Over the weekend, Brandon Victor Dixon, the actor who plays Aaron Burr in the musical, “Hamilton,” scolded Vice-President Elect Mike Pence on the need to “uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us.” He cited respect for diversity as one of those key values.

Dixon is a phony: he has no moral ground to stand on. This is what he  tweeted on St. Patrick’s Day 2012: “St. Patty’s day weekend is like Christmas for black dudes who like white chicks. Happy holidays boys.”

I guess we Irish Catholics can take solace in the fact that Dixon didn’t refer to these “white chicks” as “ho’s”—that’s what he calls black women.

Looks like the list of persons Dixon needs to apologize to is growing.

Contact Dixon’s publicist: eileen@nobletalentmanagement.com

The United States on Monday named a dozen Syrian generals and officers accused of leading attacks on civilian targets and running torture prisons, warning they will one day face justice, AFP reports.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power read out the names at a tense Security Council meeting on Syria, where government forces backed by Russia pressed on with an offensive as the humanitarian crisis reached alarming levels.

Nearly one million people are now living under siege, UN aid chief Stephen O’Brien said, a dramatic increase from 486,700 Syrians cut off by besiegement six months ago.

Power said many of the military commanders were involved in killing civilians with assaults on schools, hospitals and homes since the outbreak of the war in 2011.

“Today’s atrocities are well-documented and the civilized world’s memories are long,” she said.

The ambassador listed a number of facilities where cases of torture have been documented and warned officers and prison officials that the world was watching them.

Among those named were five major generals — Adib Salameh, Jawdat Salbi Mawas, Tahir Hamid Khalil, Jamil Hassan and Rafiq Shihadeh — along with five brigadier generals and two colonels.

“The United States will not let those who have commanded units involved in these actions hide anonymously behind the facade of the Assad regime,” she said.

The council met as Syrian and Russian warplanes pounded rebel-held parts of northern Syria while food rations were running out in east Aleppo, which has been under siege since July.

Thousands of progressives are taking to the streets in opposition to the Donald Trump presidency. After eight years of Obama induced slumber they awoke with quite a start. Many of these individuals and organizations protested as part of the anti-war, Occupy and Black Lives Matter movements, but others weren’t concerned about very much until the reality show host became president elect.

The awful Hillary Clinton should be inaugurated the 45^th president of the United States because she won the popular vote. But for the second time in less than twenty years a Democrat preferred by the people will instead be an historical footnote. If nothing else the Electoral College is rightly condemned.

But where else should protesters direct their anger? If they are concerned about fascism they could protest police killings, or United States government murders committed during numerous interventions abroad. They might have risen up against the mass incarceration state. The list of outrages that should get people moving is quite long.

White liberals here in New York City didn’t care very much when black and brown residents were subjected to nearly one million police encounters. Mayor Bloomberg’s infamous stop and frisk program was a tailor made opportunity for public anger. Yet every poll indicated that white people were in favor of this very fascist 21^st century slave patrol. Those same people are now upset but what exactly has raised their ire?

They say they are concerned about the rights of undocumented people but they didn’t say much when Obama acted as the Deporter-in-Chief. The so-called Muslim registry of men from 25 countries under the auspices of the NSEERS program lasted from 2002 to 2011. That is to say during two years of the Obama administration. They may be concerned about climate change and Trump’s promise to end America’s participation in the most recent climate agreement. But that agreement allows for a rise in carbon production and thus in world temperatures. They would have been smarter to challenge the phony climate change process itself.

They say they are afraid that Trump will muzzle the press. His shouting match with network executives should not be a cause for alarm. Eventually they’ll start saying good things about him so he was foolish to be so hostile. But he is no more hostile to the rights of the press than Obama was. When he used the Espionage Act to punish leakers and whistle blowers many of the now distraught progressives didn’t say much.

So what has gotten progressives so angry? There is nothing new about the so-called alt-right movement. There is always a way to brand white nationalism. They may be the Tea Party one day and alt-right the next but it all amounts to the same thing. The dictates of white supremacy are ever present and the numbers of white people who do anything serious about it are small.

If the sight of naziesque salutes to Trump are upsetting just keep in mind that there is an ample supply of domestic fascists. They are the people who wear police uniforms. They may not “hail Trump” or anyone else but they kill three people in this country every day.

Donald Trump should be given credit for providing so much low hanging fruit. His appointment of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions to the post of attorney general provides ready made ingredients for fear and anger. Sessions was once denied a federal judgeship in part because of racist remarks directed at a black attorney. And who can ignore the glorification of the Confederacy in his name. But what did Obama and his two black attorney generals do? There were no prosecutions of killer police. That fact is a curious one in the age of murder caught on video. The Obama Justice Department argued against giving the right to request resentencing for those convicted during the years of draconian drug crime prosecution. Barack Obama and Eric Holder quite literally kept thousands of black people in jail who could have been freed.

It is difficult to take protesters seriously when they won’t even direct their anger at the party which displayed such gross incompetence during the recent campaign. The inability to defeat the man who seemed so unsuited to the presidency should stir anger towards the people whose hubris brought him to the White House.

There is always a need to engage in struggle, whether a Republican or Democrat is president. There are many unique characteristics to the Donald Trump story but the institutional evils that permeate this country persist no matter who sits in the oval office. We can gauge the true level of concern about justice when a Democrat next emerges victorious. A president who provides a greater opportunity for scorn should not be the last one who faces opposition.

By Harry Roberts*

China’s rise, and especially, its growing strategic footprint in the Indian Ocean region has provoked policymakers India to come up with appropriate policy approaches to counter its northern neighbour. However, India’s policy towards China so far can be best described as a somewhat confused and uncertain one. India in recent years has shown signs of cultivating closer ties with the US, moving away from its tradition of seeking strategic autonomy, it continues to remain cautious in potentially alienating China due to the importance of its bilateral economic relations with China. Some analysts have made much of India’s strengthened ties with the US, dominating the security architecture in the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific regions. The US designated India as a “major defence partner” in June 2016 in the hope that India will play a key role in complementing its own strategic shift towards the region. A senior Obama administration official has said that this partnership will mean that India will be the only country outside Washington’s formal treaty allies that will gain access to almost 99 per cent of the latest American defence technologies.

Furthermore, there are trends that point towards growing US-India military cooperation. The signing of the Logistics and Supply Memorandum of Agreement with the USA in August 2016 is one such indicator. India now also carries out more joint exercises with the US than with any other nation, including the annual Malabar maritime exercise that in 2007 was broadened to include Japan, Australia and Singapore.

However, such developments can equally be viewed as a sign of India’s relative weakness vis-à-vis China rather than a pronounced long-term shift towards the US. While there are ambitious plans to enlarge the Indian Navy, including the building of three Aircraft Carriers fielding a combined 120-130 aircrafts, these will not be ready until at least 2030. Until then, an alliance with the US can amplify India’s strategic impact in the region.

Interestingly, much of the hubbub over this bilateral defence cooperation has been coming from the US itself as part of its long-term effort at wooing India to align with the US ‘Pivot to Asia’. The US Department of Defense’s strategic guidance released in 2012, which set out its expected shift towards the Asia-Pacific, highlighted the importance of a strategic partnership with India to “support its ability to serve as a regional economic anchor and provider of security in the broader Indian Ocean region.”

With the US “Pivot” aimed at curtailing a rising China, India faces a conundrum as it has been forced to pick sides. By hitching its wagon to the US, India is aware of the possibility of provoking an adverse Chinese reaction.

India’s hesitant policy towards China is evident from its approach towards the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). While some commentators have attempted to depict India as hostile to the project, there is little actual evidence to support this. India’s development of the Chahbahar Port in Iran, located just 72 kilometres from the Gwadar Port in Pakistan, is perhaps the only direct response and challenge to the Chinese project. However, while India may not be comfortable with the project, outright hostility would be anti-intuitive due to the tacit understanding that if CPEC turns out to be a true ‘game changer’ for Pakistan’s troubled economy it would bolster the civilian government in Islamabad thereby opening up possibilities of greater engagement with India. Improved economic regional integration would, in turn, benefit India’s national security as well.

It would then be wrong to view these developments as a ‘zero-sum’ game. Despite, at times, a jingoistic tabloid press in India, there are many influential people who advocate for deeper engagement with China. India’s former Petroleum Minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, suggested that an envisaged gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan should be extended to India and then onto China, thereby creating further interdependencies and avoiding competition. India’s former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Oman and UAE, Talmiz Ahmed, has also said that “there is no need to fear the OBOR – both the OBOR and China need India as a partner”.

Indeed, Narendra Modi’s government has shown a commitment to deeper engagement with China. During Modi’s visit to China in May 2015 trade agreements worth $22 billion were signed. Such deals indicate the confidence with which both party’s view the future of this relationship.

India response to China’s rise has so far been muddled and somewhat contradictory. While partnering with the US more closely is seen by some as a clear evidence of India picking sides, this seems more of a case of US courtship than the other way round. India, to a certain extent is free-riding on the US security architecture until it has augmented its own military strength. Currently, it is not in India’s interests to compete with China. Despite Indian economic growth and a Chinese slowdown, India is still far behind in terms of its ability to challenge China. Economic interdependence -trade between the two is valued at $70 billion – perhaps further explains India’s muted reactions regarding regional and international disputes involving China. Given Modi’s history of close interactions with the Chinese during his tenure as Gujarat’s Chief Minister, further engagement, barring any unexpected negative developments, can be expected.

* Harry Roberts
Research Intern, IPCS
Email: h.roberts@osce-academy.net

By Portia B. Conrad*

If the retirement of Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Gen Raheel Sharif transpires in November 2016, it could have significant strategic implications for Pakistan. Until January 2016, it was expected that Gen Sharif, like his predecessors Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and Gen Pervez Musharraf, would receive an extension. However, Gen Sharif has put the speculation regarding his extension to rest and revealed his plan to retire naturally at the culmination of his three-year term. This is an opportune moment to look at the superannuation options for the Gen and possible roles that he might assume.

Gen Sharif became Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff in November 2013 and his appointment broke the established seniority principle. Today, Sharif has become an important power centre in Pakistan’s political conundrum. He calls the shots on all the key strategic initiatives in recent years – which have included Operation Zarb-e-Azb (which commenced in June 2014); National the Action Plan (December 2014); the extension of the Karachi Operations (July 2015); pooling support to block the ban on Jamaat-ud Dawa (JuD) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM); and the agreement on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). General Sharif also plays an influential role in revamping Pakistan’s relations with the US, Russia and Iran, and in negotiating with the Afghan Taliban.

Significantly, Gen Sharif has ensured that the civilian leadership headed by Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif toes the line of the military establishment. Every resistance from the civilian establishment has been met with a veiled threat of facilitating mid-term elections. However, despite a history of military takeover of political power from the civilian leadership, there has been no mention of a coup under Gen Sharif.

Scenario One: Change of Guard

There have been three sets of reshuffles, transfers and promotions carried out under the supervision of General Raheel Sharif – in December 2013, in April 2015 and in January 2016 – that provide clues to his successorship. Based on these changes, the most likely successor is Chief of General Staff (CGS) Lt Gen Zubair Mahmood Hayat, who is also the former chief of the Strategic Plans Division (SPD). The other contenders include Lt Gen Mazhar Jamil, Director General (DG), SPD; Lt Gen Ishfaq Nadeem, Commander, Multan-based 2 Corps and formerly the CGS; Lt Gen Maqsood Ahmad, who is currently in the US serving as the Military Adviser in the UN Department of Peace Keeping Operations (DPKO). On 29 November 2016, Ahmad will be the senior-most Lieutenant General in Pakistan. Other candidates include Lt Gen Syed Wajid Hussain, Chairman, Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) and former Commandant of School of Armour, Nowshera – who is third in the seniority list; and Lt Gen Najibullah Khan, Director General, Joint Staff, Joint Staff Headquarters, Chaklala – who is fourth in the seniority list.

Scenario Two: Leadership beyond Pakistan

The transition, if it happens, could be complicated considering Gen Sharif’s hold on Pakistan’s internal political and security related issues. Despite the available options, there is also a possibility that Gen Sharif could recommend a titular head under his watch even as he takes up a supervisory role overseeing politics in Pakistan and involving other Islamic nations. He could take up a competent role in the Islamic Military Alliance (IMA) – a 34-nation group formed in 2015, led by Saudi Arabia, including Pakistan, to fight terrorism. A leadership role in the IMA might help project his image as a messiah beyond Pakistan – a regional-cum-religious figure. Gen Sharif presently co-leads a similar coalition of 20-nations called ‘North Thunder’.

Scenario Three: Virtual Retention of Power

In a third scenario, Gen Sharif may create an advisory post within Pakistan which enables him to hold on to power. He could propagate his proven decision making skills to retain a position of influence in the country. For instance, the post of Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) also falls vacant on 29 November 2016.

Theoretically, the CJCSC is the senior-most four-star officer of the Pakistani military. The post is ceremonial, but the incumbent has a say in the deployment and use of nuclear weapons and he is also a principal advisor to the prime minister. The Army would likely be supportive of this arrangement since Gen Sharif’s positive image has benefited in improving the Army’s own image, which had suffered setbacks after Osama bin Laden was found and killed in Abbottabad in 2011.

Conclusion

Despite Pakistani media reports of mysterious banners indicating that Gen Sharif will participate in the upcoming 2018 general elections, there is no authenticity to this speculation. If Gen Sharif keeps to his word and chooses to lead a retired life, there will be little scope for his successor to change the overall contours of Pakistan’s security policy and strategic dimensions on foreign policy in the coming years. The Pakistani military has robust command-and-control and a clear hierarchy; the establishment’s ethos, which pre-date Sharif’s leadership, will persist long after he is gone. Even then, Gen Sharif’s kind of leadership has been unprecedented. His profound ability to balance a proxy war and diplomatic ties make him a distinctive figure in Pakistan even after his superannuation.

*Portia B. Conrad
Former Research Intern, IPCS, & formerly associated with the National Security Council Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi

During a gala concert in the Hall of Church Cathedrals, Russia President Vladimir Putin congratulated Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia on his 70th birthday and awarded him with the order “For Services to the Fatherland,” 1st Class.

The concert was attended by President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and Speaker of the Federation Council Valentina Matviyenko.

Speaking at the event, Putin told Patriarch Kirill that, “For millions of people on Earth you embody the enormous prestige of the Russian Orthodox Church and are a loyal successor of its traditions and the outstanding deeds of its devotees that made an invaluable contribution to upholding Christian values and played a major role in the development of the Russian state.”

Putin said that, “Russian Orthodox Church is a great prophet of love for the Fatherland and its powerful moral defender that has always upheld the principles of kindness, truth and loyalty to our country.”

“The Russian Orthodox Church, joined by our other traditional faiths, is the main spiritual foundation of our people and statehood,” Putin said.

For his part, President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, said, “Thanks to your work and prayers, the Russian Orthodox Church continues to develop and, most importantly, to affirm its greatness, taking its rightful place in the Christian world.”

“You pay particular attention to the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church,” Lukashenko said.

By Emanuel L. Paparella, Ph.D.

he slogan “Let’s make America great again” may appear at first sight to be aspirational, even inspirational. It has been asserted that it was such a genial slogan which assured the successful election of Donald Trump to the American presidency. In reality the slogan describes and predicts little that is surprising or original. It’s more like a movie that we have viewed before; and we already know its ending.

Nostalgia for past greatness is as old as Machiavelli who claimed the heritage of the Romans for a new Italy, then it was misguidedly adopted by Mussolini who fancied himself a Roman emperor, or Adolph Hitler who promised to make Germany great again after the humiliating defeat of World War I.

All of this can perhaps best be described through the lenses of three classical novels which, while admittedly prophetic, read like historical novels: in order of publication they are Good-By to All That by the English Robert Graves (1929), It Couldn’t Happen Here by the American Sinclair Lewis (1935), and The Leopard, Il Gattopardo in its original Italian title, by the Italian Giuseppe di Lampedusa (1956).

I have summarily described the last two novels, the second prophesizing the rise of fascism in America or anywhere else where the conditions are ripe; enter Donald Trump. The last one made into a famous movie by Luchino Visconti in 1963 dealing with Italian unification, and predicting that the great social changes expected at the outset from Italian unification would not only fail to materialize but that things would get progressively worse and force the emigration of one million Southern Italians.

Let us now examine the first book which, in some way, despite the fact that it came first chronologically, synthesizes the other two by announcing the disaster of fascism and of involuntary emigration and explaining those disasters via a nostalgia for making the country great again, enter Brexit and Trumpism.

Robert Graves’ book can perhaps best be described as a farewell memoir to his country called Good-Bye to All That. In it, Graves, a veteran of the Great War, offers us an glimpse of a world brought down by the myopia of a waning ruling class. British rulers yearned to restore a bygone age, to make Britain great again. No sooner did Good-Bye hit the bookstands than Western governments on both sides of the Atlantic, far from learning any lessons from it, responded to a financial crisis by throwing up trade barriers, turning currencies into weapons, plunging the world into depression, and then deporting, or later exterminating, foreigners as well as their own citizens.

We seem to have come full circle. With the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, the United States seems about to swerve in a similar direction, to go from leading the world as a stabilizer to leading the world as a destabilizer. What’s propelling this about-face is nostalgia for an earlier age of supremacy which basically covers seven decades from the mid-forties to today. The illusion of exceptionalism and supremacy (called “white supremacy when it assumes racial overtones) remains, but In truth, that supremacy that was economic, military and political, has long since passed.

America’s continued claim on global leadership is mostly an inheritance from the aftermath of World War II, when American leaders laid the multilateral foundations of what we now call globalization. Diplomats, economists, and philosophers charted a grand bargain for the world, a kind of global new deal. It rested on two pillars.

The first concerned cooperation in the world economy. To prevent a backslide into the protectionist, inward-looking policies that crushed the global economy in the 1930s and led to war in Europe and Asia, global rebuilders hitched national economies to norms, rules, and principles of free trade. The result was a boom. From 1950 to 1973, world per capita incomes grew by 3 percent per year — powered by a trade explosion of 8 percent per year. Cooperation triumphed; interdependence brought prosperity. The prophecy of “inevitable progress” by assorted positivists enamored of enlightened science and debunkers of tradition, religion and even philosophy seemed to have come about. Things would get better and better.

The second pillar concerned national policies. To cope with the dislocations of free trade and interdependence, governments created safety nets and programs at home to manage the risks and to shelter the castaways. From welfare to workplace protections, from capital controls to expanded education, national policies buffered market perils and helped families adapt to commercial and technological changes. What’s more, many of these programs extended to the dislocated who left home altogether, like those who departed Puerto Rico for the United States, Italy for Canada or the US, Algeria for France, Cambodia for Australia. Education, workplace protections, and pathways to citizenship were part of a bundle of rights conferred on immigrants. This was the global new deal that buoyed the postwar liberal order: a coherent, complementary set of policies that opened borders while protecting societies from the hazards of integration across those borders.

But alas, it proved unsustainable. Over seven decades, their foundations shifted beneath them. We are now witnessing, in Trumpism, its death throes. And there is no way to re-create the conditions that led to the original global new deal, and the years of relative stability and tolerance that came with it. All that is left now is nostalgia for past glory. That goes a long way in explaining Brexit and Trump’s fraudulent promise to restore America’s greatness in the 21st century. As in Brexit many have bought that promise wholesale but, as in Brexit, they may soon experience buyer’s remorse for one cannot live by past glory alone; one needs to envision a future too for the next generations.

What had once been a comprehensive, integrated system of policies that allowed free trade and social safety nets to work in tandem became, in the absence of strong global leadership, a race to the bottom, sustained by carbon and credit. Brand new polities like the EU were founded but lacking authentic cultural foundations for the union, centrifugal political forces began to take over. Domestic safety nets got torn up in a fever to make economies more nimble. Deregulators, privatizers, and a free market orthodoxy took hold, shredding the pacts that once eased the effects of globalization. Trade unions, once key to manufacturing the consent behind the global new deal, got crushed.

The fall of the Berlin Wall, the breakup of the USSR, and some gloating about the end of history created some sense of renewed American grandeur and the triumph of free markets. This euphoria, however, masked underlying structural shifts that eroded U.S. dominance still further; while the Soviet bloc collapsed, behind the scenes, there was a dramatic retooling of the Asian economies. The reckoning could not be put off forever. The dual addictions to carbon and credit are now under assault. The bill for relying on fossil fuels is turning up in the form of climate change, while swaths of the unprotected precariat work part-time jobs in Walmart and Home Depot to cover the monthly interest on their Visa cards.

David Cameron botched the Brexit campaign. Hillary Clinton stumbled through questions about the misunderstood Trans-Pacific Partnership and cringed whenever NAFTA came up. In the vacuum, wall-builders like Trump promise to revive a zombie version of American grandeur with more carbon, more credit, and a mercantilist crusade. And so, while Globalization had relied on the United States playing a vital stabilizing role which lasted for seven decades, what comes next is rather unpredictable. Were I asked to hazard a prediction I would go with “global instability.” Why do I say this? Because, the world has yet to master the idea of leadership without dominance. We no longer have statesmen, we have puny egomaniacal bullies hungry for power.

The long cycle of integration and relative tolerance forged by U.S. leadership since World War II is now headed in reverse and is giving way to nostalgia for past greatness: let’s make Germany great again, let’s make Great Britain great again, let’s make America great again, let’s go back to the glory of the ancient Greeks and Romans, the glory of the British empire, and, most important of all, let’s fool people, as Tancredi proclaims in the novel The Leopard by making them believe that all is changing and the good old times are on the way back, so that in effect nothing changes and they fail to realize that in reality things are getting progressively worse and the lights are fast dimming on a Western civilization mired in nostalgia of past grandeur. I say: let’s pray for the best but prepare for the worst while imagining a better world. This may well fall on deaf ears, but let those who have ears, let them hear.

By Dusica Tomovic

Serbia’s Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic said on Monday that he would meet leaders of the pro-Serbian opposition in Montenegro, even though some of them have been accused of being involved in a plot to overthrow his Montenegrin counterpart Milo Djukanovic.

The leaders of the pro-Serbian opposition and Serb organisations demanded an urgent meeting with Vucic in Belgrade two weeks ago about what they said was the “intolerable situation” facing the Serb community in Montenegro, but Vucic told journalists that he had not meet them yet because he was too busy.

“I could do that in the next 10 to 15 days,” he said after being asked if he had refused to meet them because of their alleged involvement in what the Montenegrin authorities have described as an attempted coup on election day on October 16.

The leader of pro-Serbian parties NOVA, Andrija Mandic, and the Democratic People’s Party, Milan Knezevic, along with several representatives of Serb organisations and intellectuals, had asked to speak with Vucic about the pressure they said was being exerted on them in Montenegro.

Mandic’s and Knezevic’s parties are part of Montenegro’s main opposition alliance, the Democratic Front, which strongly favours close ties between all Serbs in the region, while advocating friendly relations with Russia and opposing membership of NATO.

They said they wanted to meet Vucic because a campaign was being conducted against them in the Belgrade-based media and by Montenegrin branches of the Informer tabloid and broadcaster TV Pink.

Vucic said on Monday that he was “always ready to talk to Andrija Mandic and anyone who comes from Montenegro to talk”.

Last week, Mandic met Milorad Dodik, the president of Bosnia’s Serb-dominated entity, and it was announced that the Republic Srpska leader will host a larger group of the Serb representatives from Montenegro in the entity’s main city Banja Luka this week.

It was not specified when the meeting will take place and who exactly will participate, however.

The meeting was announced after the arrests of 20 Serbian coup suspects ahead of Montenegro’s elections, and allegations that some nationalists from Russia participated in the plot.

The suspects were said to have been caught trying to enter Montenegro from Serbia with arms and ammunition and were arrested on charges of terrorism. Pro-government media outlets in Montenegro insist the men were involved in an attempted coup.

The prosecution claimed it has evidence that a politician from the Democratic Front collaborated with Russian nationalists in an alleged plot to overthrow veteran PM Djukanovic.

The Prosecutor’s Office said there was “reasonable suspicion” that a criminal organisation had been formed in Serbia and Montenegro at the start of October with a plan to attack citizens and police in front of parliament once the results of the election were announced, before taking over the assembly and declaring that the party of its choice had won the polls.

It also said it suspected the criminal organisation planned to kill Djukanovic.

The Front however said the state prosecution fabricated the alleged coup plot because it needed an alibi “to arrest the leaders of the opposition”.
– See more at: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/vucic-to-meet-serbs-from-montenegro-amid-coup-claims-11-22-2016#sthash.9TF9eOal.dpuf

Never before in the history of US has a presiden-elect been subjected to so much of vitriolic attack , hateful comments and uncompromising criticism, as it is now happening in the case of Donald Trump.

A section of the media and pledged critics of Trump seem to be bent on spreading their view that administration of Trump would be a disaster and predicting uncharitably that in all probability , Trump would be disowned by the Republican party itself and may be even impeached before long for one reason or the other.

Demonstrations have been organized by the pledged critics of Trump and doomsayers, even before Trump has assumed office as the next US President. While Trump is still considering various names for appointment for critical positions in his administration, critics have started criticizing the probable candidates for such posts.

Reluctance to accept the verdict

During the bitterly fought Presidential election, section of US media left no stone upturned to ensure defeat of Trump and a number of bitter critics even said that they would leave USA, if Trump were to be elected as the President.

In spite of the fact that majority of US citizens have voted in favour of Trump, the opponents of Trump are unwilling to accept the ground reality and seem to be so critical of the majority of Americans who voted for Trump and are showing extreme level of intolerance and taking undemocratic stand in not accepting the verdict.

While many things have been said by both the candidates during the Presidential election, it is the healthy democratic practice that such electoral campaign speeches would be ignored after the poll and the country would settle down to allow the President elect to carry on the administration in a way that he would think appropriate and judge him on the basis of his actions and decisions. Why judge Donald Trump even before he would be sworn ,who are extremely vocal and skeptic.

The criticism of Trump’s opponents,even before he is sworn in, is so unjustified that President Obama, who himself is a critic of Trump, has to intervene and ask the demonstrators not to prejudge Trump’s administration and wait for the type of policy approach that he would provide before commenting and passing judgement.

Support of majority

Obviously, those who voted for Trump are convinced that his criticism about the Obama administration with regard to economic, trade and foreign policies are reasonable and justified. The declaration of Trump that he would protect the interests of the Americans and ensure that illegal migrants would not be allowed to destabilize the peace and harmony in USA and snatch away the jobs from natives have received approval from the majority of voters.

The role of media

It is generally recognized that most section of US media have conducted itself with very partisan attitude during the Presidential poll and it openly called for the defeat of Trump. The hall mark of any media is neutral policy and balanced criticism, considering the fact that there can always be alternate views on any subject. US media now faces the herculean task of re claiming the fair image of fairness and independence that it once had and which it lost during the Presidential election.

In the coming days, it remains to be seen as to whether the US media would reconcile itself to the Trump administration and judge it on its merits or further lose it’s credibility by remaining as unbending critic.

The hopes

In any case, one hopes that Donald Trump as the President of USA will prove his critics wrong and rise to the expectation of all citizens of USA and the world citizens that he would be a fair and competent President.

It is yet to be seen how Trump would adopt his view and policy with regard to the Paris Climate Declaration. Whatever may be his critical view about the declarations of the COP21 earlier, one hopes that he would reconsider his stand and adopt a policy in tune with the interests of the global ecological and climate requirements. Perhaps, this issue would indicate the overall approach of Trump and shape his international image.

By Mohsen Shariatinia*

China’s Defense Minister General Chang Wanquan paid an official visit to Iran recently at a time that international politics is surrounded by ambiguities more than any time before during the past two decades and under conditions when some analysts maintain that the West has reached the finish line.

Americans have held an election, which has turned into a problem for other countries, including Iran and China. During his Iran visit, General Wanquan, China’s minister of defense, met and conferred with his Iranian counterpart, Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan, and their negotiations led to the signing of a defense and military agreement between the two countries.

However, under present conditions, the issue, which is considered as more important than the details of the trip and the agreement reached during it, is the future outlook for the strategic triangle among Iran, China and the United States. Relations between Iran and China are both old and new. During more than four decades, which have passed since establishment of new relations between the two countries, the United States has been playing a key role in shaping those relations. In other words, the modern ties between Iran and China have been always trilateral, not bilateral.

Before the Islamic Revolution, the United States acted as a catalyst and played a key role in shaping and early strengthening of these relations. Following the revolution and especially during the past decade, the United States has played multiple roles in this regard, the most important of which has been aimed at restricting these relations and creating important impediments on the way of their development, especially in all fields that would go beyond exporting “Chinese goods” to Iran.

Following the conclusion of Iran’s nuclear deal with the P5+1 group of countries, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), this triangle underwent some change. As a result, during the past year, the strategic pressure exerted by the United States on Iran’s relations with China has decreased and Iran has been treading the path toward desecuritization.

Apart from that and in a rare course of events, Iran, China, and the United States were expected to rebuild Iran’s Arak nuclear reactor in cooperation with one another, though this project is still far from the beginning. This is why the highest ranking Chinese official traveled to Iran immediately after signing of the JCPOA and following a hiatus of 14 years and even talked about the necessity of promoting the strategic partnership between Tehran and Beijing. In other words, during the post-JCPOA era, gradual signs have emerged showing that interactions between Iran and China are becoming bilateral and returning to normal track.

However, now and a relatively short while after implementation of the JCPOA started, the third side of this triangle has changed and this change has posed a key question as to the future outlook for interactions between Iran and China. In the United States, a man has been elected as president whose fame, more than anything else, is owned to his odd remarks and is so unaware and defiant of the international politics that – as put by the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker – he thinks Belgium is a village somewhere in Europe! Iran and China have been two main targets of his harsh remarks.

On the one hand, he has threatened that he will rip the JCPOA, while on the other hand, he has accused China of trade invasion against the United States, noting that his administration will consider 45-percent tariffs on China’s exports to the United States, which amount to about 500 billion dollars a year.

Of course, it goes without saying that the exigencies of election rhetoric in a clamorous society like that of the United States are totally different from exigencies of governing the same society. Another point is that in the United States, the ruling system evidently outdoes any person, though some people like the former US secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, have noted that the election win of president-elect, Donald Trump, would mean the collapse of the social contract in America. However, if Trump makes practical efforts to put in action even part of his harsh promises, the United States will once more enter the context of relations between Iran and China and will be potentially able to cause some form of “back to the future” in these relations. The question is how will China react if Trump starts by focusing on the JCPOA?

It is clear that China will find itself at a difficult crossroads where it will have to choose between interests and responsibility and it is very difficult to predict how it will behave under these conditions. If Trump does not rip the JCPOA, but try to once more securitize the Iran issue and define Iran within such conceptual frameworks as the so-called Axis of Evil and the likes of that, interactions between Iran and China will probably slow down and become difficult and complicated.

What would happen to planned cooperation among Iran, China and the United States for the reconstruction of Iran’s Arak nuclear reactor under such hypothetical future conditions? Another scenario, however, which can be thought of is one in which foolhardiness (as an indispensable part of politics) would cause the United States’ foreign policy to go astray and this would provide such reformist countries as Iran and China with unprecedented opportunities across the world. On the other hand, the combination of foolhardiness and power would make international politics more prone to catastrophe than any time before. If foolhardiness becomes a feature of the center of the world’s power, its catastrophic effects may afflict Iran and China before and more than others.

In short, relations between Iran and China are on the verge of a profound paradigmatic alteration as a result of this profoundly vague change in the United States. At present, both countries have to hope for the best and plan for the worst. What is clear now is that not only Iran and China, but also the rest of 194 world countries are studying and speculating about this rare phenomenon in international politics; a phenomenon, which takes place but once in several decades.

* Mohsen Shariatinia
Assistant Professor, Shahid Beheshti University

Source: http://www.irdiplomacy.ir

By Nargiz Hajiyeva*

In today’s globalized world, it is an arguable question for some analysts, academics, in particular commentators whether the EU is a typical kind of state or empire model carrying dimensions within the international plane. Basically, the EU has massive economic and political leverage that combines the pivotal set of values and norms in order to influence the various parts of the world.

It is undeniable fact that the EU with the rational implementation of economic and political power tries to enforce its different norms and values on other states as well. According to some analysts, the EU is not only an international actor within the international system.

There are some arguments in order to analyze this issue. First of all, in fact, today in global political economy, it can be false to take in account merely the EU as an international actor. In today’s world order, the increasing role of focal business firms, to a large extent, multinational corporations (MNC) or transitional corporations such as Mc Donald, Microsoft, Gazprom, and etc. gives them the opportunities to influence not only economic but also a political life of nation-states beyond boundaries. In a broad term, supranational corporations are not only the agents of member states but also independent and powerful actors. In today’s world, in order to create global governance, it is disputable to talk only about the EU as an international actor, therefore, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations and civic associations in international system can be able to also influence and change the international system. Hence, the enforcement measure of the EU is limited and cannot implement its norms and values in whole part of the world. Secondly, the US has a major power in terms of huge influence to different parts of the world. For example, the US has a legal legislative power and takes major privileges in order to execute the rules and settle the disputes in the WTO.

Furthermore, the problem with climate change is ongoing process and the EU cannot able to take unified enforcement measures and exact actions to tackle this problem, because of the fact that today, the major contributor of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide is the US, but compare to the administration of other US presidents, Barack Obama proclaimed last year the “climate year” to undertake major actions and steps regarding climate change. But in general, the hostility between the White House and congress impede the pivotal actions on climate change. Therefore, it is crystal clear that only with the involvement of the EU, nation states cannot talk about the settlement of the climate change. The EU has a regional power rather than international power. When it comes to naming the EU, we can say that the EU is not a state, because it does not have exact or unified boundaries, enforcement measures and etc. At the same time, the EU is not an empire like the contemporary US or nineteenth century Britain. To a large extent, the EU has a polycentric power structure rather than centralized governance dimension.

Currently, the enlargement and neighborhood policy of the EU is an ongoing process and provide the set of values, principles, and norms for other nation-states. The EU enlargement policy basically subjects to the political activities rather than economic and power policy. To a large extent, the policy of EU enlargement upholds the democratic principles and common values, the rule of law, respect for human rights, essential freedoms, basis of market economy, sustainable development and high-quality supremacy that be aimed at setting up democratic framework and basis for governmental structure for not only European countries, but also post-Soviet countries. Indeed, the EU is the only exterior power expected to control and influences the affairs in the Central and Eastern European countries, and also EaP’s countries through its transformative leverage. For the meantime, “furor” over the rising possible geopolitical gains of European Union also puts the Russian interests in jeopardy. We cannot say that the EU could not execute its policy regarding other countries; it has also a broad coercive diplomacy that imposed the economic sanctions on Iran, Russia, Syria and Sudan. The EU has also major implementation forces that broadly participated in the Kosovo and Yugoslavia crisis.

At that time the IFOR and SFOR (Joint Endeavor) implementation forces of NATO within the mandate of the UN were handed over to the supervision of the EU under the name of EUFOR. In conclusion, the EU is neither an empire nor a state, but in general, as a regional power it has a huge influence over nation-states. According to some analysts, the enlargement of the EU is much safer than the US power and it can be effective when its power is awe-inspiring and its set of values and principles are shared in not only the Central and Eastern European countries but also EaP countries. In order to be successful concerning its policy in the international plane, the EU needs to export its governance to other countries through economic means such as free trade, visa liberalization process and etc. Hence, the EU needs major enforcement measures through economic means, promotion of its policies, rules, and values that lead to the empowerment of other nation-states in the international system.

EU as a framing actor

The article investigates the EU foreign policy issues by engendering different kinds of debates and giving varied opinions in order to discuss the EU’s ability for upcoming years. Basically, in today’s world, according to some analysts, the main drawbacks of the EU capacity regarding its external policies are the lack of defining its own “national interests” and the threat of disintegration into national positions. The three main academic strands ignite the crucial debates in regard to the EU actorness in the contemporary world: legitimacy, attractiveness, and recognition.

The major trends over the three existing streams mention different approaches toward the EU foreign policy “power”. Therefore, it is crucial to understand and elucidate the paradigms of these strands. According to the legitimacy, the EU has its own national policy strategy and priorities that are perceived as an internally legitimate power by its own citizens. When it comes to the attractiveness and recognition the EU as an external actor can be characterized as a framing power and recognized by outsiders and other non-member states in terms of its external policy and functioning procedure. The EU as a legitimate actor has a huge ability to impose the national policy strategies and in particular undertake the enforcement measures belonging to entirely nation states. Hence it should follow its own interests coming from its internal policy strategy.

The second academic discourse envisages the wide-spread distribution of the EU system of governance beyond its boundaries without the use of force. In fact, the spreading of the EU governance policy toward nation-states has never based on the implementation of the use of force; instead, the pervasive acceptance of the EU’s set of norms and values concern on a voluntary incorporation with the EU by countries outside of it. Another broadly discussed topic mainly rests on the recognition of the EU as an independent power. Basically, in terms of its external policy and governance system, the nation states see the EU as a successful carrier of its own interests, especially, internal legitimacy and external power. To a large extent, the countries outside of the EU, perceive it as a successful independent actor within an international plane that can be able to undertake responsibilities and set up its own internal policy and own interests appertaining to member states of it.

In today’s world, the EU as an external actor has bilateral relations with some states as well. Basically, in order to analyze the relations with the EU in detail, Ukraine can be taken as an example in terms of the trends of relations between them. In fact, as one of the members of Eastern Partnership Programme, Ukraine is much more inclined to the pro-Western activities and supports its set of values and norms. Therefore, the EU and its institutions have fervent interests to nurture the relations with Ukraine and strengthen the relations for coming years. From the historical course, it is clear that Ukraine has faced many challenges and obstacles regarding the Russia-Ukraine energy (gas) crisis in 2009, and in particular, the 2004 Orange Revolution in regard to the Europeanization maneuvers of Ukraine. In the example of Ukraine, it is crucial to analyze the major procedures comes from the mass media and public discourse. In this case, the major European countries have to be taken into account towards Ukraine, the more inclined to the relations Germany, and less inclined to the relations with it, France and the UK. It is undeniable fact that those countries have a huge capacity to carry out diplomatic relations not only with Ukraine but also other countries. Therefore, they can be seen as major carriers of the EU external actions and maneuvers towards other countries.

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine brought more attention to an EU-wide approach in all three countries. Concerning the mass media and public discourse in Ukraine, although the EU is a predominant actor in national media analysis and discourse, at the same time, it has also a number of limitations. First of all, there is a lack of broad growth of the EU’s shares in the articles. Secondly, in terms of the bilateral relations with Ukraine, gives a less attention and care to the national media that how the data or information can be relevant for Ukraine in particular, the British media. In conclusion, the research apparently shows that the EU as a framing power mainly subjects to the shape of its governance policy rather than to rational perception of its exact policies and instruments. Inside the EU there are some limitations that it is facing today’s world. According to the fact that even today, there is not exact action and unified perceptions between the EU member states. Thereby, the EU’s stance and proposals can be characterized unidentified because of the contradictory views and approaches of the member states.

About the author:
*Nargiz Uzeir Hajiyeva is a policy analyst and independent researcher from Azerbaijan. She holds master degree from Vytautas Magnus University and Institute de Politique de Paris (Science Po). She got bachelor degree with distinction diploma at Baku State University from International Relations and Diplomacy. Her main research fields concern on international security and foreign policy issues, energy security, cultural and political history, global political economy and international public law. She worked as an independent researcher at Corvinus University of Budapest, Cold War History Research Center. She was also a successful participator of International Student Essay Contest, Stimson Institute, on how to prevent the proliferation of the world’s most dangerous weapons, by Harvard University, Harvard Kennedy School. She is also an independent researcher and a policy analyst at Observer.ge and Politicon.net platform, and Wikistrat.Between 2014 and 2015, she worked as a Chief Adviser and First Responsible Chairman In International and Legal Affairs at the Executive Power of Ganja. At that time she was defined to the position of Chief Economist at the Heydar Aliyev Center.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

This week, countries of the Special Programme for the Economies of Central Asia (SPECA)1 are convening under the Chairmanship of Azerbaijan in Ganja.

Eighteen years after the formation of SPECA, the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development offers a renewed opportunity for SPECA to play a more critical role in promoting subregional cooperation in Central Asia. Through fostering greater subregional cooperation, SPECA can support national implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as well as addressing many of the transboundary SDGs, such as ecosystems, natural resources, climate change, infrastructure connectivity and disaster risk reduction. Throughout this year, the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) has been working to strategically reposition SPECA so that it is able to support countries to address policy priorities in implementing the SDGs.

In this context, the first priority is to revive and rebalance economic growth in the subregion for equality, inclusion and social justice. The sluggish growth witnessed in the North and Central Asia (NCA) subregion in 20152, driven by declining commodity prices, has underlined the urgent need for countries to diversify their economic structure to achieve inclusive and sustainable economic growth. To diversify their growth engines, SPECA economies must focus on gaining competitiveness beyond primary commodity exports. To fully leverage global and regional value chain opportunities, NCA economies need to nurture new and dynamic businesses and expand into the growing markets for green technologies. SPECA economies need to accelerate their efforts to mobilize and facilitate direct investments that promote economic diversification, support small and medium-sized companies and allow for more inclusive growth in the subregion.

Given its strategic location linking Asia and Europe, the subregion requires enhanced infrastructure connectivity to support trade and investment competitiveness. Investing in the modernization of infrastructure related to transport, power generation and communication is an essential component of a pro-growth strategy. However, the lack of seamless cross-border infrastructure corridors has hindered the potential of the subregion to become a center of trade between the three big markets – East Asia, South Asia and Europe. Nevertheless, clear signs of progress in infrastructure connectivity are emerging through the Eurasian rail land bridge link, trans-Caspian multimodal routes, and the launch of energy connectivity projects such as the TAPI gas pipeline and the CASA-1000 electricity transmission link. As we move to the future it will be critical for Central Asia to effectively leverage opportunities offered by regional integration initiatives such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union.

To capitalize on the subregion’s demographics, investment in education, skills formation and health care is essential for improving workforce quality. Illustrating this need, the incidence of vulnerable employment in the subregion remains high, with over one-third of workers in five of the seven SPECA countries employed in vulnerable jobs. At the same time, the working-age population has already started to decline in many NCA economies. By 2050, the subregion will be the second largest host of persons over 60. Effectively managing this population transition will require timely planning, benefitting from experiences, lessons learnt, and best practices emerging from current population transitions in East and North-East Asia. To achieve poverty reduction and social inclusion, the NCA subregion will be critically dependent on increasing social protection.

Lastly, but of great significance to Central Asia, is leveraging subregional cooperation under SPECA to address shared vulnerabilities. NCA, for example, is highly vulnerable to climate change. Growing demands for water, energy and food, coupled with the increasing frequency and intensity of weather events and climate-related disasters, have exacerbated existing vulnerabilities. Opportunities exist for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in ways that enhance productivity and create jobs, such as energy efficiency, modernizing energy infrastructure and phasing-out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

ESCAP’s recently launched report The Economics of Climate Change in the Asia-Pacific Region, identified five key actions to address climate change in the region, all of which are relevant to North and Central Asia. These include adapting to climate change and improving resilience, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, encouraging renewable energy and energy efficiency, implementing carbon pricing and the scaling-up of climate finance. In addition, to better manage the effects of climate change-induced natural disasters, ESCAP’s newly established Asia-Pacific Centre for Disaster Information Management, hosted by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will provide multi-hazard early warning systems that will reduce the trade-offs inherent to the water-energy-food nexus and the climate change impacts of this semi-arid area.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has presented a window of opportunity for SPECA countries to transform their development model to one based on sustainability. ESCAP stands ready to support SPECA in realizing the full potential of subregional cooperation in support of sustainable development. I expect that the adoption of the Ganja Declaration will provide the foundations for the next phase of SPECA subregional cooperation in support of the 2030 Agenda, and will signal to the international community the strong leadership role of the SPECA subregion.

Notes:
1. SPECA was established in 1998 by the Presidents of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, with Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan joining the programme soon afterwards. Supported by two United Nations General Assembly resolutions, SPECA was created to enhance subregional cooperation in order to meet the pressing economic development challenges of its members.
2. Excluding the Russian Federation, average economic growth in the subregion slowed to 3.1% in 2015 from 5.4% in 2014. ESCAP Economic and Social Survey 2016

By James Stafford

When a massive country de-nationalizes its entire energy sector and opens its oil and gas doors for the first time ever to foreign companies, the opportunities are staggering.

Welcome to the ‘new’ Mexico, and welcome to the early stages of an oil and gas game that will be bigger—from an investor’s perspective—than anything in history.

Mexico’s move to implement historic energy reform legislation in December 2013, and follow-up legislation in 2014 that further solidified the comprehensive de-nationalization, provides an unprecedented opportunity for oil companies looking to tap into Mexico’s huge energy potential.

Mexico has ended the now 75-year monopoly of state-owned Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), and admitted in no uncertain terms that it needs foreign partners and investors. All of this has prompted the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) to revise its 2040 forecast for Mexican oil and gas production upwards by a whopping 76 percent.

All of this, says International Frontier Resources Corp. CEO Steve Hanson, means that “over the next four years, we will see accelerated growth for a country with massive oil and gas resources, excellent infrastructure, a transparent investment framework, and a new hunger for foreign partners. In short, it is the largest energy opportunity in the world today–and the door has just been opened.”

From the supermajors to the small-caps, the interest is expansive and the competition is only set to intensify. With this in mind, we’re looking at three companies that are taking optimal advantage of Mexico’s wide-open playing field both offshore and onshore. These companies know how to play it and why being a first-mover on this scene is so important:

Exxon Mobil: The Supermajor Run on Mexico’s Offshore Bounty

For Exxon, 5 December is crunch time for getting into Mexico. In August, Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE:XOM) joined Chevron Corp. (NYSE: CVX) and Hess Corp. (NYSE:HES) to jointly bid for rights to drill in Mexico’s deep waters in an auction set to take place on the fifth of December. So far, the three have a joint operating agreement, the details of which remain a mystery. A total of 21 companies have registered for this auction–including major international players Shell (NYSE:RDS.A), Italian ENI (NYSE:E), and BP (NYSE:BP)–which will put up 10 offshore areas.

These offshore blocks are said to be Mexico’s most lucrative, keeping in mind that some 76 percent of the country’s potential oil resources are in the deep-waters. The reserves in these 10 blocks are said to be worth an estimated US$10 billion.

But where it gets really interesting is that this massive interest in Mexico’s offshore potential was already signed on before Pemex announced a string of new offshore discoveries in September. A total of six new oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico—two in deep water and four in shallow—up the ante on the auction even further. The combined reserves of the two deep-water discoveries alone are estimated at 140-160 million barrels of oil equivalent (proven, probable and possible, or 3P, reserves).

Then we have the Trion discovery in the northern Gulf of Mexico, also up for auction on 5 December. The bidding rules have recently been changed for Trio, paving the way for a single operator to work alongside Pemex for 60 percent of this massive project. Trion is estimated to have 3P reserves of 480 million barrels of oil equivalent, and it covers 1,250 square kilometers just south of the US-Mexico maritime border.

This is one of the most intense exploration areas in the world right now, and the Mexican government is hoping to bring in around US$7 billion in investment from this auction, not including Trion.

But this is for the investor who is looking to play Mexican oil at the highest level, and for the long term. Exploration of these areas up for grabs can take around eight years and another two years to take it to production. Deep-water exploration is expensive—even if Mexico is one of the cheapest venues to operate in—so this is a long-term game that could ride out today’s depressed oil prices.

Pan American: First Foreigners to Start Drilling Offshore

The first non-Pemex operator to get to drilling offshore Mexico since the reforms were implemented was Argentine Pan American Energy, whose owners include British giant BP Plc (NYSE:BP), China’s CNOOC, and Argentine conglomerate Bridas.

Pan American beat out five other offers for the Hokchi shallow water block last year, and on 30 October began drilling operations, targeting a depth of 2,867 meters below the drilling rig floor. The block is some 27 kilometers off the port of Dos Bocas in the state of Tabasco. Initially, Pan American and its Argentine partner will invest over US$212 million in a four-well plan over two years.

What’s next in Mexico’s shallow waters? Next year, will see Pemex farm-outs in the Ayin-Batsil (shallow waters) and Ogarrio and Cardenas-Mora, both high-potential onshore areas.

Stay tuned as Pan American drills deeper.

International Frontier Resources (V.IFR): First Move Onshore

One of the ‘first movers’ in Mexico’s onshore bonanza was International Frontier Resources, which secured the Tecolutla Block in Mexico’s first onshore licensing round. And this is where the idyllic partnerships come into play: The joint venture behind this onshore play is Tonalli Energia, a 50/50 deal which brings together Canadian oil and gas company IFR and Mexico’s Grupo Idesa, a leader in the Mexican petrochemical industry.

The JV won the Tecolutla block, otherwise known as “Block 24”, and signed a historic license contract with the Mexican government on 25 August.

It’s not just the block that’s important, it’s the fact that it places the JV among the first on the scene: This gives this small-cap a very large-cap strategic operating presence in the Tampico-Misantla Basin and a solid foothold into Mexico’s lucratively liberated oil and gas sector.

The ‘new’ Mexico is a great venue for an ambitious junior. What makes it even more attractive is the fact that production in Mexico is among the cheapest in the world. So even if we are looking at today’s depressed oil prices, Mexico still makes economic sense; there is still a profit to be turned here, while at the same time setting up investors for a long-term financial bonanza when prices rebound.

Development costs in Mexico’s oil patch, according to Deloitte, come in at an average of $23 per barrel. But it gets even better than that: Roughly 60 percent of the country’s production comes from areas that cost around $10-$21/per barrel to develop.

While Mexico’s deep-water offerings are mouth-watering, and a foreign company has already started drilling in the shallow waters, the massive onshore conventional fields are cheaper and easier to develop, making for an attractive, easy way to get a foothold in this ‘new’ venue.

Mexico has multiple large conventional onshore oil fields with significant upside once we start talking about modern technology brought in by foreign partners, and the ability to take exploration farther into tighter reservoirs to increase recoverable reserves.

Mexico was producing around 2.8 MMOBPD in 2014—87% of it crude oil. By the end of that same year, Mexico had 9.8 billion barrels of proved oil reserves. Of that 2014 production, 25% came from onshore fields.

On the Tecolutla block, Tonalli is planning to work-over existing wells to get production on stream while preparing to drill their first well. And to this end, the company is bringing new technology to take peak production to new levels. While Tecolutla is oil-weighted, Tonalli is open to pursuing both oil and gas opportunities, and this first block is just the beginning of a plan to make an aggressive move on Mexico’s next onshore offerings.

Natural gas isn’t off the table, particularly because Mexico is a net importer and IFR’s JV partner, Grupo Idesa, is itself a huge user of natural gas.

In August, Mexico launched the tender of 12 new onshore exploration and production contracts as part of its second phase auction. Nine of these contracts are in the Burgos basin and three are in the Sureste basin. Winners will be announced on April 7th, 2017. Look out for this company in round two of Mexico’s onshore auction.

Next year, we should see at least seven additional onshore opportunities, with another 64 blocks up for grabs in 2018—not to mention 86 natural gas contracts. All told, we’re looking at 59,600 km2 acres of conventional and unconventional exploration in more than 200 onshore blocks and 150 Pemex farm-out blocks.

It’s all about partnerships—and from an investor’s perspective, this is where it really matters. Mexico’s strategy is intended to “dramatically expand” the use of partnerships in exploration and production over the next five years—opening up an amazing number of opportunities. In the next two years alone, we’re looking at 160 very specific opportunities for foreign companies.

Schlumberger CEO Paal Kibsgaard recently told investors that a “momentum shift” is coming in Mexico, and drilling should begin to pick up speed next year.

Right now, there is nothing bigger than Mexico when it comes to oil and gas sales. We’re talking about North America, large oil reserves, good infrastructure, and discoveries that are already in development. As such, the waiting list is going to be a long one, so the first movers are key.

With undeniably high-quality crude coming in at prices below today’s Brent or WTI, this is a gold mine for foreign oil and gas companies, and a gold mine for investors who figure out the game.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Mexicos-Oil-Reform-Is-A-Huge-Opportunity-For-Investors.html

India’s application could not acknowledge a confirmatory response from a few members of the Group, yet it leaves the impression that New Delhi is determined for the full membership of NSG. Like the Seoul plenary meeting of June 23-24, 2016 failed to reach a consensus in 48 members of NSG cartel, the recent consultative group’s meeting also could not reach to any consensus with regards to India’s bit for NSG.

It is evident that both India and Pakistan are consistently encountering tough resistance in getting the membership of NSG in the near future. Many members of the Group seem determined to thwart non-NPT members attempt to join the Group without a criteria-based approach. Nevertheless, New Delhi has robustly been lobbying with the intense support of Washington and its like-minded countries since 2010 to get a ‘special treatment’ by the NSG members. Simultaneously, Islamabad is equally determined to join the NSG.

Even though Pakistan wishes to be included in the NSG cartel on the basis of merit, it also wants to draw attention to the issue of discrimination in the group’s membership.

India is being treated on favorable terms, with laws amended and waivers granted to accommodate it. This despite the fact that India’s diversion of nuclear material and equipment for the so-called peaceful explosion of 1974 was the prime reason behind the creation of the NSG. It was created to prevent the diversion of nuclear material from civilian trade to military purposes, with seven suppliers of advanced nuclear technology, i.e. United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France, Japan, West Germany, and Soviet Union, getting together to form a cartel to control nuclear technology supplied for peaceful uses. India violated its obligations with Canada, diverting plutonium from the Canadian-Indian reactor that was being run by U.S. heavy-water, which was provided purely for peaceful purposes.

In view of the strong opposition from several countries, it is likely that both India and Pakistan may not be accepted into the NSG in the immediate future. However, if the United States once again coerces the NSG participating governments, as it did in 2008, Pakistan would not have any choice but to review its engagement with the international nonproliferation regime, which is increasingly becoming a tool to serve only the interests of major powers.

The other option for Pakistan could be to start a diplomatic campaign to convince the NSG members of its needs and capabilities, and simultaneously highlight India’s non-adherence of the promises made as part of the nuclear deal with the United States; Pakistan should continue nuclear cooperation with China, while also focusing on economic development to attract other nuclear vendors to explore commercial benefits in the country.

Pakistan has two time-slots that should be capitalized. First is the time slot till the next plenary meeting of NSG; this time should be capitalized in promoting Pakistan’s perspective regarding NSG membership through proactive diplomatic and political representation across the 48 NSG nations. The second window of opportunity comes in the backdrop of slow-pace developments in Indo-US nuclear cooperation, Pakistan has sufficient time to strengthen its politico-economic engagement with the rest of the world in general and with China in particular till the India-US nuclear deal gets materialized.

However, Pakistan needs to adopt a ‘Proactive Diplomacy’ rather than a ‘Reactive Diplomacy’. after the current NSG’s consultative Group meeting it is evident that India is not going to make in it even at this time. Because on countries stances, most of the country stances are same, yes Russia will review its stance again. China is standing on the same note. In addition to, 17 countries said further discussions are required on the subject whereas 12 called for immediate membership to India but no consensus yet. But obviously there should be criteria based approach for non-NPT members so that India and Pakistan get same treatment from the international community.

Digital India has been envisioned as an ambitious program to transform India into a digitally empowered society and a knowledge economy. The young population in India in the last decade has become increasingly technology-driven, revealing considerable potential and readiness to imbibe and learn using digital media.

Also there have been unprecedented reforms in the education system in India at all levels, where much effort and commitment has been directed at improving the quality of education at all levels, especially at the schools.

One of the important debates in the Indian education policy has been how to improve the educational outcomes within schools. In this context increasing the quality of teachers and thereby the student outcome, is one such issue that is discussed by policy makers time and again. Digital education today is no longer limited to the four walls of a classroom. It has paved way for virtual classrooms, making learning attainable and providing easy access everywhere and every time.

The latest trends in digital education space also include adaptive and collaborative learning where a student is engaged by practicing, experiencing, sharing things and gaining knowledge in a collaborative environment. The fourth generation of communication technology is speculated to revolutionize the digital education space by providing cutting-edge user experience. Thus, the government’s focus is to integrate technology in digital learning for both urban and rural India. It is also looking at public-private-partnerships to enhance reach to rural and remote areas.

In an effort to bring rural India in to the digital age, the Centre has launched the Digital India campaign. Some of this campaign’s targets include providing broadband connectivity to a quarter of a million rural villages by 2019 and making Wi-Fi connections available in schools. However, few pertinent questions that arise are; can technology alone bring a positive impact on learning? Is it capable of solving major educational problems in India? The answer is; only if we have a clear vision on how to enable technology help students learn better and teachers teach better. Therefore, there must be deliberations on finding solutions to hurdles like affordability, accessibility, mode of delivery and content.

This further put an emphasis on the teacher educators in the teacher training institutions, who need to end the sole emphasis on academic achievements, and put in efforts to continuously update themselves in order to advance the quality of education system and the quality of students’ learning.

There are expectations from teacher training institutions, which are responsible to provide pre service training to teachers, to bring a new cadre of teachers in the country, who will be well trained to deal with the demands of the digital era.

According to the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE, 2011); there are 12,052 teacher education institutions in India. These institutions are expected to train about 4.52 million teachers in about 5.98 lakh Primary Schools and 98 thousand High / Higher Secondary schools in the Indian education system. However, the teacher education programs have till date not yielded a way out to achieve teacher competency and teacher quality to meet the demands of digital era, where the talk-n-chalk classroom is being replaced by interactive whiteboard with projectors and speakers, which is student centric that breeds immersive learning environment.

Initiatives in Educational Technology

The young, today are facing a world in which communication and information revolution has led to changes in all spheres; scientific, technological, political, economic, social and cultural. New demands are often placed on the schools in addition to the existing ones; to be equipped with current knowledge and modern methods of acquiring new knowledge as the challenge has always been how the technology will get adopted to make a significant difference.

The continuous professional development of teachers in digital teaching strategies can change the contemporary digital divide and dismal landscape in Indian Education. Digital technologies like electronic tools, systems, devices and resources that generate store or process data are a part of teaching learning in the present era.

Teachers can collaborate to share their ideas and resources online.  They can communicate with other teachers of the same field across the globe and collaborate with them, refine their work and give the best to their students.

Such an approach of teachers would definitely enhance the practice of teaching as well as both students and teachers will have an access to vast material. There are plenty of resourceful, credible websites available on the Internet that both teachers and students can utilize. The Internet also provides a variety of knowledge and doesn’t limit students to one person’s opinion. Thus, Digital India can only be accompanied by digital education that too at micro level.

Certain government initiatives such as e-education, e-basta, Nand Ghar is supposed to impart education using technologies including smart phones, mobile apps and internet services in remote rural areas. With initiative like e-basta the government aimed at making school books accessible in digital form as e-books to be read on tablets and laptops. Further, there are plans to train the play school educators to use digital tools as teaching aids.

With the various digital initiatives that the government has launched, it is assumed that such a step will help strengthen access to technology especially in government schools and preschools. Such steps from the government will prove useful for teachers to constantly innovate and adapt to changes.

Teachers shall thus develop critical, evidence-based attitudes, be adaptive to digital teaching strategies and would make efforts to facilitate digital curating culture in the education system. Already the changed perspective is evident from the fact that a good number of schools are taking steps to adopt the digital approach to learning; they have now switched to smart boards and are no longer rigid in their teaching methodologies.

Impact of Technology

The role of technology in education has been an important issue today with debates about the impact of technology on our society. The implications of quick and easy online access to information for knowledge and learning and the effect of technology on young people’s social, emotional and physical development are well recognized facts.

Teachers lack the required competencies to meet the digital education demands. The major role is to be played by the teacher training institutes but unfortunately these institutions are suited to traditional system of schooling. The inputs provided to student teachers in the teacher training institutions are traditional in nature and as per the traditional Indian classroom situations, the curriculum lack the global perspective and the need of digital knowledge base.

The present digital age of modern technologies require teachers to have deep subject knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge and the knowledge of new technologies applied to subject teaching (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). It is therefore important to take stock of what we know about the impact of digital technology on education from what we have learned till yet.

The National Policy on Education (NPE) 1986 subsequently revised in 1992, the NCTE and the NCF emphasised on teacher training institutions to be prepared for the 21st century challenges and recommended replacement of rote learning in classrooms by pupil-cantered, activity cantered teaching learning process and creating an atmosphere where children feel valued.

Expectations are thus from the teacher education institutions to take a note of it and prepare themselves to meet the lifelong learning needs of the present society. Education system today has undergone a major shift from teacher dominated classes to digital generations, where students do not solely depend on teachers for knowledge gain, classrooms are virtual and multicultural and the knowledge based society and the intellectual capital has the power to control.

It is of utmost urgency for the educational institutions to change their way of working and be prepared to the need of the coming generations, where the classrooms will be comprised of multi-national children and require multilingual pedagogy, multiple approaches and methods of teaching.

To meet the present digital age challenges teachers must realise their changed role in the school management. Schools expect teachers to take decisions, keep themselves updated with knowledge, and be self improving to be able to cope with the stress of the changing times. A paradigm shift is necessary in teacher training program from a new technology development perspective, as even today teachers are not prepared for the use of digital systems and are unable to handle Intercultural classrooms. This places more responsibilities on the teacher training institutions to come out with new plans of teacher education and meet the needs of digital savvy society.

Conclusion

The ability to deal with demands of digital era and be creative to learn and transfer knowledge in different modes especially in ICT and distance modes is of major concern today.

Nevertheless, technology has the potential to improve learning outcomes when well integrated into the learning process. This puts a demand on the teacher training institutions to work towards empowering prospective teachers and enable teachers to be techno savvy in the classrooms to handle the growing demand for innovative pedagogy in the digital era.

Schools must facilitate teachers to be innovative in classrooms, to be able to create digital tools and resources, to be able to form digital teachers club, enhance online work culture and be prepared for all kinds of assessments, e.g. the online examination. This calls for a number of stakeholders to come together and support the initiative and thereby strengthen the education sector in India.

India cannot deny the power of technology in bringing educational reforms as there are almost 131 million households with cellular phones in the country. Thus, delivering education through the digital platform to children and teachers could be a potential way to bridge the education deficit.

In the aftermath of his victory, US President-elect Donald Trump has come under scrutiny in his cabinet appointments. Across the political spectrum, concern has been raised over his reported choices for the top diplomatic position of secretary of state.

Public relations wise, Trump benefits by having a lengthy and diverse selection process – something that appears relatively evident. His reported consideration for John Bolton and Mitt Romney could be construed as a message of accommodation to those with neocon leanings. As US president, Trump has to deal with what his predecessors have faced – trying to reach out to the opposition, while not drifting too far away from the stated counter preferences.

For sure, the appointment of Romney as secretary of state, will be seen as a backtracking from Trump’s inclination to seek improved US-Russian ties. Trump and Romney had harsh things to say of each other. Their recent meeting, serves the optical impression of both men putting aside their differences out of respect for the country and its highest office. Whether they’ve actually buried the hatchet to the point of having Romney as secretary of state is questionable.

During the transition period to the presidency, Trump has conferred with Henry Kissinger and (as reported) is considering longtime Republican California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, for the secretary of state position. From a constructively critical, pro-Russian realist perspective, Rohrabacher seems like the best candidate under reported consideration. He has an extended Capitol Hill background in addressing foreign policy issues. In the last few years, Rohrabacher has shown (when compared to his congressional peers) an objective enough understanding of Russia’s position.

In comparison to some of the other reported secretary of state candidates (notably Bolton and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani), Rohrabacher should’ve an easier timer in getting Senate confirmation approval for the position in question. Bolton is viewed in some influential circles as having an overly aggressive foreign policy stance. Giuliani’s business ties outside the US and his degree of substantive foreign policy experience have been questioned. He’s perhaps better suited for a spot dealing with domestic matters. Giuliani’s support base, close ties to Trump and interest in the secretary of state job, improves the New Yorker’s odds in getting that position.

Rohrabacher’s long standing pro-Israeli Reagan Republican persona makes him compatible with much of the American political establishment. In the 1990s, he supported a hardline stance against Yugoslavia (Serbia & Montenegro). More recently, he has advocated wooing Russia away from China. This latter advocacy appears difficult. Ideally, the Kremlin seems to seek improved ties with the West, without hindering its relationship with Beijing. Rohrabacher has suggested that recognizing Kosovo’s independence is a basis for considering Crimea’s changed territorial status. (Along with some others, neocons and neolibs assert that Kosovo’s independence is legit unlike Crimea’s reunification with Russia. If anything, I believe the reverse to be true. This is a subject worthy for a lengthy high profile debate.)

In their coverage of the secretary of state opening, the three main US cable TV news stations (Fox, MSNBC and CNN) have had little, if any mention of Rohrabacher being considered for that spot – instead focusing on the other candidates. Trump is known to detest (what he sees) as flawed aspects of the media. His selection of Rohrabacher would serve the purpose of sticking it to the media, as well as choosing an acceptable enough individual by mainstream standards.

Besides Rohrabacher, Tennessee Republican Senator Bob Corker, is the other reported secretary of state candidate, who is currently in elected office, with establishment foreign policy experience. Corker’s foreign policy views don’t match Trump’s perspectives as well as Rohrabacher’s.

For the purpose of cozying up to the establishment, the selection of Corker or Romney would be Trump’s best bet. On that score, Rohrabacher arguably falls somewhere between them and the options of Bolton or Giuliani. The establishment’s main sticking point against Rohrabacher, pertains to some of his Russia related views.

For now, the constructively critical, pro-Russian realist position shouldn’t be too hung up over the likes of former CIA head James Woolsey, involved with Trump’s transition. Granted, that Woolsey’s personal opinions on Russia leave something to be desired, as evident during a recent RT Worlds Apart Show. (Concerning that particular show, too bad there wasn’t more follow-up on some of his comments. Contrary to Woolsey, anti-Russian bigotry has been regretfully present in instances that include the bigoted influence of the Captive Nations Committee and the hypocritically flawed effort to get Russia banned from the Olympics.) Notwithstanding, Woolsey exhibits some flexibility in his stating the possibility for improved US-Russian relations.

Jared Kushner is said to be quite influential with his father-in-law Donald. To the dismay of some Russia unfriendly elements, Kushner’s New York Observer owned publication (recently renamed as Observer) has featured the politically incorrect commentary of Mikhail Klikushin. There’s of course Trump himself, who has pointedly gone against some of the establishment biases against Russia.

Let’s see how all of this plays out.

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. This article initially appeared at the Strategic Culture Foundation on November 22.

A study in contrasts: Less than two weeks ago, New York’s Hilton played host to Donald Trump’s victory party. On Monday night, November 21 the International Emmy Awards held their 44th annual gala, honoring the likes of “Deutschland 83”, Dustin Hoffman, and Shonda Rhimes, Variety reports.

The strangeness wasn’t lost on International Emmy Awards host Alan Cumming.

“This is a moment of utter luminescence,” Cumming said at the beginning of the ceremony. “But oh, how quickly darkness and despair can fall. I feel it is my moral obligation to inform you: This hall was the venue for one of the darkest, most destructive moments in our history.”

Cumming went on eloquently, and sometimes wryly, about the assembled artists “kicking the foul spirits” out of the venue simply by coming on stage to accept their awards. He likened the President-elect to a tumor.

“Tonight is about extinguishing bad energy and bigotry,” Cumming said. “There are no losers here, only winners-adjacent.”

Germany’s “Deutschland 83,” recently renewed for a second season by SundanceTV and Amazon, took home the trophy for best drama. The UK’s “Hoff the Record” scored best comedy. Telemundo’s “Francisco, El Jesuita” won for U.S. non-English program.

Dustin Hoffman snagged the best actor award for playing Mr. Hoppy in the BBC’s “Roald Dahl’s Esio Trot,” an adaptation of the Dahl novel. Hoffman was not on hand accept his award.

“Scandal” star Tony Goldwyn introduced prolific writer-producer Rhimes, recipient of the International Academy of Television Arts & Sciences’ Founders Award.

“The world needs Shonda Rhimes now more than ever,” he said. “With our political dialogue sadly focused on what divides us, she is a reminder of Maya Angelou’s phrase, ‘We are more alike than unalike, my friends.’ ”

Rhimes also addressed the political climate in the wake of Trump’s win in her remarks.

“It’s times like this I’m reminded how big a reach television has. It’s the most powerful form of communication in the world,” she said. “A lot of people are scared here. They’re afraid their voices will no longer be heard, or that they will be silenced. Three hundred million viewers in 57 countries. My pen has power. I’m thinking about that.”

A team of scientists conducting a recent biodiversity survey in the ancient church forests of Ethiopia made an unexpected discovery — a rather infamous ant species (Lepisiota canescens) displaying signs of supercolony formation.

According to D. Magdalena Sorger, a post-doctoral researcher with the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences and a key member of the team, the discovery is significant for two reasons. First, supercolony formation in ants is rare, with documented cases of only around 20 species worldwide.

Second, other species in the Lepisiota genus have recently made headlines as worrisome invasive species, one in South Africa’s Kruger National Park and another that shut down Australia’s Darwin Port for several days. The team’s findings, were published in Insectes Sociaux in November.

In Ethiopia, forests frequently surround Orthodox churches, some of which are more than 1,500 years old. These forests range in size from only a few hectares to more than 400 (~1,000 acres) and can be considered relict oases within largely barren land and agricultural fields. While L. canescens is native to the general region, it is now moving in large numbers into disturbed habitat like some of the more degraded church forests, but also beyond forest boundaries, into neighboring agricultural fields, and along recently constructed roads and other urban structures.

And that might be just the beginning, said lead author Sorger, who worked on this study while at North Carolina State University.

“The species we found in Ethiopia may have a high potential of becoming a globally invasive species. Invasive species often travel with humans, so as tourism and global commerce to this region of Ethiopia continues to increase, so will the likelihood that the ants could hitch a ride, possibly in plant material or even in the luggage of tourists. All it takes is one pregnant queen. That’s how fire ants started!”

Supercolonies are colonies that extend beyond just a single nest and can sometimes cover many thousands of miles. The strongest basis for describing a large colony as a supercolony is its capacity to expand its range without constraints. In this study, the scientists found several supercolonies of L. canescens, the largest one spanning 38 km (24 miles). Molecular analysis of these ants showed lots of genetic diversity within and between supercolonies, indicating supercolony members were not more closely related and this species was native to the region. These are the largest documented supercolonies of a native ant species. Yet their exploding numbers, along with their observed ecological dominance as well as general nesting and diet, are all characteristics reminiscent of an invasive species.

Overall, Sorger believes Ethiopian church forests might be ground zero for a new dominant ant species with high global invasion potential, and the data her and colleagues are collecting on this species could become critical in the case of an invasion.

“It is good to have a record of what this species does in its native habitat,” Sorger said. “Rarely do we know anything about the biology of a species before it becomes invasive.”

A new multi-institutional study of the so-called global warming “hiatus” phenomenon — the possible temporary slowdown of the global mean surface temperature (GMST) trend said to have occurred from 1998 to 2013 — concludes the hiatus simply represents a redistribution of energy within the Earth system, which includes the land, atmosphere and the ocean.

In a paper published in Earth’s Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, lead author Xiao-Hai Yan of the University of Delaware, Newark; along with leading scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and University of Washington, discuss new understandings of the global warming “hiatus” phenomenon.

In particular, the researcher’s point to the prominent role played by the global ocean in absorbing the extra heat from the atmosphere by acting as a “heat sink” as an explanation for the observed decrease in GMST, which is considered a key indicator of climate change.

“The hiatus period gives scientists an opportunity to understand uncertainties in how climate systems are measured, as well as to fill in the gap in what scientists know,” explained Yan, Mary A.S. Lighthipe Chaired Professor in the College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment and director of UD’s Center for Remote Sensing.

“Individually, each of us carries some research into this topic and many of my co-authors are leading scientists who have studied this topic from various and often diverse angles.”

“The hiatus in the rise of global surface temperature is over, but understanding the processes involved helps us with future predictions” continued co-author Kevin Trenberth of National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The paper grew out of a special US CLIVAR panel session at the 2015 AGU fall meeting and includes the following distinguished co-authors:

• Tim Boyer, NOAA /National Centers for Environmental Information (co-lead author),
• Kevin Trenberth, NCAR,
• Thomas R. Karl, independent consultant,
• Shang-Ping Xie, Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
• Veronica Nieves, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA-JPL) and University of California Los Angeles,
• Ka-Kit Tung, University of Washington, and
• Dean Roemmich, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Where is the missing heat?

While Yan said it is difficult to reach complete consensus on such a complex topic, after a thorough review of the literature and much discussion and debate, there are a number of key points on which these leading scientists concur:

• From 1998 to 2013, the rate of global mean surface warming, which some call the “global warming hiatus,” slowed.
• Natural variability plays a large role in the rate of global mean surface warming on decadal time scales.
• Improved understanding of how the ocean distributes and redistributes heat will help the scientific community better monitor the Earth’s energy budget.

Earth’s energy budget is a complex calculation of how much solar energy enters our climate system from the sun and what happens to it: how much is stored by land, in the ocean or in the atmosphere.

“To better monitor the Earth’s energy budget, and its consequences, the ocean is most important to consider because the amount of heat it can store is extremely large when compared to the land or atmospheric capacity,” said Yan.

According to the paper, arguably, the most appropriate single variable in the Earth’s system that can be used to monitor global warming is ocean heat content integrated from the surface to different layers and to the bottom of the ocean.

Charting future research

In the near term, the scientists hope this paper will lay the foundation for future research in the global change field. To begin, they suggest the climate community replace the term “global warming hiatus” with “global surface warming slowdown” to eliminate confusion.

“This terminology more accurately describes the pause in the increase of the ocean’s global mean surface temperature in the late 20th century,” Yan said.

The scientists also called for continued support of current and future technologies for ocean monitoring as a means to reduce observation errors in sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. This includes maintaining Argo, the main system for monitoring ocean heat content, and the development of Deep Argo to monitor the lower half of the ocean; the use of ship-based subsurface ocean temperature monitoring programs; advancements in the use of robotic technologies such as autonomous underwater vehicles to monitor marginal seas and shelf and coastal regions; and further development of real- or near-real-time deep ocean remote sensing methods.

Yan’s research group reported in a 2015 paper that some coastal oceans’ (e.g. U.S. East Coast, China Coast) response to the recent global surface warming slowdown are three times larger than what is found in the open ocean.

“Although these regions represent only a fraction of the ocean volume, the changing rate of ocean heat content is faster here and real time data and more research are needed to quantify and understand what is happening,” Yan said.

Variability and heat sequestration over specific regions (i.e. Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Southern Oceans, etc.) was also discussed and requires further investigation. However, there is broad agreement among the scientists and in the literature that the slowdown of GMST increase from 1998-2013 was the “result of increase uptake of heat energy by the global ocean during those years.”

Apart from facilitating global trade between US and its Asia-Pacific partners, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) also seeks to promote better governance and human security. However the declared US intention to abort the TPP has shifted the ground for globalisation and moved key players to look inwards and prioritise national objectives over their commitment to multilateral cooperative frameworks.

By Arunajeet Kaur*

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is not simply a trade agreement among 12 Asia-Pacific countries. It is a strategic arrangement using free trade as an anchor. It was signed on 4 February 2016 in New Zealand after seven years of hard negotiations. The TPP originated from the P4 free trade regime set up by Brunei, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore. The US seized upon this P4 pact to erect an economic edifice to complement the American security umbrella in the region.

The underlying assumption is that as a wide -ranging partnership, the TPP would serve as a counterweight to the ambition of a rising China. At the same time, the TPP could help open exclusive sectors in places like Japan, Vietnam and Malaysia where protectionism, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and ethnic-based affirmative action have restricted US commercial penetration. The bait was the lucrative US market. Consequently, Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam joined the P4 countries and the US. The TPP agreement has 30 chapters which cover issues far beyond a typical free trade agreement including, the environment, labour standards and SOEs.

Embedding Non-trade Issues

US negotiators pushed hard to have TPP provisions facilitate a larger flow of foreign direct investment (FDI) into the US by partner country investors. Besides increasing employment opportunities in US export-related sectors, the TPP is supposed to increase inward FDI which was anticipated to bring jobs, capital, R&D spending, technology and productivity improvements to the US economy. However, anti-TPP quarters agitated that if the TPP would have positive effects, these would only be a small percentage of the overall size of the US economy as the TPP stands to bring greater gains to the US partners instead.

The TPP promises strong protection for workers, requiring all TPP parties to adopt and maintain in their laws practices of fundamental rights as recognised by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). This includes freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining; elimination of forced labour, abolition of child labour and the elimination of employment discrimination. It also comprises commitments for all TPP parties to have laws governing minimum wages, hours of work and occupational safety and health. These workers’ protection rights are fully enforceable by trade sanctions.

This enhanced labour protection is in line with the Obama administration’s policy of utilising ‘21st century components’ to address governance and human security in multilateral trade deals. These refer to the Obama administration philosophy with regard to domestic governance in drug rehabilitation, education, technology as well as defence policy that concentrated on education, a skilled workforce, knowledge, energy and expertise to compete in the global marketplace, diplomacy and development.

For the TPP, applying ‘21st century components’ entails recognising that the deal goes beyond a mere free trade agreement. It enables foreign governments to change respective national policies on government procurement, SOEs (including GLCs as known in Malaysia and Singapore) and the protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs).

The ASEAN Players

Within ASEAN, three countries – Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia – have concluded bilateral implementation plans with the US over ensuring that their laws and practices are consistent with international labour standards. Vietnam’s implementation plan includes commitments on its part to allow workers the autonomy to form and operate unions of their own choosing. Under the TPP, Vietnam will allow workers to establish and join an independent union, with full autonomy to elect their own leaders, adopt a constitution and bargain collectively.

Sceptics have questioned the enforceability of labour standards in Vietnam. Vietnamese authorities on the other hand have admitted the possibility of rising labour costs, especially to the foreign investor community, if it is to abide by the TPP regulations on labour enhancement.

Meanwhile, the TPP commits Malaysia to significant legal and institutional reforms, especially in areas of forced labour and freedom of association. With regard to forced labour, Malaysia commits to fully implement the recently passed amendments to the Anti Trafficking Law to allow trafficking victims to travel, work and stay in non-governmental facilities. Due to pressure from the TPP, Brunei has passed legislation amending its labour laws involving union practices.

China Pivots In

President Obama has stressed that for the US to turn its back on the TPP would be to allow China to write the rules in global economic engagement. This was confirmed at the recent APEC CEO Summit in Peru. Chinese President Xi Jingping said China will continue to open up its economy amidst recent developments such as the election of Donald Trump as the next US President and Brexit in Europe, as rising protectionism around the world leads to a global slowdown in trade.

President Xi laid emphasis on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between the ten member states of the ASEAN and the six states with which ASEAN has existing FTAs (Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand).

RCEP is seen as a rival to the TPP. While the RCEP seeks to facilitate trade and services, unlike the TPP, there are no provisions for labour enhancement and non- trade issues. Negotiations within the RCEP has already come under criticism over its implementation of copyright or related rights over digital networks, flagging less than desirable values in global trade, business and multilateralism.

Is withdrawal from TPP a knee-jerk reaction by the Donald Trump presidency to reject anything Obama or a game of brinkmanship by the ideologues in the US polity? Abandoning the TPP will undoubtedly undermine the credibility of the US. Henceforth, the value of any cooperation with the US appears limited as Washington turns inward-looking. The loss of the gains in delivering on the ‘21st century components’ may be small but the implications on the reliability of the US leadership could well be an irreversible erosion of the US role in the global system.

*Arunajeet Kaur PhD is a Visiting Research Fellow with the Centre for Non Traditional Security (NTS) Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.