini, the vice director of the Holy See Press Office told CNA that the Pope was seriously considering a trip to Mexico next year. He said that if the trip takes place, an agenda is expected to be released in November.

Mexico would be Pope Francis’ fourth trip to the Americas. He visited Brazil for World Youth Day in August 2013. In July of 2014 he traveled to Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay. He visited the United States and Cuba Sept. 19-27.

The Pope has indicated he wanted to spend a full week there, especially to visit the famous Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe. In March he told the Mexican media group Televisa he had wanted to enter the U.S. from the country’s Mexican border as a symbolic gesture. However, he decided that would be too short a visit for Mexico.

“So I promise a trip to Mexico as it deserves, and not to hurry and pass through,” the Pope told Televisa in March.

By Cecilia Remón

Julia Príncipe Trujillo, head of the Prosecutor’s Office for Laundering of Illegal Assets, part of the Ministry of Justice, found out on Oct. 20 through the press that she had been dismissed from the post she held since 2007, for having made comments about the case of Nadine Heredia, wife of President Ollanta Humala. Heredia is under investigation for alleged laundering of illegal assets.

On Aug. 19, Príncipe Trujillo made comments regarding four notebooks that apparently belong to Heredia. The notebooks listed in detail the monetary income and activities of the Nationalist Party, led by Heredia. The notebooks had been stolen from the presidential couple’s home by a former housekeeper and handed to former Congressman Alvaro Gutiérrez, who in turn sent them to the prosecutor.

The existence of the notebooks was made public during a television program on Aug. 17. The notebooks allegedly revealed deals with individuals who are accused of corruption, including Brazilian businessmen linked to the “Lava Jato” case. Heredia immediately denied that such notebooks belonged to her.

“The content of the notebooks will be incorporated into the investigation,” Príncipe Trujillo told reporters. “Obviously they should be evaluated. There is a lot of information that should be assessed and investigated.”

“The information is relevant to the investigation. The information is also linked closely to Nadine Heredia, especially and mainly I would say, to party activities and expenditures in favor of the group she heads,” added the prosecutor when she submitted the notebooks to the Special Prosecutor for Laundering of Illegal Assets of the General Attorney’s Office, after making a request for an investigation.

Gag victim

The statements were not well received by the presidential couple or by those surrounding them, particularly Justice Minister Gustavo Adrianzén and President of the Council of Ministers, Pedro Cateriano.

After learning of the prosecutor’s dismissal, Adrianzén said that the prosecutor had engaged in an “openly inappropriate behavior” relative to her function to make statements to the press without authorization. “The post of prosecutor is a position of trust, and this trust is granted and it can be withdrawn,” he said.

Social and media pressure forced Adrianzén to present his irrevocable resignation that same day. He was replaced on Oct. 21 by Aldo Vásquez, seventh justice minister of the current government.

Príncipe Trujillo had been responsible for overseeing corruption cases such as the case of Rodolfo Orellana, who headed an extended network of land and properties trafficking, and Comunicore case regarding millionaire payments the Municipality of Lima made to a ghost company that involves the current mayor Luis Castañeda Lossio. Also, Mark Vito Villanella was under investigation for illegal enrichment. Villanella is the husband of presidential candidate Keiko Fujimori Higuchi, daughter of former President Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000) who since 2007 is serving a sentence of 25 years in prison for corruption and violation of human rights. With 30% of voting intent, Fujimori Higuchi has the lead in the current polls before the presidential election that will be held in April 2016.

Considered the motivator behind Humala’s shift to the right, Heredia enjoyed great popularity during the first years of the present government, even more than Humala. However, her media overexposure, constant presence at official events, her influence in government affairs that do not concern her, her giving orders to members of the Cabinet and ruling party lawmakers, among others, has led the media and public to get tired.

Humala came to power with 55 percent approval rate, but currently he only has 12 percent. Heredia, whose popularity at the beginning of the administration reached 65 percent, now only has a 10 percent approval rate.

The media began to investigate Heredia and those around her. The purchasing of luxury goods through the credit card of a friend, travel to exotic destinations, fake contracts, among other things, were revealed and chipped at her public image.

However, what accelerated her popularity downfall was her link with Martín Belaúnde Lossio, former adviser to the presidential couple since 2006. Belaúnde Lossio created false contracts to justify income of thousands of dollars. In May 2014, a court issued an arrest warrant against him. He fled the country on Dec. 1 and was captured on May 28 in Bolivia and extradited to Peru.

Today Belaunde Lossio is imprisoned on charges of embezzlement, money laundering, collusion and illegal association for his links to a criminal organization led by César Álvarez, former president of the Regional Government of Ancash, in the center-west of the country, who is also imprisoned for illicit enrichment in the case called “La Centralita”. His company Antalsis also benefitted from the current government with millions of bids.

Although Heredia has managed to stop some investigations against her in the judiciary, on Oct. 20 the Constitutional Court granted an appeal by the Attorney General’s Office to continue investigating the first lady and those surrounding her.

Corrupt politicians

Just a few months away from the presidential and legislative elections, with a first round scheduled for Apr. 10, the political scenario is bleak. In addition to the economic slowdown as a result of the fall in international prices of metals, add to the list of issues the atomization and widespread corruption in political parties.

Analyst Fernando Tuesta told Latinamerica Press that “there are currently 21 registered parties, but to participate in the elections and avoid losing their registration they can form alliances, which would reduce the number of parties to 10 or 12. If they do not receive 5 percent of the valid votes in the legislative election, they are eliminated. Many of them are small parties without a chance and they can avoid disappearing by forming alliances.”

However, “in the absence of public financing, corruption seeps into campaign finance,” he said.”Campaigns are expensive. If there is no public funding, there is the risk of resorting to illegal or ill-gotten money.”

In early October, Congress did not take advantage of the opportunity to discuss transparency in political party financing.

“Today there is no way to know exactly where the resources for election campaigns come from, and to sustain these organizations,” told reporters Walter Albán, director of Proética, Peruvian chapter of Transparency International.

José Ugaz, president of Transparency International, was outright in saying that “corruption in Peru is a structural problem. Organized crime, drug trafficking, human trafficking, illegal mining, illegal logging, move a lot of money. The 59 percent of voters vote for candidates who are visibly corrupt but do works.”

“There is a lack of political will in Peru to face corruption,” Ugaz said. “Cases become known because of investigative reporting or disclosures from those who are affected.”

A fully automatic sensor that measures nitrogen levels in recirculated water could increase productivity and safety in European aquaculture.

The sensor was developed through the EU-funded AQUALITY project and is the first to have been designed specifically with aquaculture in mind. Fish farmers have until now had to rely on monitoring tools designed for general water management, which often lack the accuracy needed to ensure the welfare of fish.

Most importantly, the development of this new tool means that the sector can now tap into growing demand for land-based closed-containment aquaculture, or recirculated aquaculture systems. These systems use minimal water and allow the farms to be sited anywhere, even in urban spaces.

Expansion of this sector will depend however on continued improvements to the design and optimisation of both build and operating costs. For example, this method of fish production relies on the recirculation of water, which must be precisely monitored. Ensuring water quality means that fish are comfortable and are much more likely to grow optimally.

The sensor developed by the AQUALITY team has been calibrated in particular to measure the nitrogen compound nitrite. This is because all recirculating aquaculture systems have bio-filters, which convert nitrogen-based waste products to nitrites and nitrates. High levels of nitrite and ammonia indicate that the bio-filter is not functioning optimally, and could lead to potentially toxic nitrogen compounds in the water.

The innovation, developed by partners in the Netherlands and tested by experts in Denmark, is an important component of AQUALITY’s open standardised technology platform, which is capable of measuring eight parameters simultaneously. This enables aquaculture staff to receive continuous online measurements not only of nitrite, but also of total nitrogen compounds, pH, salinity, oxygen level, carbon dioxide level, total gas saturation and temperature. These levels are fed in real time direct to their monitoring screens.

Indeed, by coupling these measuring tools with an intelligent control system that is automatic and contains built-in knowledge of specific farmed species, the project team has attempted to make accurate and efficient fish farming as user friendly and automated as possible. Database and training material to improve best practise among fish farmers has also been developed.

The technology pioneered by the AQUALITY project should help European aquaculture to increase efficiencies and increase its share of the global fish market. EU aquaculture currently produces around 1.3 million tonnes a year, with a value of some EUR 2.9 billion and employs about 65 000 people. However, this level represents just 18 % of EU fish production and only 2 % of world aquaculture production.

The three-year AQUALITY project was officially completed at the end of November 2014. The project platform was presented during the Aquaculture Europe conference in Rotterdam in October 2015. The next step will be to take the sensor prototype towards commercialisation and market it to the aquaculture industry.

Source: CORDIS

The White House is conducting a full-court press to stop the releasing of  emails between President Barack Obama and his former Secretary of State , and now the Democratic Party’s presidential heir apparent, Hillary Clinton. According to reports in Washington, D.C., news outlets, the White House is claiming they are required to keep presidential communications confidential at least until a president exits the White House at the end of his or her term.

While the majority of print and broadcast news media all but ignore the information emanating from the drip-by-drip release of Clinton emails, on Friday the State Department  released another batch of Hillary Clinton’s emails from her tenure as top diplomat. However, the White House will not allow the release of emails between Obama and Clinton even if some are communications between the two regarding the Benghazi terrorist attack in 2012.

The White House told reporters — many of whom forget to ask follow-up questions — that the emails will be released after the new president is sworn in and President Obama and his family vacate the White House. “Another way to look at it is: the emails will be released after Election Day 2016,” noted a political strategist.

More than a few critics of Clinton’s and Obama’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack and other international issues are accusing the White House and its sycophants, such as Rep. Elijah Cummings who sits on the select committee — and spends his time complaining about sitting on the committee — of stonewalling investigations into Clinton and Benghazi and then the Democrats and the news media resume their complaints about the length of time and the amount of money devoted to those investigations.

“The news media knows exactly what they’re doing, but because reporters today behave as if they are part of the Democratic Party’s Super Pac, as pointed out by Sen. Marco Rubio during the recent GOP presidential debate, they help Cummings and the Democrats convince voters there are no scandals,” said political strategist Michael Barker.

While the email already released have repeatedly shown Clinton either deceived the American people or she deceived her own staff members and the President. For example, she has always claimed that the murdered Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was her “close friend,” yet there are no emails between the two. In fact, the House Select Committee on Benghazi discovered that Hollywood movie star Ben Affleck  had Hillary Clinton’s private email address but Ambassador Christopher Stevens didn’t.

In August 2015, the U.S. intelligence community inspector general reported that at least two of the Clinton emails reviewed by his office contained material classified as Top Secret, which cannot be sent to non-secure email accounts. The Clinton presidential campaign disagreed with the initial review findings. In fact, the Clinton team has targeted anyone or any organization’s officials who reveal information that verifies Clinton deceived her superiors, her own staff and the American people.

In May, a U.S. District Court judge ordered the State Department to make public all of the some 55,000 e-mails that were retained on Clinton’s server by the middle of January 2016. In a compromise, the State Department agreed to release a “batch” of emails each month to lawmakers on Rep. Trey Gowdy’s committee.

By Kalinga Seneviratne

Over the centuries, all great religious leaders and philosophers, including Jesus Christ, have drawn attention to the evils of excessive greed and taught honesty and integrity to overcome it. The guilty verdict by a Singaporean court in October, convicting six leaders of a large Christian Evangelical Church in a 36 million U.S. dollar fraud case, has raised question marks on whether so-called Mega Churches with thousands of devout followers generously donating to their coffers are a business or a religion?

The City Harvest Church (CHC), which had a congregation of 33,000 followers when the court case started three years ago, but since reduced by half, got embroiled in one of the biggest corruption cases in Singapore’s 50 year history, when its founding pastor Kong Hee and five of his senior staff were charged with misuse of church funds. On October 21, Singapore’s District Courts found all six guilty of acting dishonestly in conspiring to misuse church’s funds running into millions of dollars.

Kong Hee was found guilty of secretly funnelling 18 million dollars of the church’s funds into sham investments to bankroll the controversial pop music career of his wife Ho Yeow Sun. CHC’s finance committee member John Lam, fund manager Chew Eng Han, deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, Finance Managers Serina Wee and Sharon Tan were all convicted of devising plans to use a further 19 million dollar to cover the tracks by setting up sham companies.

In delivering the verdict, Judge See Kee Oon described the six as “acting dishonestly” to misuse church funds on a so-called Crossover project – CHC mission to use Ho’s gospel music to evangelise Taiwanese and other Asians as well as break into the U.S. gospel music market with an English album. “Each of them participated and functioned in their own way as crucial clogs in the machinery,” said Judge See, who singled out Kong as the spiritual leader that the other defendants have trusted.

The 140 day CHC trial is the second longest criminal trial in Singapore and experts here say that it could be the most expensive trial in Singapore’s history with legal costs shooting over the 10 million dollar mark. Four of the defendants were represented by elite Senior Counsel whose costs could be in excess of 1.5 million dollar for the case, a senior lawyer has told the Straits Times. While wealthy church members may have contributed to some of the costs, at the beginning of the trial, the government said that it was illegal under the law for the church to publicly canvass for funds to help its members to fight the court case.

The scam involved CHC’s finance managers, setting up music production company Xtron and glass-maker Firna. The latter was in fact set up to fund the Crossover project which the defendants claimed during the trial as serving the Church’s mission to evangelise in Asia. First, 18 million dollar was invested in bonds from Xtron and Firna. Later, 19 million dollar was used to cover up the initial misdeed.

The judge noted that the initial bond issue was not genuine investments because the album sales projection indicated that they will not make enough income to redeem the bonds on time, and Ho’s album’s perceived success was inflated as album sales were boosted by the church. Later they used 19 million dollars to cover up the initial misdeeds, while hiding from the auditors the fact that Xtron was controlled by pastors Kong and Peng.

The Judge did not buy the argument that Crossover project had a dual purpose of being an investment and serving a missionary purposed. He noted that they have devised creative labelling for “round-tripping” transactions that were designed in a way that the “CHC was channelling money through various conduits in order to pay itself”.

The CHC was formed by Kong in 1989 with 20 followers. At that time he has just graduated from the University of Singapore with a degree in computer science and had “barely a dollar to his name” according to CHC website. In 1995, after Kong returned to Singapore from the United States with a doctorate in theology, the church began to grow rapidly.

By 2009 they had over 30,000 mainly young energetic followers packing its 34 million dollar newly built chic church. Their pop concert style services appealed to the young, while Kong had to often brush off criticism that he practiced an aggressive form of evangelism and he focused on financial blessing which is sometimes known as “Prosperity Gospel”.  He has argued that CHC is presenting Christianity in a way that is relevant to the people of the 21st century, particularly the young.

Whiste-blower’s crucial role

It was around this time that Kong and the CHC appealed to their followers for funds to make a 215 dollar million bid to buy a controlling interest in the Suntec Convention Centre, a popular venue for international conventions. This raised alarm bells in the small affluent island republic about the business model and aggressive evangelisation of some Christian churches.

The conviction in October has its roots in a 2003 claim by a whistle-blower, a 53-year old CHC member and businessman Roland Poon who alleged that church’s funds were used to fund the music career of pastor Kong’s wife Ho. At the time she was vying for the Singapore Favourite Artist Award at the MTV Asia Music Awards. Poon was eventually forced to retract his allegations by church members and he spent over 20,000 dollars in taking out advertisements in local newspapers to do so.

Strait Times’s Assistant News Editor Abdul Hafiz argued after the verdict that the CHC saga highlights the crucial role of whistle-blowers in exposing wrongdoings of charities who claim to do good for the society. Even Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said recently that whistle-blowers are important because the Government could not keep watch on everything.

“Larger religious charities like CHC are a breed apart,” argues Hafiz. “They work behind closed doors, and donations at times are made with a blind conviction that those in charge will always do the right thing under the scrutiny of heaven.” He also points out that Kong’s controversial prosperity gospel works on the principle of more the tithes (biblical donations to church) more the followers get back material on earth. The CHC website says, “we believe that our giving is a form of worship”.

Since the CHC case started many dissolutioned former church members have openly criticised the church’s aggressive fundraising tactics in blog posts. They have described how Kong in his glitzy sermons often makes statements such as: “We can lift our hands to worship god, but if the titches are still in your pocket, then due tributes are not been given.”

One ex-member of ten years standing writing in a  blog as “Farhan” described how the church changed his life in a positive direction and he even started to eat cheaply to save money to buy 10 CDs of Ho’s album. But, his faith in the church began to wane, when they moved their Sunday services to Suntec Convention Centre and Kong asked the congregation to donate generously to raise 220 million dollar within seven years to buy off the venue by paying their debts.

While the members were asked to sacrifice for “god’s mission”, Kong and his wife were living in luxury in multi-million dollar properties in Singapore and Beverly Hills, driving around in a luxury Audi and travelling first class on frequent overseas trips. “He may have sacrificed a lot in his early days, but now they are living the days of their life,” noted Farhan, “it came to a point I said enough is enough and left”.

A research paper released by the Yusof Ishak Institute of the National University of Singapore on the growing Pentecostal Christian churches in Southeast Asia, by researcher Dr Terrence Chong argues that these churches driven by upwardly mobile Chinese have become crucial spaces for social  networking, business contacts and identity making among ethnic Chinese minority communities across the region.

Chong points  out that “charismatic” senior pastors enjoy “great deference and sway over large congregations” and these churches are also spreading to slum communities in Asia. “(These leaders) are deeply authoritarian in character because the charismatic leader is supposedly entrusted to articulate God’s will and vision for the church,” he argues.

Following the verdict, Kong has apologised to a weeping congregation at a Sunday service and said that god will use his ‘guilty’ verdict for good of the church and announced a new management structure where his wife Ho has been officially appointed as a pastor.

Meanwhile, Singapore’s Commissioner of Charities (COC) has indicated that it will soon take measures to ban Kong and others convicted from holding any key management positions or employment with the church. COC has also been tightening regulations on charities after a spate of such scams uncovered in recent years in both religious and secular charities.

The National Council of Churches in Singapore has issued an appeal to its members to “pay greater attention to church governance in the management of funds”. Pastor Kong and five others convicted will be sentenced on November 20.

*Dr Kalinga Seneviratne is Special Correspondent of IDN, flagship of International Press Syndicate, for Asia-Pacific. He teaches international communications in Singapore.

A ‘new golden era’ between ‘new global partners’ with the UK wanting to be China’s ‘best friend in the West’ – these were just a few of the headlines surrounding the visit of China’s President Xi to the UK in October. It was little wonder that many in Washington and Brussels raised eyebrows at the extravagant welcome for China’s top political ruler.

In contrast to the cool reception he received in Washington in September, London pulled out all the stops for the Xi visit. There was little sign of the EU in evidence although the president made clear to David Cameron that China wanted Britain to stay in the EU. A Brexit just might give ideas to pesky Chinese provinces.

When he visited Brussels in May 2015, President Xi was offered an early supper by President Tusk in the Stalinist Justus Lipsius building. Eighteen months later Xi was received with much pomp and ceremony in the UK. He slept in Buckingham Palace, dined with the Queen and the Prime Minister, addressed both houses of parliament, was feted in the City of London and spent a day touring Manchester. In between dozens of deals were signed to bring Chinese investment to Britain.

The manufacturers of red carpets would have made a small fortune as a result of the Xi visit. Workers in UK steel factories were less enamoured, as thanks to Chinese surplus production, thousands of job losses were announced during Xi’s visit.

Mindful of the 18 months he spent in purdah after he met the Dalai Lama in 2012, David Cameron was reluctant to do or say anything that might offend the boss of the world’s second largest economy. Steve Hilton, Cameron’s former spin doctor, however, was angered at the British reluctance to raise human rights with what he termed ‘a rogue state.’ In contrast, Labour’s new leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said he had touched on China’s human rights record in his brief meeting with the Chinese president. Prince Charles, a friend of the Dalai Lama, ostentatiously stayed away from the state banquet. Several NGOs criticized the Prime Minister for putting ‘money over morality.’

But boosting trade was always going to be the top priority for Cameron and George Osborne. To the consternation of some, worried at possible security implications, China was allowed to buy a third of the shares for the new nuclear reactor at Hinckley Point which would use a mix of French and Chinese technology. They also bought into other critical infrastructure including airports, roads, railways and information technology.

The British have thus taken a much more open approach to Chinese investment than the US government which has banned Chinese investment in sensitive sectors. Washington was already annoyed that the UK was willing to join the new Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) without even giving Obama a heads up. Britain has also been more vocal than the US in supporting the renminbi becoming part of the IMF’s reserve currency (SDR).

Osborne, Cameron’s likely successor, is a big fan of China and the prime mover in the UK’s approach toward China, arguing that both sides can benefit significantly from closer ties especially in the economic field. He back-packed around China as a student and has encouraged his daughter to learn Mandarin. He has also been busy promoting London as a centre for the growing internationalization of the Chinese renminbi. The City was the first to issue RMB denoted bonds earlier this year and there are growing links between the stock markets in London and Shanghai.

During a cozy dinner at Chequers, the prime minister’s country house, he welcomed China’s more active global role, working with the UK in the Iran nuclear negotiations and taking part in anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden. The prime minister hoped to increase cooperation with Beijing on sustainable development and climate change.

The fulsome welcome for President Xi demonstrates just how important the relationship with China is for the UK. Apart from raised eyebrows in Washington the visit also underlined the difficulty the EU has in agreeing a line on China. The UK got out of step in pushing for the opening of free trade negotiations with China before the Commission stressed that a first step had to be the successful conclusion of the current talks on an investment agreement.

The UK is not the only member state pursuing its own interests. Merkel will be visiting China at the end of October with her usual strong business focus. The central and east Europeans also have a formula known as 16+1 to press their own interests. As one EEAS official remarked it is easier herding cats than getting the 28 member states to agree on how to deal with China.

Muhammad Samiullah is currently associated with NBFI & Modaraba Association of Pakistan as Secretary General. From the platform of the Association, he has organized a number of workshops and seminars on different topics relating to the NBFI and Modaraba Sectors.

Samiullah is an active Member of FPCCI Standing Committee for Islamic Banking & Takaful. He is also a Member of the Arbitration Panel of Karachi Stock Exchange and holds a Master’s degree in Economics from Karachi University, Law Graduate and Dipomaed Associates of Institute of Bankers in Pakistan. He also has a Post Graduate Diploma in Islamic Banking & Takaful from Darul Uloom, Korangi. By profession Samiullah is a banker and has worked in Habib Bank Limited (HBL) in different disciplines for about 27 years, with his last posting in HBL as Vice President & Company Secretary, First Habib Bank Modaraba. He also officiated as Chief Executive of First Habib Bank Modaraba for quite some time.

Following are excerpts from an exclusive interview with Eurasia Review.

Eurasia Review: What is the concept of Modaraba?

Muhammad Samiullah: Modaraba is an Islamic contract of doing business in which one party participates with money and the other with skills and efforts. The party who provides money is called Rabb-ul-Maal or Investor and the other party who provides skills and efforts is called Modarib or Manager. The profit earned from the venture is distributed according to the ratio agreed between the parties whereas the financial loss is borne by the Rabb-ul-Maal and the Modarib is the loss of labour/efforts. It is one of the prime modes of Islamic financial system.

Eurasia Review: Briefly explain the history and evolution of Modaraba Sector in Pakistan.

Samiullah: In Pakistan, the process of Islamization of the economy was initiated in 1977 and in the light of the recommendations made by the Council of Islamic Ideology; the Government of Pakistan introduced certain changes in the Banking companies Ordinance. Modaraba Companies & Modaraba (Floatation & Control) Ordinance was promulgated in the year 1980 to provide legal framework for Islamic financial system. In 1981 Modaraba Companies & Modaraba Rules were framed for undertaking the business under Shariah compliant environment.

This was a major step through which the concept of “Modaraba Financing” was transformed into an Islamic Financial Institution in order to allow Modarabas to operate as legal corporate entities. The first Modaraba was floated in July, 1980 which was a specific purpose Modaraba. In the year 1985 three multipurpose Modarabas were established and then came a boom in the Modaraba sector and number of companies grew to as many as 52.

Eurasia Review: Modaraba Sector has the longest history but the number of players has reduced with the passage of time. What are the factors responsible for this contraction in numbers?

Samiullah: There are a number of factors responsible for contraction in size of Modarabas but the fact remains that number has declined to 25 from 52 over the years. The decline in the number of Modarabas is attributable to mergers and acquisition of smaller Modarabas by large Modarabas, commercial banks and other financial institutions. The consolidation in the industry is in-line with the objectives of the Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan which regulates the sector. Moreover, about six dormant Modarabas are in the process of winding up out of which one Modaraba has been acquired by a business group in the recent past.

Eurasia Review: The general perception is that Modaraba Companies pay attractive dividends, but investors refrain from investing in these certificates as is evident from number of certificates daily. How do you explain the phenomenon?

Samiullah: Modaraba is a profitable sector of the Islamic financial industry of Pakistan. Modarabas have maintained a record of healthy profit distribution during last many years. Modarabas posted an aggregate profit of Rs1,448 million for the year ended 30th June, 2014. Out of 25 Modarabas, 20 declared profit and 18 paid cash dividend, the highest being 50%. Most of the members have announced results for the period ended 30th June, 2015 which are very attractive and it is expected that the aggregate profit for 2015 would surpass that of the previous year.

It is a fact that Modarabas pay attractive cash dividends to their certificate holders, investors refrain from investing in this shariah compliant mode of financing , the reasons are; 1) Normally Modaraba Management Comppanies holds 10 to 20 percent of total certificates issued and remaining are held by the general public/institutions. Due to attractive dividend payout most of the investors prefer to hold, unless there is any need to sell these off; 2) Due to Islamic modes, foreign investors are not involved in the trading of the Modaraba certificates and 3) there is a general lack of interest of investors in investing in non-banking companies and Modarabas despite paying high dividend.

Eurasia Review: What are the benefits of investing in Modarabas?

Samiullah: Following are the advantages of investing in Modarabas:

i. Halal Business: Modaraba is the business model which is based on true Islamic practices duly scrutinized and approved by the Religious Board appointed by the Federal Government. It provides profitable investment opportunities to the stakeholders who are looking for Halal profits on their investments according to Islamic Shariah.

ii. Diversified Business: The diversity of the Modaraba concept provides a unique universe of business opportunities to the sector, including financing, trading, manufacturing, equipment rental, participation in property development, project management, portfolio management, imports and exports and distribution business. Such a diverse canvas of activities is not available to any other entity in the Islamic financial regime.

iii. Tax benefit: The income earned by the Modarabas, other than the trading modarabas, is fully exempted from income tax provided they distribute 90% of their profits amongst the certificate holders. For trading modarabas, the maximum tax rate is 25%.

iv. Maximum Distribution of Profits: As an investor of a Modaraba one may expect getting maximum dividends as high as 90% of the profit of the Modarabas is distributed among the certificate holders in order to avail the benefit of tax exemption.

v. Funding and Financial Facilities under Shariah Compliant: Funding and financial facilities under the shariah compliant modes are provided by Modarabas, on the pattern similar to Islamic banks to the clients.

Eurasia Review: How does one invest in Modarabas?

Samiullah: Investing in Modarabas is very similar to that of investing in shares of public limited companies.

(a) Initial Public Offering: The general public after carrying out due diligence of future prospects may subscribe to Certificate of Modarabas when these are first time offered for public subscription.

(b) Direct Buying from Stock Market: After the initial public offering, an investor can buy Modaraba Certificate through a broker as these are quoted on the stock exchanges just like shares of other listed companies.

(c) Investment in Certificate of Musharaka: Modarabas issues non-interest bearing financial instruments i.e. Certificate of Mushraka and Certificate of Modaraba approved by the Religious Board and the Registrar Modaraba. These Certificates are based on Profit and Loss sharing.

Eurasia Review: Regulatory Framework of Modarabas.

Samiullah: The Modaraba Management Companies and Modarabs are working under the following regulatory framework:

a. Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation & Control) Ordinance 1980
b. Modaraba Companies and Modaraba Rules, 1981
c. Prudential Regulations for Modaraba, 2004
d. Companies Ordinance, 1984
e. Shariah Compliance & Shariah Audit Mechanism

Eurasia Review: Tell us about the Shariah Compliance in Modaraba Sector.

Samiullah: Modaraba being an Islamic financial institution requires compliance of the Modaraba Ordinance, 1980, Modaraba Rules, 1981, Prudential Regulations and Guidelines prescribed by Shariah for Modarabas for its execution. To achieve this objective the Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) has constituted a Religious Board which approves the business of Modarabas and provides direction to achieve the Maqasid-al-Shariah under the control of Registrar Modaraba. Registrar Modaraba is responsible for ensuring compliance with all the regulatory and shariah requirements by the Modaraba Sector.

In order to ensure compliance with the Shariah Principles, the Registrar Modaraba vide Circular No.8 of 2012 dated 3rd February, 2012 issued Shariah Compliance and Shariah Audit Mechanism after extensive consultation with the NBFI & Modaraba Association of Pakistan, a representative body of Modarabas, Leasing Companies and Investment Banks. The Shariah Guidelines provides a detailed framework for compliance of shariah principles. According to these Guidelines every Modaraba is required to appoint a Shariah Advisor who will look after their shariah issues and provide them guidance on an ongoing basis. Keeping this need of Modarabas in view, NBFI & Modaraba Association of Pakistan has prepared a Shariah Compliance Guide to help Modarabas in setting up their Shariah Compliance Mechanism.

Eurasia Review: What is the outlook of Modaraba in Pakistan?

Samiullah: Keeping in view the growth of Islamic finance in the country, there are sufficient reasons to believe that Modaraba model has good potential to expand the business within the Islamic financial market in various sectors of the country for example trading, manufacturing, agriculture, non-banking financial sector etc. At present, Modarabas are mostly located in the big cities like Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad.

There are a number of cities where the financial activities increased manifold but Modarabas were not able to exploit the potential. It is desired to expand the branch network of Modarabas in the small and medium size cities where enormous potential exists. It is also desired to explore the new markets and introduce new and innovative products and services for the growth of the sector. It is the need of the time to diversity the business operations, introduce new products, develop resource mobilization campaigns, concentrate on Shariah Compliance and Shariah Audit Mechanism for the future growth.

During the year 2015, one Modaraba named Sindh Modaraba was established by the Sindh Government with a Paid up Capital of Rs450 million. As there is a great potential in the Modaraba sector, some of the Business Group are also keen in establishing Modarabas. Lately, SECP has approved “Awwal Modaraba” sponsored by Pak Brunei Investment Limited with a Paid up Capital of Rs1.00 billion. Some other groups are also planning to establish Modarabas which will further strengthen the Sector.

By D.S. Rajan*

Party discipline or lack of it, seems to have emerged of late as the most urgent and important issue before the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in China. Firm indications in this regard are regularly appearing, particularly since the middle of September 2015. Firstly, Wang Qishan, a powerful leader in charge of President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign, has touched upon the need for the CCP to acquire legitimacy through winning trust of the people “in the present complex situation”.

This is definitely interesting as for years, there had been no discussion on the legitimacy aspect within the CCP, possibly due to fears that doing so can lead to calls for democratic elections in the country which can challenge the party’s monopoly over power. Secondly, two new regulations setting standards for the cadres and stipulating punishment to those who violate party rules have been issued. Thirdly, fresh publicity is being given to Xi Jinping’s call to writers and artists to imbibe socialist values, made one year ago. Fourthly, party officials are making allegations that the CCP committees in the State Owned Undertakings have become weak. Lastly, there has been attack on the West for ‘falsifying’ the party history. To enable a proper evaluation of the developing situation, factual data on the available indicators are given below in the Annexure.

Assessing broadly, it would be pertinent to examine what the CCP’s new attention to legitimacy means. A key question will be how the party is going to ensure people’s participation in the decision making system, which is a precondition to legitimacy. In other words, what kind of political reform the Xi regime wants. There are no clear answers to these questions yet. But it can be entirely ruled out that China will adopt any Western democratic model or introduce a multi-party system. The least the CCP can do for gaining legitimacy is to start reforming the process to choose delegates to the country’s parliament – the National People’s Congress, providing some room for direct elections. This can override the absolute powers which the CCP enjoys now. However, nothing can be expected in China in this regard as the party claims to have its own ‘socialist democracy’, based on the maintenance of ‘Multiparty Cooperation and Consultation under the leadership of the CCP’.

Admittedly, Xi administration’s direction towards reforming the nation’s judiciary seems to be forward looking; but it has left the position of the party as supreme political force in the country unaltered; proving this is the document adopted in the third plenum held in October 2014, which says that “governance according to law requires that the CCP governs the country on the basis of the constitution and laws and that the party leadership and socialist rule of law are identical. Party leadership is the most fundamental guarantee for comprehensively advancing the rule of law and building country under socialist rule of law”. In such circumstances, it will be unrealistic to expect a quantum jump in China regarding judicial independence.

One should recognize the fact that the drive to strengthen discipline in the party and China’s anti-corruption campaign are interrelated, as the People’s Daily article of Wang Jishan itself suggests, though their purposes are different- the first is directed against ideologically incorrect cadres and the second against those officials indulging in corrupt practices. In any case, what should not be missed is the common effect of the two initiatives – the CCP’s weeding out of undesirable elements from the party. What can happen for sure is that the two will progress hand in hand in China from now on; they may overlap whenever necessary.

Also, it would be apt to compare Xi’s speech published on October 14, 2015 asking the writers and artists to adhere to party ideology, with Mao Zedong’s talk at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art in 1942. Mao through his rectification campaign in this period removed rightist intellectuals from the party and thus consolidated his leadership position; in methodology, Xi seems to reenact what Mao did, so as to consolidate his political position through removing his rivals with the help of his drives against corruption and party discipline violations. In this regard, one should not forget the cases of purged once powerful leaders like Bo Xilai and Zhou Yongkang; it is not difficult to diagnose both ideology and corruption aspects in charges leveled against them.

Xi Jinping’s two drives will surely continue netting more and more targets within the party. He had identified[1] such targets as those “forming factions, cabals and mountain strongholds within the party”; “ having vacillations regarding matters of principle and issues of right and wrong;” “openly expressing views that are opposed to major political questions regarding the party’s theory, guidelines and policies;” and “feigning compliance with but actually going against the party’s goals and policies.” Also, the latest regulations have included in this category cadres having bourgeois liberalization ideas and vacillations on the party’s “four basic principles.” Xu Yaotong, a political science professor at the Chinese Academy of Governance divides Xi’s targets into three powerful groups: retired leaders who wanted to exert influence, cadres whose power had been weakened and civil servants unhappy with austerity rules[2]. The widely reported reshuffle in the party central committee just prior to holding of the Fifth Plenum (October 26 to 29, 2015) may have to be viewed in the context of the ongoing twin initiatives against party indiscipline and corruption.

Attention may also be needed to the trend being seen under the Xi regime towards linking party discipline with China’s past cultural traditions. Under it, party members are strongly being reminded that as per traditional Chinese culture, rules are observed like rituals and everyone follows them. In other words, the message to erring party personnel is “obey the rules”. The trend is being noticed at a time when China’s populace could be losing its interest in ideology as reforms have already provided enough economic benefits to them. The Xi regime, facing a requirement to fill the gap, seems to be turning to use of nationalism and in that connection trying to sensitize the people about China’s historical past. The current importance in China to Confucian thoughts is an example.

In sum, an objective analysis may lead to the conclusion that the CCP continues to face a serious dilemma on how to match its reforms and opening up policy with a suitable stance on political liberalization; it has indeed reached a cross road now on the issue of party legitimacy.

*The writer, D.S.Rajan, is Distinguished Fellow, Chennai Centre for China Studies, Chennai, India. Contributing date – October 31, 2015.Email: dsrajan@gmail.com

Annexure

Recent important developments with regard to party discipline; a chronological account

Wang Qishan, a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Politburo Standing Committee and Secretary of the CCP’s Central Discipline Inspection of Commission, an organ responsible for the conduct of the party’s anti-corruption campaign, in his speech on the theme of Party discipline, at the “ 2015 Dialogue between the Party and the World” (Beijing, September 16, 2015) attended by more than 60 overseas politicians and scholars, including former South African president Thabo Mbeki and former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd, said that “in order to be accountable to its people, the party must govern with strictness. The party’s legitimacy arises from history and is determined by popular support. It is the people’s choice. For things to work in China, we have to see whether the people are happy or not, satisfied or not, whether they would approve of our work.” He added that “in the course of building a comfortable life and rejuvenating the nation, the CCP has to enhance its leadership and win the trust and confidence of the people so as to address complex situations and overcome various challenges”. It was for the first time that a top Chinese leader expounded on the legitimacy of the ruling party, marking an important breakthrough in party discourse. [3]

On October 12, 2015, the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee adopted two new regulations for adherence by party cadres, updating the rules existed since 2010 – one on “Standards on Integrity and Self-Restraint”[4] and the other on “Disciplinary Punishment[5].” The first which contained 8 clauses in contrast to 53 articles of the old, asked the party personnel to “lay an exemplary role in observing the law”, and imposed conditions for moral ethics among the party members. Not finding a place in it is more than 70 provisions which overlapped with State law, such as those related to corruption, bribery and dereliction of duty; the second has 11 chapters defining acts of indiscipline and punishments for indulging in them. The two regulations not only cover leading cadres, but also all party members, who violate party rules. Explaining the reason for the updating, an authoritative comment (Xinhua, October 27, 2015) said that the old rules, “lacked a clear boundary between Party discipline and the law, with nearly half of the disciplinary regulations identical to State laws and that the new ones are in accordance with the party principle adopted in October 2014 which demanded that the CCP’s discipline and rules must be harsher than the law.”

The new regulations make the following main demands on the cadres with the proviso that those violating could either be warned or be expelled from the party, depending on the seriousness of the violation:

• They should not support “bourgeois liberalization”, oppose the “Four Cardinal Principles” and oppose “the reform and opening up policies”.
• They should not indulge in “extravagant eating and drinking; abuse of power; obtaining, holding or using membership cards for gyms, clubs, golf clubs, or various other types of consumer cards, or entering private clubs”. (Comments: Instances of officials misusing the Golf clubs for their corrupt activities have come to notice in China. Extravagant eating and drinking and playing golf were not described as violations in the previous rules).
• They must separate public and private interests, put the public’s interest first, work selflessly and champion simplicity.
• They must not make irresponsible remarks about the Central Government’s major policies.They must not assume nationalities of other countries , or permanent residencies overseas.
• They must not participate in any unofficial associations for townsmen, alumni, and comrade-in-arms. (Comments: The term ‘unofficial associations” looks broader in scope than the one against forming “cliques” to split the Party, appeared in the previous rules.
• They must not trade power for sex, or pay money for sex; must not have improper sexual relationships with others (Comment: The last mentioned widens the scope of ban in the old rules on “keeping paramours and conducting adultery”. As known already, certain high ranking cadres, for e.g Bo Xilai, were charged with the offences of adultery and moral degeneration and punished).
• They must not infringe ordinary people’s rights to know about Party affairs.
• They must allocate relief supplies impartially.
• They must not approve projects that harm ordinary people’s interests.

The spirit of the new regulations subsequently echoed in a speech of President Xi Jinping published on October 14, 2015 which asked the writers and artists to adhere to party ideology. The speech [6] however was originally given by Xi one year back at the Beijing Forum on Literature and Art and it was comparable to Mao’s 1942 address to artists and intellectuals at the Yanan Forum on Literature and Art. Xi in his speech urged the artists and writers, including Nobel laureate for literature Mo Yan , to create artistically outstanding works which have socialist values, politically inspire and promote party ideology and patriotism, without carrying ‘’stench of money.” Mao, along with Lenin and Marx, are quoted in the speech. Mao’s calls for “revolution” are replaced by Xi’s emphasis on “rejuvenation” or “restoration.” Xi added that the arts need to serve the purpose of the restoration of Chinese culture as a global force able to hold its own with the rest of the world, particularly the United States. Xi acknowledged that the trend of globalization in the arts cannot be reversed, but asserted that, at least within China it can be managed and controlled.

It is worth noting that Mao Zedong’s talk at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art in 1942 marked the beginning of the Rectification Movement which lasted till 1944. The movement which targeted liberal and independent Chinese intellectuals resulted in the consolidation of Mao’s paramount role within the CCP, especially from 1942 to 1944, and the adoption of a party constitution that endorsed Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong thought. This move formalized Mao’s deviation from the Moscow party line and the importance of Mao’s major adaptations of communism to the conditions of China. The Rectification Campaign was successful in either convincing or coercing the other leaders of the CCP to support Mao. Is Xi following the footsteps of Mao? This appears so, as Xi is being seen as consolidating his leadership position through acting against those intellectuals affected by bourgeois liberalization ideas as the new regulations suggest and launching an anti-corruption campaign, a rectification drive of different kind, with an eye on removing his political opponents from power.

Significantly, the released version omitted[7] Xi’s praise during the 2014 speech of two Chinese young internet bloggers, Zhou Xiaoping and Hua Qianfang, for contributing essays with “positive energy.” (The former in particular is known for his anti-West blog entitled “Nine Knockout Blows in America’s Cold War against China). Why there was a delay of one year in publishing Xi’s speech is a question to which there is no clear answer yet. As far as the omission is concerned, it might be a media effort symbolizing intention, with sensitivity to China’s relations with the West, of not associating Xi openly with the anti-West bias of China’s writers like Zhou.

Fully backing the two new regulations on party discipline, has been Wang Qishan’s article[8] in the People’s Daily (October 23, 2015). It asked all party organizations and members to follow the regulations which “embody the spirit of” key Party meetings and comments of the CCP General Secretary and are crucial in ensuring Party strength. Stressing that the source of the party’s regulations against corruption were the morals and virtues passed down through history, it highlighted the citings by Xi in his important speeches of a great number of ancient texts and words from the classics; it pointed out that “Xi has stressed and lauded the fine traditional culture of the Chinese people in which morality and law are joined at the hip with a meaning for the new era. In traditional Chinese culture, rules are observed like rituals and everyone follows them. The article further said “that the party’s rules on fighting corruption problem and the ancient traditions have the same origin and that in setting and adjusting these rules, we must learn from the essence of traditional Chinese culture and move with the times in managing the party in accordance with new situations and new missions. The party is determined to enforce these rules to ensure they don’t just end up as something that hangs off the walls or it merely chatters about that the graft fight would never end. The CCP must be under no illusions about how serious the corruption problem is. The trials the party faces in being in power, reforming and opening up, the market economy and foreign environment are long term, complex and serious. Dangers of laziness, inability to properly act, remoteness from the people and passive corruption hang even more acutely in front of the party. If allowed to continue then it will weaken the party’s ability to govern and shake the party’s basis for governing”.

What Wang Qishan said about party discipline, were discussed in the last week of October 2015 by a senior anti-corruption official specifically in the context of State Owned Undertakings (SOEs) In a closed door speech[9], circulated on social media before censors deleted it, Xu Aisheng, Director of the CDIC revealed at a meeting of China Ocean Shipping (Cosco), the ideological fault lines beneath Mr Xi’s efforts to overhaul the state sector. He alleged that two executives Ma Zehua, Chairman of Cosco, and Xu Lirong, Chief of China Shipping, had lax political rectitude. Xu’s criticism illuminated the divide within China’s policymaking elite over embrace of state-sector reforms. A conservative faction sees strengthened party control over SOEs as the primary objective; market-orientated reformers, meanwhile, favour privatization and other measures to make state groups more profit-orientated and less subject to political meddling. Xu draws an explicit connection between corruption and mismanagement at China’s SOEs and the weakened influence of the CCP. He said that “the fundamental reason that such serious corruption problems appear at central enterprises is that their management and governance by party committees and party organizations has drifted towards laxity, drifted towards looseness, drifted towards softness.”
The Liberation Army Daily (October 27, 2015) alleged that “enemy forces in the West are trying to falsify the CCP’s history and China’s military and force a “colour revolution” on troops who are too susceptible to outside influences.

Notes:
[1] Xi Jinping’s book (in Chinese ) on “ building the party and government and carrying out struggle against corruption”, published by the Central Discipline Inspection Commission Publicity Department in January 2015.

[2] People’s Daily (Chinese language edition), the CCP mouthpiece , carried a signed commentary on August 10, 2015, which alleged that “some retired leading cadres” , while they were in office, put their “cronies” in key positions, so that they can interfere in the work of their original organizations and wield influence in the future. A commentary entitled “Ferociousness of Forces Opposing Reforms can Exceed Imagination” which appeared in the Chinese language website (http://www.guancha.cn ) made a point – “the reforms in China are at a critical stage and they are encountering great difficulties, affecting the interests of various groups. The scale of the resistance to reforms is unimaginable”.
[3] Cao Siqi, “CPC speaks on Party legitimacy for 1st time”, Global Times, September 14,2015, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/942241.shtml

[4] Original Chinese language text , 中国共产党廉洁自律准则, http://florasapio.blogspot.it/2015/10/blog-post_14.html, 14 October 2015
[5] Original Chinese language text, 中国共产党纪律处分条例 , http://florasapio.blogspot.it/2015/10/blog-post.html10.14.2015
[6] Xinhua (Chinese), 习近平：在文艺工作座谈会上的讲话 , October 14,2015, http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2015-10/14/c_1116825558.htm

[7] Josh Rudolph, “Xi’s Arts Speech: Context and Cultural Implications”, China Digital Times , October 27, 2015 and “All websites find and delete the October 16,2014 Xinhua article on What Kind of People are the Internet Writers Xi Jinping Questioned?” and related content”, http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2014/10/minitrue-hush-story-xis-praise-patr…
[8] http://en.people.cn/n/2015/1023/c90000-8966343.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/23/us-china-corruption-idUSKCN0SH…

[9] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3732a1ba-7c77-11e5-93c6-bba4b4b36134.html#ixzz3ppiZJIVSOctober 27, 2015 Gabriel wildau am

A nuclear technology research and development center is to be constructed in the Bolivian city of El Alto with Russian assistance, the country’s president Evo Morales announced Friday.

“This center will have a cost of $300 million, the planned installation will be completed in four years, it will use Russian technology and will be with the participation of some South American countries, like Argentina”, Morales said in a press conference following a meeting with the Federation of Neighbourhood Councils (Fejuve) of El Alto.

Morales said the project would comprise three components: a cyclotron radiotherapy facility, a multi-purpose gamma radiation facility and a nuclear research reactor.

Construction of the new center is scheduled to start in the first quarter of 2016, Morales said. He requested that authorities in El Alto accelerate the transfer of land for the project.

“The construction and implementation of this center will allow our country to take a leap in scientific and technological capabilities”, the president said.

Earlier this month, Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation, signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Bolivian ministry of hydrocarbons and energy on cooperation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The document was signed by Sergey Kirienko, Rosatom director general, and Luis Alberto Sanchez, Bolivia’s energy minister.

Cooperation under the MOU is to include: the use of radioisotopes and radiation technologies and their application in industry, medicine, agriculture and other fields; providing training and education personnel; assistance in the creation and development of infrastructure for the management and regulation of Bolivia’s nuclear power program; the potential construction of a nuclear science and technology center; holding consultations on the possible construction of nuclear power plants of Russian design in Bolivia; and the development of public information programs.

Bolivian President Evo Morales said in October 2014 that the South American country would invest more than $2 billion in the development of nuclear energy over the next decade. He said that Bolivia’s nuclear energy program will “streamline and strengthen the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, in addition to improving food preservation, seeds, soil and pest control with the installation of an irradiation plant.” Morales added that the country plans to install a cyclotron PET/CT linear accelerator as well as a nuclear research reactor.

In March this year, Bolivia signed a cooperation agreement with Argentina to promote and develop the infrastructure and institutions needed for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The agreement will “strengthen the scientific, technical and financial support in national nuclear programs under the framework of [Bolivia’s] national legislation and its international obligations”, the ministry said.

By Neena Bhandari*

Though the Australian Parliament has not yet ratified the Australia-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement signed in 2014, civil society, environment and disarmament advocates caution that sale of uranium to India would fuel a nuclear arms race in the region and undermine Australia’s strong credentials as an exponent of nuclear safeguards policies.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) Australia has expressed grave concerns regarding the weak safeguards in the Agreement, the poor safety record at Indian nuclear facilities, and the implications of the Agreement for the nuclear non-proliferation regime. This is the first time the Australian Government would be selling uranium to a country that is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

“Nuclear commerce with India on arguably less stringent terms than those applied to NPT signatories compliant with their NPT non-proliferation obligations undermines the purpose, credibility and value of the NPT. The deal with India, which (also) contravenes Australia’s obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, cements Australia as part of the problem of nuclear danger rather than part of the solution,” says Dr Tilman A Ruff, Founding Chair of ICAN Australia.

Article IV of the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty (SPNFZ), which entered into force on December 11, 1986, obliges signatories to not supply equipment or material to countries – like India – which are not under full scope safeguards.

Signatories to the Treaty are apart from Australia: Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. Of the five nuclear-weapon states, France and the Britain have ratified all three protocols while Russia and China have only ratified Protocols II and III. U.S. ratification of all three protocols is pending.

Warning that Australian uranium will further fuel the nuclear arms race in the region, Dr Ruff says, this would happen “either indirectly, by expanding the pool of uranium available, which from domestic sources is insufficient for both India’s military and nuclear power plans; or directly”.

“The enmeshment of India’s military and civilian operations, the lack of an effective independent nuclear regulatory agency, the extremely limited application of safeguards which can be varied by India at any time, and the substantial limitations of the safeguards themselves contribute to these risks,” he adds.

He says that India’s use of a reactor provided by Canada and fuel provided by the U.S to produce the plutonium for its first nuclear explosion in 1974 breached assurances that both would be utilised only for peaceful purposes.

“Meanwhile, Pakistan’s response to the opening up of international nuclear commerce with India has been as alarming as it has been predictable – ramping up its production of fissile materials, and expanding its nuclear arsenal, at a rate currently faster than any other nation”, Dr Ruff, who is also Co-President of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), told IDN.

IPPNW was awarded 1985 Nobel Peace Prize for performing “a considerable service to mankind by spreading authoritative information and by creating an awareness of the catastrophic consequences of atomic warfare”.

Signing NPT a precondition

Negotiations for the sale of uranium to India began in 2006 and an agreement was reached in 2014. In its Australia-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement report tabled on September 8, 2015, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) recommended that the Agreement be ratified, but the regulation of nuclear safety and security at Indian nuclear facilities be addressed before the sale of uranium takes place. It called on Australia to commit diplomatic resources to encourage India to make genuine disarmament advances, such as signing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) wants Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to be mindful of the serious concerns associated with this planned action and respect the highly cautionary approach outlined in the JSCOT report and recommendations.

“We hold deep concerns that the Australia-India uranium deal will increase risk, especially with India’s nuclear industry the subject of continuing and unresolved safety problems and regulatory deficiencies. In 2012 the Indian Auditor General had released a damning report warning of ‘a Fukushima or Chernobyl-like disaster if the nuclear safety issue is not addressed’. The concerns highlighted in this report, including lax regulation, poor governance and a deficient safety culture, remain largely unaddressed,” ACF’s Nuclear Free Campaigner, Dave Sweeney, told IDN.

So is there a real danger that Australian uranium will free up India’s existing uranium stockpiles to be used in its nuclear weapons programme? Sweeney says, “Increasingly likely. India is actively expanding its nuclear arsenal and weapons capabilities through increased uranium enrichment capacity, increased attention to multiple weapons launch platforms and advanced work on improved submarine launch capabilities. The proposed treaty action places no practical, political or perception barrier to any of these activities. Instead it effectively gives a green light to India’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Such a cavalier approach is not in the best interests of Australia or the region.”

Australia has 40 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves and it is a significant uranium exporter.  A significant portion of Australia’s uranium has been sourced over three decades from Mirarr land in the Northern Territory.

Aboriginals caution

The representative organisation of the Mirarr people, the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer Justin O’Brien says, “Traditional Owners have long held concerns regarding the impacts of uranium once it is exported and its potential to be used in nuclear weapons. The Mirarr are worried by the lack of enforceable safeguards to ensure uranium intended for nuclear power is not diverted to nuclear weapons and these appear to be even weaker than usual in this proposed Agreement.”

For Australia, the uranium deal could increase exports and employment opportunities. The deal could bring in an extra 1.75 billion Australian dollars (about 1.27 billion U.S. dollars) worth of exports to the economy and create up to 4,000 jobs.

Friends of the Earth Australia National nuclear campaigner Jim Green, however, expresses doubts. “Uranium sales to India will do very little or nothing to boost Australia’s export revenue or employment in remote and Indigenous communities. Uranium sales to India would boost Australia’s uranium revenue by a negligible 3 percent and create just a few dozen jobs.”

For India, the uranium sale deal could help the emerging economic power meet its energy needs. But as Dr Sue Wareham, Vice-President, Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) says, “Nuclear power cannot address the issue of climate change. Even if there is further development of nuclear power, it will be far too slow because it takes 10 to 15 years to get a nuclear power plant at a point of producing electricity. Particularly important also is the link with weapons. We know there are definite links between the civilian and military fuel cycles, and that is a particular problem that will remain as long as nuclear power is there”.

Nuclear energy’s share of global commercial electricity generation has remained almost stable (–0.2 percent) in 2013 compared to the previous year, but declined from a peak of 17.6 percent in 1996 to 10.8 percent, according to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014.

She points out that there is also the problem of nuclear waste. “The technological and practical reality is that we don’t have any way of reliably and permanently separating nuclear waste from the environment. The world really needs to put serious and significant funding into further promotion, development and implementation of renewable energies – solar, wind, geothermal and biofuels, which have been underused and under-resourced”, Dr Wareham told IDN.

A detailed report by WWF-India and TERI – The Energy and Resources Institute had mapped out how India could generate as much as 90 percent of total primary energy from renewables by 2050.

Australia is in an interesting situation because as a country it doesn’t have any nuclear weapons, but subscribes to the doctrine of extended nuclear deterrence under the U.S. alliance.

ICAN is calling on the Australian Government to support a diplomatic process to negotiate a legally binding instrument prohibiting nuclear weapons as the best next step towards achieving their complete elimination.

The materialization of the Indo-US nuclear deal posed stern questions for the non proliferation regime and nuclear trade worldwide. It managed the NSG waiver without accepting NPT, in addition the deal also excluded 8 Indian nuclear reactors from IAEA safeguards that are well suited for 1,250 kilograms plutonium upgrading for weapon purposes, “which has the ability to produce 240 nuclear weapons a year.”

Consequently, the deal amplifies regional instability and vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons. The US can not in any terms call the step an advantage to global non proliferation regime.

Paradoxically speaking the creators of the non-proliferation regime and its cartels have created rooms for nuclear mishandling within the group itself. Countries namely United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France, Japan, West Germany and Soviet Union got together to form the Nuclear Supplier’s Group (NSG), in response to Indian diversion from Canadian based rector (diverted plutonium from the Canadian-Indian Reactor) that was given for peaceful use. Pragmatically recounting NSG’s objective or purpose was to regulate nuclear commerce so further diversions as that of India could not take place again since India used it for military purposes that resulted in Indian Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) in 1974.

Evidently New Delhi is being pushed forward for the legal certification of NSG membership by the recognized NSG member states — France, Russia, the UK, and the US are now at the head to make India a member of the NSG, facing resistance from China and few other states. In this regard, Britain said India should be allowed to join global body that controls atomic exports, even though it has refused to join pact. Britain has stepped up many efforts to let India join an influential global body controlling nuclear exports, resultantly this move would boost one of the de-jure country’s standing as an atomic power in the international arena. The keepers of international nuclear non-proliferation regime are persisting to embrace a non-NPT nuclear weapon state for nuclear commerce acting discriminatory towards the other South Asian non-NPT but a nuclear weapon state (Pakistan) — obtaining same status.

Sarcastically on one side Western nations; the US, Britain, Japan, UK and Russia are engaged in ‘nuclear trade with India and on the other side they are strongly opposing China’s assistance to Pakistan to build nuclear power plants under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) umbrella. Such a discriminatory approach damages the credibility of nuclear non-proliferation regime.’

Even though if Pakistan is a nuclear weapon state, it faces acute energy shortage and lacks nuclear power infrastructure to produce satisfactory electricity. Convincingly, “its nuclear infrastructure needs substantial foreign assistance to increase the nuclear power generation.” If ‘diversion fear’ is the justification for not granting Pakistan the same technology, though for instance even if one accepts it, how Indian intention, plan or motive makeup can be rationalized? With an already history of civil to military diversion, how could India be trusted again? However India does not fall on the standard criterion for the NSG membership since it has poor proliferation record with no interest in international non proliferation treaties (rejected NPT calling it discriminatory).

It depicts a barefaced violation of nuclear non-proliferation norms and laws by international community in general and the NSG in particular. It would not be wrong to analyze from the above that the move would lead other NPT-NWS to withdraw from NPT keeping itself legally authorized for civil technology as well as also creating space for their military diversions.

‘This is a vivid fact that the US and the Western countries are trying to prop up India as a regional super power. They look at it from the perspective of nuclear terrorism at the global level, rather than it being India-specific, necessitated by legitimate security concerns of Pakistan.’ If there would have been any optimism in their intentions, they instead of coercing Pakistan to abandon its nuclear program must make efforts for the resolution of the dispute between India and Pakistan in conformity with the spirit of the UN resolutions.

Once the Kashmir issue is resolved and relations with India are normalized and India signs the NPT, Pakistan surely would have no hesitation in signing the NPT and removing its objections to initiation of dialogue on FMCT. One-sided pressure tactics and arm-twisting are not going to help the cause. Pakistan is a sovereign and self-respecting country and would never ever take dictation from any one in regards to its security.’

By Nicole Beardsworth*

In February 2016, Uganda will go to the polls. It is only the country’s third election held since the constitutional restoration of multi-party democracy in 2005 and it is widely expected to be one of the most contentious. How might Uganda’s participation in the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) contribute to better elections?

Uganda’s 2009 APRM Country Review Report recommended structural changes to important electoral institutions, expressed concern at the removal of term limits in 2005 and criticised what it saw as growing authoritarianism and an increasingly overbearing executive. The APRM advocated for greater independence for the electoral commission – which currently comprises of 7 electoral commissioners appointed by the president – but these recommendations were never adopted.

Though the APRM’s advocacy was unsuccessful, how else might the instrument have influenced the electoral process?

The battle lines for the 2016 election are drawn – septuagenarian President Yoweri Museveni, who took power in a coup in 1986, will be facing off against two of his erstwhile closest allies. The first, Dr Warren Kizza Besigye, is a former military colonel and was Museveni’s personal physician during the 1980s bush war. Besigye is the current presidential candidate for the country’s largest opposition party, the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC). The second is the ruling National Resistance Movement’s (NRM) former Secretary General and the country’s former Prime Minister, John Patrick Amama Mbabazi, who was dishonourably removed from both posts late in 2014 after a public fallout with the president.

A battle-hardened opposition leader, Besigye has faced down teargas, police beatings, treason charges and multiple arrests and 2016 will be his fourth stab at the presidency. Mbabazi is a regime insider who is responsible for some of the most nefarious legislation that has been directed against opposition parties, but he is standing on a reformist platform which argues that the ideals and goals of the ‘original’ NRM have been subverted by a party-state executive bent on power-retention. The real reason for the fallout is widely believed to be a promise made by Museveni in 2006 that by 2016, he would hand over power to Mbabazi.

The political opposition in Uganda is fairly weak, a product of 20 years of a de facto one-party system and a raft of repressive legislation enforced by a heavy-handed state. Every election since 1996 has seen some type of pre-electoral alliance or coalition formed by opposition forces, engendered by political pragmatism, individual self-interest and a weak and fragmented party system.

But this year’s coalition is qualitatively different. The result of an iterative process of learning lessons from past mistakes, the 2016 opposition coalition is the most reasoned and coherent to date. Named The Democratic Alliance (TDA), it represents seven political parties (including the FDC) and two pressure groups (one of which is fronting Amama Mbabazi); it has a number of formal structures such as a secretariat and a decision-making ‘summit’ at which all parties’ leadership is equally represented, as well as policy and candidate selection committees designed to produce common policy platforms and select joint candidates. However, one of the most interesting things about this coalition is the unprecedented involvement of sections of Ugandan civil society.

Historically, civil society in Uganda has been considered predominantly weak and fragmented. Lacking a vibrant union sector, civic engagement has traditionally been localised and largely driven by religious bodies. However, over the last decade, civil society has begun to come of age and the NGO sector has begun to flourish. The service-delivery orientation of the 1990s has largely been replaced with a governance and human rights-focused agenda which has brought NGOs into increasing confrontation with the Ugandan government.

In 2009, Bishop Zac Niringiye – the former Assistant Bishop of Kampala Diocese – was appointed by President Museveni to be Chairperson of the Ugandan APRM National Governing Council (NGC), the multi-stakeholder body overseeing Uganda’s peer review process. Bishop Zac, in spite of having been appointed by the president, became increasingly critical of the NRM government during his time on the NGC. In an interesting twist of events, he now heads the national secretariat of the opposition alliance, the TDA. He is one of a number of civil society leaders who have become involved in a process of trying to achieve unity and policy coherence within the disparate opposition. Sections of civil society in Uganda have begun to see involvement in the party political process as one of the key means of engaging with the state, following what they claim are attempts to frustrate their engagement on governance issues.

A number of civil society actors in Uganda have highlighted the importance of the APRM process in shifting the concerns of civil society in the country and providing information that has been used as a benchmark against which to measure progress on governance issues. Bishop Zac is just one of these people; he specifically highlights his involvement in the APRM as having been a key turning point in his advocacy on governance and human rights issues. The process opened up the conversation with the state and allowed for a more open appraisal of Ugandan governance successes and failures. Though Niringiye charges that the process staggered due to a lack of political will to implement key changes (while some members of the APRM process credit the lack of progress to Bishop Zac’s style of engagement and the absence of a more diplomatic approach towards key state institutions), he suggests that it was an important driver of collaboration within civil society and one which has had an impact far beyond its initial scope.

The goal to try to unite the Ugandan opposition and present a real set of policy choices to voters is a noble one. When measuring the success of initiatives such as the APRM, many seek to tally up successes – points at which interventions can be measured in terms of their influence the policy process. That which frequently goes unnoticed is the way in which the APRM forges links between different NGOs, connects the dots in governance and increases the information available for civil society advocacy on citizens’ issues.

The APRM is, at its heart, more a political than a technocratic process and it is thus somewhat unsurprising when governments attempt to frustrate progress. This makes it particularly important to focus on how the process plays out in more subtle ways, such as encouraging a more confident and vocal civil society sector. The 2016 election is likely to be fraught, but hopefully the involvement of civic actors might lead to a more enlightened citizenry and more organised and mature opposition parties, rather than being – as we see all too often on the continent – an election without real choices.

About the author:
*Nicole Beardsworth is a former SAIIA researcher. She is currently a doctoral candidate at the University of Warwick in the UK, working on party and civil society coalitions in Uganda, Zimbabwe and Zambia. She just completed 11 months of fieldwork in Kampala, Harare and Lusaka.

Source:
This article was published by SAIIA.