Indonesia-Singapore relations, after initial uncertainties and suspicions, have matured in the past 50 years. What lessons can be derived for relations for the next five decades?

By Keoni Indrabayu Marzuki*

Indonesia-Singapore bilateral relations have come a long way from their uncertain beginnings in the mid-1960s to their present state in 2017. They officially began in 1967 with the end of Confrontation against the backdrop of the 30 September abortive coup in 1965 that resulted in the replacement of President Sukarno by General Suharto.

The establishment of diplomatic relations in 1967, signified by the official opening of the Singapore Embassy in Jakarta, was marred by suspicions and tensions arising from the aftermath of Konfrontasi. The uneasy beginning is exemplified by the trial and hanging of two Indonesian marines in October 1968 convicted for the bombing of MacDonald House in 1965, which led to the ransacking of the Singapore Embassy in Jakarta. Tension remained until Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s visit to Indonesia in 1973, during which he scattered flowers over the graves of the marines, bringing a symbolic closure to the Konfrontasi chapter.

Enter the New Era

Post-Confrontation, Indonesia-Singapore relations flourished. Indonesia and Singapore’s participation, together with Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand, in the founding of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1967 marked the departure from the turbulent relations.

More significantly, PM Lee and President Suharto established a personal rapport that underpinned the close and friendly relations that bloomed over the next three decades, despite occasional tensions over security issues. Among them was Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor in 1975, on which Singapore abstained from the UN resolution that condemned Indonesia’s occupation while other ASEAN member states voted against.

Notwithstanding the occasional strain in relations, Indonesia and Singapore developed robust cooperation in defence and security matters and conducted joint military training exercises, thus enhancing mutual confidence and trust. Both countries had a mutual interest in seeking to forge “regional resilience” through their respective national resilience, to withstand the various challenges arising from global geopolitics. Bilateral economic cooperation expanded, particularly in trade and investments, as Indonesia’s economy developed and invited Singapore to invest in industrial parks in Riau Islands and Sumatra.

Indonesia-Singapore Relations Post-Suharto

The abrupt collapse of the New Order and the downfall of Suharto against the backdrop of the Asian financial crisis in 1998 ushered the dawn of Reformasi, another challenging chapter in Indonesia-Singapore ties.

The changed political landscape with the emergence of pro-democracy forces meant that Singapore could no longer rely on the rapport between Suharto and Lee Kuan Yew as well as networks forged under the New Order government. Thus Singapore had to forge new linkages with emerging Indonesian elites to maintain mutual understanding and rebuild partnerships.

The rise of regional and local leaders accompanying decentralisation in post-Suharto Indonesia generated new political dynamics which Singapore had to contend with. Nevertheless, Indonesia-Singapore ties remained robust, exemplified by the many sectors in which the countries have cooperated in, from trade, communications, tourism, community and cultural exchanges to defence and security as well as ASEAN integration.

The positive development of post-Suharto bilateral ties is best illustrated on the economic front. Bilateral trade in 2015 amounted to US$58.7 billion, compared to US$10.4 billion in 2000, making Indonesia Singapore’s fourth largest trading partner in that period.

Singapore has consistently been Indonesia’s gateway for foreign direct investment in recent years. Official Indonesian figures show FDI into Indonesia from Singapore in 2016 totalled US$9.1 billion with more than 5,800 projects, whereas investment from Japan and China amounted to US$5.4 billion and US$ 2.6 billion respectively. Both countries recently launched the joint development of an industrial park in Semarang (Central Java), inaugurated by President Joko Widodo and PM Lee Hsien Loong.

Defence and security ties have remained strong as exemplified by regular joint military exercises, the trilateral coordinated maritime patrols in the Malacca Strait to counter piracy, and security cooperation against transnational terrorism. Singapore was also involved in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief in Indonesia, namely in the tsunami-hit Aceh in 2004, Yogyakarta in 2006, and in search-and-rescue efforts for the ill-fated Air Asia QZ 8501 in 2014. Above all, the Indonesian and Singaporean leadership remain committed to cordial ties.

Persistent Undercurrents and Common Challenges

Certain undercurrents persist in Indonesia-Singapore relations such as the trans-boundary haze from Indonesia, issues surrounding the status of Indonesian assets parked in Singapore, and demand by certain Indonesian quarters for control of the airspace over the Riau and Natuna Islands. These aside, the formative history of Indonesia-Singapore relations, such as Konfrontasi and the PRRI/Permesta rebellion in the late 1950s when foreign economic and military assistance was funnelled through British Singapore, had shaped Indonesia’s perception of Singapore. This might re-emerge and incite tensions.

The brouhaha surrounding the Usman-Harun ship-naming incident (after the two hanged commandos) is a testament to how residual grievances from the past persist. There may be other unexpected undercurrents that could affect relations. An example is the recent limitation of Singapore Airlines flights to Indonesia due to runway improvements at Jakarta’s international airport. Domestic elements within both countries and deeply entrenched negative perceptions of one another may further impinge on bilateral relations.

Both countries also face common challenges from the regional strategic environment and the growing assertiveness of extra-regional powers. China’s claim over most of the South China Sea, for example, potentially affects the freedom of navigation and overflights of the international waterway which both countries rely on.

Moreover, the ensuing great power rivalry in the Asia-Pacific has driven a wedge in ASEAN and undermined its hard-earned cohesion. That said, China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road initiative offers avenue for both countries to pursue new economic opportunities. Singapore has a common interest in Indonesia’s vision to play its role as a “Maritime Fulcrum” along the revived Maritime Silk Road connecting the western Pacific with the Indian Ocean.

Towards the Next 50 Years

The past 50 years of Indonesia-Singapore relations have shown that despite the episodic instances of discord and tensions, the two countries have a strong interest in maintaining harmonious bilateral relations for their mutual benefit.

Despite the close and warm ties overall, discord could still flare up to mar Indonesia-Singapore relations in the future given the persistence of undercurrents in ties, domestic perceptions of one another and new dynamics in their common strategic environment.

Nevertheless, going forward, both Indonesia and Singapore should not let discord and tension define their relations. On the contrary, both countries need to maintain their close cooperation as good neighbours and good partners in ASEAN. They need to build new initiatives while cultivating existing channels of communication to enhance mutual understanding.

How Indonesia-Singapore relations will develop in the next 50 years will be determined chiefly by the domestic politics of both countries; the changes in the Southeast Asian region; as well as the progress of ASEAN Community, which will involve their economic relations with the rest of ASEAN.

Notwithstanding their contrasting sizes, populations, resources and economies, Indonesia and Singapore share a common geopolitical destiny and a shared geostrategic future; they are both at the crossroads of the Indo-Pacific region astride the fulcrum of Southeast Asia.

About the author
*Keoni Marzuki is a Senior Analyst at the Indonesia Programme, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

The recently announced US strategy for Afghanistan was welcomed by the Indian Government but does not address underlying Indian concerns. Indian diplomacy has to convince major strategic partners of the advantages of a US strategy that aims at “killing terrorists” in Afghanistan.

By Tara Kartha*

The announcement of the much-awaited United States strategy for Afghanistan by President Donald Trump was welcomed by India as a positive step in contributing to stability. In confronting the issue of safe havens there is much in the strategy to satisfy New Delhi.

Firstly, it reaffirms US commitment to Afghanistan at a time when the Taliban control or contest 40 per cent of the country, and Afghan forces are suffering heavy casualties. Secondly, it continues badly-needed US aid to Afghanistan, though with a cautionary caveat that there would be no “blank cheques”. There is no doubt that Afghanistan needs to urgently root out corruption and improve delivery. Thirdly, the strategy unequivocally calls upon Pakistan to end safe havens and support to terrorists “immediately”. Fourthly, and the most commented on, was the paean of praise for India, which strengthens India-US strategic bonds.

Halfway House Strategy?

Yet, there are reasons for unease in New Delhi. An increase of US troop presence by about 4000 will hardly bring serious change in the ground situation. With the president veering between his preference for pulling out altogether and those arguing for a robust troop increase, what has been announced is a half-way commitment that will bring a half-way outcome.

A strategy that seeks to “kill terrorists” requires an overwhelming presence on the ground that will prevent terrorist movement and separate them from the population. This is the key that will open the doors to development initiatives and stabilisation.

Similarly, there is the somewhat mixed message to Pakistan. While recognising the very real costs the Pakistani Army has borne in terms of lives lost, it also sends a strong message of the limits of its own patience. President Trump unambiguously warned Pakistan that it could choose to “gain” from cooperation or “lose” from continuing to give terrorists safe havens.

Unsurprisingly, Pakistan’s National Security Committee strongly rejected what it called the “scapegoating” of Pakistan, and responded by calling for an end to safe havens in Afghanistan. Foreign Minister Khwaja Asif declared that emissaries would be sent to Moscow and Beijing to seek support.

The China Factor

In the event, this seemed unnecessary. Chinese news agencies reported on 24 August 2017 that top diplomat Yang Jiechi had told Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that Pakistan’s sovereignty and “reasonable security concerns” needed to be respected. A similar statement came from Russian Presidential envoy Sergei Kabulov who insisted that Pakistan was a “key regional player”.

The US strategy to pressure Pakistan to end terrorist sanctuaries will succeed only if Beijing weighs in with some quiet pressure of its own. China may publicly warn against US attacks on Pakistan, but it has reason to fear an outflow of terrorism into Xinjiang.

It would also want to protect its investment in Pakistan from the severe tensions that would follow if the US launches strikes inside Pakistan. Russia has similar fears, but seems more taken with a zero sum game with the US in terms of spreading its influence in the region.

Indian Decision Making

A third aspect that is cause for some resentment in Indian strategic circles is the president’s reference to nuclear weapons in Indian and Pakistani hands. Clearly, the nonproliferation lobby continues to have adherents in policy circles. The so-called “existentialist” threat to Pakistan from Indian presence in Afghanistan has been touted regularly, if vaguely by well known American analysts.

Under what possible circumstances India and Pakistan would engage in a full-fledged nuclear war over Afghanistan is impossible to imagine. While it is clear that Islamabad would prefer that India has no role at all in Afghanistan, there is nothing to indicate that the two countries see the Afghan theatre as a life and death struggle of survival.

A fourth aspect is more to do with Indian decision making. The reference to India “making billions” on trade with the US unnecessarily links generous Indian aid to a “do more” position. Prime Minister Modi has made his commitment to Afghanistan clear by increasing aid by a billion dollars in September 2016.

Indian aid is at present divided into funding small development initiatives, and several large projects like the Afghan Parliament building and the Salma dam, both of which have been inaugurated. With a view to getting both Indian objectives for more connectivity, and Afghanistan’s need to vastly increase its exports, larger aid commitments are needed towards promoting a trade corridor linking Afghanistan to Chabahar and beyond to Central Asia.

The US strategy could be construed as a “go ahead” for big-ticket projects, but whether this would include transit through Iran is quite another matter, and will be the focus of Indian diplomacy in the months ahead.

Getting It Together – Kill the Terrorists

US strategy reflects not only the divisions within the Washington establishment, but also the difficulties of a world where the US no longer reigns supreme. In aligning with the US, India has lost friends like Russia and Iran, who are being wooed assiduously by China.

Meanwhile, terrorism in the region is rising. India has recently seen the first incursion of Al Qaeda into Kashmir, with the setting up of Ansar Ghazwat ul Hind, headed by a local militant Zakir Musa. There are reports that Islamic State fighters are returning to Afghanistan and to parts of Central Asia.

India and the US clearly have common interests in ending terrorist activity in Afghanistan. The challenge for Indian leaders is to persuade Russia and Iran, among others, that a US strategy aimed at “killing terrorists” will prevent a boiling over of the Afghanistan pot that is sure to singe everyone in the vicinity. At present, it is likely to be an uphill task.

*Tara Kartha was formerly Director, National Security Council Secretariat, Government of India. She contributed this to RSIS Commentary. She can be reached at kartha.tara@gmail.com

With the United States closing its doors on refugees, the Malaysian authorities should prepare long term strategies to accommodate over 200,000 Rohingya within its borders who lack rights and legal protection.

By Chan Xin Ying*

President Trump’s refugee ban had crushed resettlement dreams of countless Rohingya refugees in Malaysia as the United States is the largest resettlement country. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), there are approximately 56,000 registered Rohingya card holders; other non-governmental organisations have estimated a total of 200,000 Rohingya refugees residing in Malaysia.

While the Malaysian government has been active in promoting awareness about the Rohingya Muslims, domestically hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees continue to languish in poverty and the lack of rights in the society. Despite the fiery protest rally in Kuala Lumpur and the allocation of US$2.2 million humanitarian aid to the Rohingya in Northern Myanmar, little action was undertaken by the government to help the Rohingya refugees within its borders. What approaches can the Malaysian government consider to alleviate the plight of the refugees within its territory?

Neither Temporary Nor Illegal Anymore

First of all, the Malaysian government must acknowledge that most Rohingya refugees are likely to stay permanently in the country. In fact, even before Trump’s refugee ban, resettlement rates had been low for Rohingya refugees. The perception of ‘temporary hosting’ had caused the least effort by the Malaysian government to grant the refugees working rights and proper access to health and education.

More often than not, ad hoc policies are adopted rather than long term strategies. Thus, the community is eventually locked into a state of destitution. Secondly, the Malaysian government should grant legal recognition for the refugees. Without legal recognition, refugees will continue to be viewed as illegal migrants. For years, registered and non-registered refugees are arrested together with illegal migrants in massive dragnets by the Malaysian police. The local community has exhibited resentment towards the refugees who are considered illegal migrants.

Being a non-signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its related 1967 Protocol should not be a reason for any country, including Malaysia, to deny lawful recognition of refugees. The 1951 Refugee Convention, which is later amended by the 1967 Protocol, defines a refugee and the kind of legal protection, assistance and social rights a refugee is entitled to. The convention also defines a refugee’s obligation to host countries and the principle of ‘non-refoulement’. According to this principle, host countries should not return a refugee to a country where he or she faces serious threat to his or her life.

Indonesia signed a Presidential Decree (Perpres) in January 2017 which provided the definition of ‘refugee’ based on the 1951 Refugee Convention. The decree includes institutions that are obligated to manage refugees in Indonesia and re-affirms the availability of alternatives to detention for refugees with special needs and vulnerabilities.

Pilot Project 2017: Malaysia Needs to do More

Lastly, the Malaysian government should move towards granting basic rights and eliminating discrimination towards Rohingya refugees. In March 2017, the government made a breakthrough by launching a pilot project with the collaboration of the UNHCR, which allowed Rohingya refugees to work legally in Malaysia with a temporary working permit. It was hoped that the project will be translated into something more meaningful including better access to health services, education and less discrimination in the society.

Despite government claims that the refugees are not interested in the programme as only 40 Rohingya registered, the Malaysian government did not do enough to identify the demography and needs of the refugees. The project allocated the refugees to work in plantations and manufacturing sectors hidden in industrial areas and countryside.

Most of the Rohingya reside in urban centres such as Subang and Kuala Lumpur where they have established schools. Hence, employment opportunities need to be created in the cities instead of rural areas.

Potential Pool for ISIS Recruitment

Rohingya Muslim Cannot Wait was quoted from Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak’s speech during the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Summit in January 2017. The dire situation of Rohingya refugees must be resolved as soon as possible before ISIS infiltrates the group. ISIS has a record of recruiting refugees by supplying basic necessities and money, which the host country failed to provide.

It was reported that ISIS had offered up to $2000 and supplied food to recruit from refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan. Rohingya in Malaysia who have no rights, are ill-treated, feel unwelcomed and desperate, are ideal candidates for ISIS recruitment. In fact, according to Iman Research, Malaysian militants had been recruiting Rohingya and dispatched them to the Philippines for training. Furthermore, if ISIS could offer a sense of belonging or identity, it is plausible that the Rohingya communities, who longed for recognition, would join ISIS.

The Malaysian government has to act fast before the situation turns for the worse, especially on the issue of ISIS’ infiltration. By implementing legal recognition and granting basic rights to the Rohingya community, the refugee issue in Malaysia could be resolved once and for all.

For the past decades, UNHCR and other related Malaysian and Rohingya community NGOs have organised and built mechanisms which Malaysia can rely on. The Malaysian government should further cooperate with these mechanisms to deal with issues such as health, accommodation and livelihood training. The pilot project by the Malaysian government in 2017 is a positive sign of cooperation between the government and UNHCR. More such approaches in other areas could be taken to support the group face the future.

*Chan Xin Ying is a Research Analyst with the Malaysia Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She was previously a Senior Programme Officer with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

By Richard Kraemer*

(FPRI) — On August 21, President Donald Trump outlined his strategy for U.S. engagement in Afghanistan. While fully admitting his reluctance to increase current levels of support for the Afghan government and army, the president identified America’s core interests there. The “honorable and enduring outcome” that he mentioned in the speech is open to multiple interpretations, but the risk of a rapid withdrawal is not. It would lead to the collapse of the country’s central authority, thereby expanding fallow soil for global terror networks’ operations. Politically, the stakes are high. Significant gains against the Taliban and cohorts in Afghanistan would give Trump’s record a boost. After this speech, the fruits of victory or the spoils of defeat in Afghanistan rest squarely on Trump’s shoulders.

Aware that he is among the majority of Americans weary of this war, Trump proceeded to cite what will be different from past administrations. The U.S. will not publicly release timetables or air plans for adversaries’ consumption. It will hold the Afghan government accountable through a “conditions-based approach.” The U.S. will integrate “all instruments of American power . . . toward a successful outcome.” The Pakistani government in Islamabad will find that sponsorship or even tacit support for the Taliban and related entities will come with ever-greater political and financial burden. Washington will also push the Indian government in New Delhi to increase their economic and development assistance.

It is clear that Trump and his advisers have learned from the Obama administration’s failures in Afghanistan. Actions such as publically committing to timetables and trumpeting battlefield intentions bore tragic consequences, as the Taliban leadership, foot soldiers, and their backers settled in to wait out Western political timetables. The past two administrations’ reluctance to exert greater pressure on the Pakistani establishment has shown how little carrots alone can earn east of the Durand Line. Despite concerns that greater Indian involvement may hinder more than help by potentially antagonizing Pakistan, Afghanistan needs a strong regional actor that can help balance its neighbors’ often competing interests.

But do these changes amount to a new strategy? After all, haven’t we been employing “all instruments of American power” for the past 16 years? Americans witnessed a massive surge of tens of thousands of their soldiers that didn’t bring the war’s end; what difference will a re-deployment of several thousand make? Talk of greater accountability in Kabul has led to few tangible results. To some, the president’s “strategy” may seem simply as a modified “approach” to “obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.”

What’s Different This Time Around?

This administration is showing respect for lessons learned. To date, there is no planned surge of tens of thousands of soldiers, as the Afghans themselves will be waging war on the frontlines. President Trump did not mention a civilian strategy in his remarks, underlying his assertion that “nation building” is off the table. While Trump expressed hesitancy to order Americans to continue fighting in Afghanistan, he unequivocally campaigned on effectively fighting terrorism. With the counsel of a number of generals absent in the previous administration, he’s doing just that, regardless Congressional support or skepticism. And Pakistan, it appears, is a state relation to be managed, distinct from a partnership based on “mutual interests, [and] mutual respect” as envisioned by Obama.

Second, Hamid Karzai is no longer in charge of Afghanistan. The ex-president managed the most remarkable feat of cowling the international community into possibly incalculable investments of money and manpower while effectively denying them any genuine say in the country’s political management. Consequently, international calls to stem systemic cronyism and take a stand against corruption went unheeded by Karzai. Accountable to personal networks and political expediency over the Afghan people, he effectively fanned the flames of Taliban propaganda and anti-government sentiment. This happened in part due to the then-surplus of international goodwill towards the Afghan people and Karzai’s fundamental misconception that the U.S. saw Afghanistan as prime geopolitical real estate.

Not so today. The international community’s priorities have moved on. Meanwhile, the Taliban and terror groups either control or are present in vast swathes of Afghan territory, placing the elected government in Kabul in palpable jeopardy. Since 2001, Afghanistan has depended on foreign aid for 70% of its annual budget. The national unity government (cobbled together by Secretary of State John Kerry in 2014) is hardly united and dysfunctions accordingly. While insurgent control continues to grow, the current government is nowhere near completing the agreed-upon electoral reforms and schedules, much less the roadmap to a new constitution. Encouragingly, President Ashraf Ghani and Prime Minister Abdullah Abdullah together boast years of experience in Washington, which when combined could lead to clearer, effectively mutual relations compared to those mercurial years under Karzai. This renewed U.S. engagement in Afghanistan is an opportunity for genuine cooperation towards our common goal of denying terrorists sanctuary there.

Third, the Trump administration is set to push Pakistan harder than the previous administrations. It would be disingenuous to argue that the Taliban would pose the threat that they do (if even still exist) were it not for Pakistan’s willful harbor of and aid to various insurgent groups. Islamabad has yet to effectively change course on this policy. Continued decreases in aid—specifically of the military variety—together with a review of the country’s status as a non-NATO ally can help to realign the rudder towards more stable ports.

The fear of having an Indian-allied adversary to its west makes Pakistani interests in having a friendly and reliable government in Kabul respectable. Islamabad’s nearly dogmatic distrust of New Delhi and its desire to have a compliant government in Kabul complicate part of Trump’s plan. Current relations between Pakistan and India have led to skepticism about Trump’s solicitation of more pronounced involvement from India, which could be a potential leveraging point in U.S. relations with Pakistan’s leadership. Nonetheless, there is no regional solution without New Delhi any more than there is without Islamabad or other Eurasian actors. Indeed, as the U.S. footprint erodes, direct support for the Taliban has only increased from Tehran and Moscow, categorically demonstrating the extent of their own interests in who governs Afghanistan.

Last, herein lies one of the greater—and newer—threats to a sustainable resolution of the conflict. A decade ago, the road to peace primarily went eastward from Kabul. This is no longer the case. Today’s resurgent Russia and regionally emboldened Iran cannot be consigned as diplomatic afterthoughts vis-à-vis the Afghan war. These countries have provided cash and arms to elements of the Taliban, as well as significant funds to various political and religious actors to forward agendas often at odds with the elected government. Both share common goals of preventing Afghanistan from becoming a base for Islamic extremists in Central Asia and minimizing American presence in the region. Peace negotiations without due representation of their concerns would be short, as the likely response would be the disruptive mobilization of local spoilers.

With these issues in mind, we are left with one component of the president’s strategy that hasn’t changed: the full use of American military, diplomatic, and economic power. Trump asserted that “we are not nation-building again.” A few years ago, a senior Pentagon official told me that this was never U.S. policy (My follow-up review of official public statements confirmed this). Call it what you will; however, if the U.S. is to exercise all its powers towards a successful endgame in cooperation with a more accountable government in Afghanistan, shoring up its floundering governmental institutions is unavoidably necessary. And as daunting a task as this will be, it is not Panglossian to envision a better-fortified foundation for a democratic Afghan state. After the U.S. shores up these domestic weaknesses, we can then let the Afghans build their nation up from there. In my view, that would qualify as an honorable and enduring outcome.

About the author:
*Richard Kraemer is a Fellow of FPRI’s Eurasia Program and the senior program officer for Afghanistan, Iran, and Turkey at the National Endowment for Democracy. Previously, he oversaw projects in the aforementioned countries and the Levant at the Center for International Private Enterprise. Earlier, he further taught and researched at the Jagellonian University in Poland. He is also an affiliated expert of the Public International Law and Policy Group, having advised the governments of Georgia and Montenegro. He has a particular interest in the role that democracy assistance plays in the maintenance of U.S. national security. He holds a BA from William and Mary and a JD from American University.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

Sand is indispensable for construction, roads and oil recovery – even as nations try to protect coasts and supplies.

By Susan Froetschel*

When powerful storms strike, like Typhoon Hato in southern China or Hurricane Harvey in Texas, the surging water scatters tons of sand – an essential ingredient required for the rebuilding soon to follow. Such storms add to growing global demand for sand with poor consequences for the economy and environment.

Sand is a main ingredient for concrete, roads and other construction materials and second only to water as the most used natural resource. Building booms, especially in emerging nations, increase world sand production with prices doubling since the end of the 20^th century. In the 1990s, geologists described sand mining as a local business, with product transport more than 30 miles economically unfeasible. Supplies that once seemed endless are in demand with more cross-border trade.

The global market in construction aggregates was valued at more than $350 billion in 2016 with demand leading for sand, although recordkeeping on mining operations is relatively new for many nations. Sand dredging along waterways eliminates natural buffers, contributing to nearby erosion. The International Monetary Fund warns of environmental harm with no international conventions to regulate trade along with minimal enforcement of national regulations.

Sand varies in size and color with chemical composition linked to the geological origin of rocks and minerals weathered over centuries. Industries have preferences. The construction industry relies on river sand. Glass, ceramics, electronics and oil industries seek inland silica sand with high levels of quartz wth names like Northern White or Sierra Gold. Foundries use dune sand for casting automobiles and wind turbines. Corrosive marine sand must be rinsed free of salt before use in concrete, but works well for projects described as beach nourishment, replenishment or repair along the US coast and land reclamation in the South China Sea. China alternately dredges the South China Sea for sand while adding deposits to contested reefs to build new islands.

Water naturally alters coasts over time, and humans try to limit the damage for communities.

Satellite data and other tools document shifting coastlines due to rising seas and climate change, and mining nearby sand to expand distant beaches has become a sensitive issue. In Japan sand mining has been banned for river channels since the 1960s but continues in seabed locations. The California Coastal Commission denied permits for Mexico-based Cemex, effectively ending sand mining for Monterey County beaches by 2021.

Beach restoration is not a one-time fix. Added sand erodes faster than natural sand, and few beach projects last more than five years without ongoing maintenance and additions, explains geologist Don Barber. Billions of cubic yards of material are removed from sites around the globe annually to keep shipping lanes open. In the United States, the Army Corps of Engineers oversees dredging projects for widening channels for modern ships, stockpiling offshore supplies and protecting shorelines.

Panama City is one of many Florida communities that have added millions of cubic yards of sand to beaches over the last two decades. The sand comes from nearby offshore “borrow areas,” a mixture of sand, silt and water transported by pipelines. The cost of 2017 repairs, estimated at $17 million, is largely paid for by tourists with a “bed tax” on rentals. Some communities like Miami have used up their allotted offshore supplies and yet reject sand dredged from inland Florida as too dark and costly. Instead, they want white sand from the Bahamas and the Caribbean, which would require overturning a law prohibiting imported sand in beach restoration projects that receive federal funding.

Activists raise alarm about eroded shorelines and wildlife protection, and communities increasingly impose limits on sand mining and exports, such as opposing public funding to restore beaches that limit public access. The appearance of four sand mining barges off a beach in Suriname despite a ban demonstrates need for community vigilance.

Nowhere is the competition for sand perhaps more intense than in fast-growing Asia. Governments in Malaysia, Vietnam and Cambodia have limited exports of river sand, concerned by Singapore’s increasing its land mass by 20 percent since 2000.  People in six countries that rely on the Mekong River worry about China’s plans to dynamite sections, among the many One Belt, One Road projects that both require and exploit sand. A judge in the Philippines this month urged the government to guard a Sandy Cay sandbar near Subi Reef, where China is reported to be dredging sand. Investigators in Cambodia discovered that up to $750 million worth of sand went missing after the UN Commodity Trade Statistics Database showed about 3 million tons leaving the country between 2007 and 2015 and more than 70 million tons of Cambodian sand entering Singapore during the same period.  Cambodia imposed a permanent ban on exports in July.

Increasing restrictions contribute to illegal sand mines in India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, South Africa, Tanzania, Botswana and the Philippines, reports Marius Dan Gavriletea for Sustainability.

Industries search for alternatives. The fracking industry is reducing use of sand with new chemicals and well designs. Alternatives to river sand include crushed and screened waste glass, crushed rock and granite dust, quarry dust, recycled copper slag and sea sand.  Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and others manufacture sand with large crushing and sorting equipment.

Engineers dismiss desert sand as too fine for construction or beach improvements, forcing sand-rich nations like the United Arab Emirates to rely on Australian and British multinationals for supplies. Still, researchers experiment with additives like marble dust and treatments to make desert sand suitable for erosion control.  Recycling is another option. Recycling rates of glass containers is 73 percent in the European Union and 34 percent in the United States, with every ton of recycled product eliminating the need for a ton of natural product. Concrete can also be recycled for select uses, suggests the Construction & Demolition Recycling Association.

Singapore is taking lessons from the Netherlands in building dikes and seawalls around low-lying tracts of land along with networks of drains and pumps. Indonesia, after losing small islands due to illegal sand mining, has contracted with the Dutch firm Boskalis to construct an artificial island off Jakarta.

The best defense may be restricting building in coastal zones and protecting native plants.

The world’s largest exporter is the United States, which began keeping statistics on sand mining in 1905 and a century later was shipping industrial grade product to almost every region of the world. The value of US production of construction sand and gravel is higher than that of gold or copper production. Collecting production data in many nations is challenging because of varying specifications and the informal nature of some sand-mining businesses.  In 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 193 nations concluded that that sand and other minerals are essential for economic and social development. Sand miners must build good relations with communities, emphasizing sustainability and reducing waste, suggests the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association.

Unchecked sand mining, with more sand removed each year than what can be replaced by the natural processes occurring over the course of centuries, is unsustainable. The forces of globalization are altering coastlines and the sand-mining industry as much as storms and waves shape grains of sand.

*Susan Froetschel is managing editor of YaleGlobal Online and author of five mystery novels that examine globalization and public policies at the local level. 

Tenders for Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the arena of counter-terrorism is one of the quickest developing segments of security programming. Artificial intelligence is essentially the intelligence of machines; it’s an area of computer sciences that emphasizes the creation of intelligent machines that work and react like humans.

A standout among the most critical applications of computerized reasoning is the gathering and processing of the collected data. One really cannot wage a conventional war against terrorism, yet a vital component for battling fear-based oppression in the words of Sun Tzu is great knowledge, that is to say a good intelligence. The finest way to ensure the protection of our assets and to detain terrorists is to comprehend what they are planning ahead of the execution of their plans. So, one of the central obstructions in this fight is not just the securing of the essential insights, but also that very capacity to process the majority of gathered information.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is progressively utilized as a part of a blend with physical reconnaissance. Rather than simply having a man watching a bank of security screens, an AI-upgraded CCTV framework cannot only spot potential issues itself, but also signals the security staff. These frameworks have been in utilization in cities like Chicago and London for quite a long time. However, the recognition abilities that many of these frameworks have are also to a certain degree helpful in fighting terrorism.

The gravest threats to the lives and liberties of humanity are the ones posed by terrorism and that too in its different manifestations; the relentless diffusion of deadly technologies allows progressively smaller groups to wreak increasingly greater destruction. Globalization has enhanced terrorists’ ability to travel, communicate, and transport weapons. Cyber Threat is the greatest threat to the national security of nation-states, as it appears now and in future; the framework of warfare is basically changing.

The establishment of everything contentious is on the web. Each familiar luxury we enjoy in the internet can be pivoted on us and utilized against us. At the point when the aim is there, a cyber-hacker may take our data freely to disturb and create fear practically identical to conventional terrorism or that particular hacker may also try to breach those Permissive Action Links (PALS) encrypted on the nuclear warheads.

Terrorists now are ‘embracing the web’ more than ever before. Fanatics of all brands are progressively using social media to recruit, radicalize and raise funds and the most adroit expert of this approach is the Islamic State (IS). They have been very fluent on social media. Similarly they are also now able to hide their identities using encryption tools which were once only available with the government agencies.

Furthermore, another vital problem here is the nature and form of the content being posted by these groups and that is usually ‘video’. While, photographs could easily be scanned, videos make screening and scanning a bit more problematical because of the different individual frames within. On Facebook alone, around 100 million videos are watched daily, which is a huge amount to moderate. The story does not end here; the aforementioned problem is amplified by copies and shared content, all of which can be re-posted even if the original is removed somehow.

However, to save millions of life from the jeopardy of terrorism and the aforesaid cyberspace problem, new tools must be developed and in the near future Artificial Intelligence (AI) would be managing the process. Facebook’s CEO Mark Zukerberg has asserted that incorporating AI into social media would help in distinguishing news stories about terrorism and actual terrorist propaganda. AI also uses image matching techniques, which allows the site to recognize and prevent the upload of terrorist propaganda images or videos that have previously been flagged. Likewise it is also experimenting with language understanding to recognize terrorist content through “text-based signals.”

The field of AI is progressing quickly and will keep on having numerous applications in the battle against dread or to say in the fight against terror. Currently, however, the progressions in these sorts of projects are not so prodigious that we can rely upon them to supplant humans who have the capacity to utilize rationale, but in the years to come AI would holistically revolutionize the security paradigm.

*Ubaid Ahmed currently working as Research Affiliate at SVI and can be reached at ubaid@thesvi.org

The Catholic League has a long history of mutual cooperation with evangelical Christians on a host of cultural issues. In that spirit, we condemn the unfair attacks against the statement on marriage, family and sexuality that was signed by more than 150 evangelical leaders following their conference in Nashville last week.

“Hateful,” “homophobic,” “anti-LGBT” are among the hysterical condemnations of the statement flying around print, broadcast and social media. But the statement is none of those things.

While restating long-held Christian teaching that marriage is ordained by God as the “lifelong union of one man and one woman,” and that differences between male and female are “divinely ordained” and unchangeable, the statement does not single out homosexual or transgender persons. It emphasizes that all human beings are called to “chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage,” reiterating the immorality of heterosexual intercourse “before or outside marriage” as well.

Nor can the statement accurately be termed “hateful.” Quite the contrary. It affirms God’s “merciful” love and forgiveness. It rejects the idea that “divinely ordained differences between male and female” somehow “render them unequal in dignity or worth.” It refutes the notion that same-sex attraction “puts a person outside the hope of the gospel.” And it calls on Christians to “speak the truth in love at all times” and to never “speak in such ways that dishonor God’s design.”

In short, the statement is a loving, faith-filled affirmation of timeless Christian teachings on marriage, family and human sexuality. In these tumultuous times, we continue to stand with our evangelical brothers and sisters in defending these traditional moral values.

The stand off between India and China with regard to Doklam is said to have been sorted out. India claims that it has stood against China with dignity and determination, inspite of many provocative statements from China and resisted China’s attempt to enter Doklam. India further says that China will stop construction of the road in Doklam area.

However, China is trying to give an impression that India has panicked due to its aggressive stance and India has been taught a lesson. China continues to say that its claim on Doklam is in tact and it has not changed it’s stand.

While tension in the Doklam continued for several weeks, it is very clear that neither China nor India wanted a military conflict. Obviously, China wants to create an atmosphere of tension and scene of confrontation with Indi , as part of its long term strategies of overwhelming countries in Asia, expand its territory and emerging as unquestioned and undisputed dominant country in Asia.

China’s aggressive stance in Doklam is part of its continuing practice of waging confrontation in one area or the other in Asia. Doklam conflict was preceded by China’s claims with regard to South China Sea and dispute with Japan on Senkaku island. Even while adopting such aggressive stance, China has been untiringly putting forth efforts to economically dominate smaller countries like Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives in Asian region which is other face of China’s aggressive approach to dominate Asia.

Every Asian country now think that China is a big bully that they have to guard against. However, they have not taken any initiative so far to assert their position and safeguard their interest against domination by China and such attitude of the Asian countries is only giving confidence to China that it can browbeat all Asian countries at it’s will.

China has been occupying Tibet over six decades now and the world has simply closed its eyes to China’s aggression in Tibet and suppressing the freedom loving Tibetans. The next target for China is Arunachal Pradesh region in India on which it has made claim. So far, China has not shown any inclination to enter Arunachal Pradesh by force but one need not be surprised if China would attempt to do so in future.

Many observers suspect that China creating tension in Doklam and creating dispute with Bhutan is a deliberate attempt to find an excuse to enter Bhutan and occupy the country, as it has done in the case of Tibet. While India has an agreement with Bhutan to defend Bhutan, China may risk a war to annex Bhutan. It appears that China has strong faith that the world opinion is impotent and USA and west European countries facing multitude of problems on various front, would not take any tangible measures to prevent China entering Bhutan, though they may take some cosmetic steps like passing a resolution to condemn China in Security Council of U N.

While several Asian countries face threat from China economically or militarily, China’s threat to India is much more evident and seem to be immediate. Doklam incident is only an indication of shape of things to come.

Indian government is facing an extremely difficult situation, as the country is making impressive growth in industrial and economic development and does not want to get bogged down in a military conflict with China.

In such circumstance, one cannot but remember the submissive attitude of the then British Prime Minister Chamberlain to Hitler’s Germany before the second world war and his approach to solve the dispute with Hitler by placating him.

One hopes that the Indian Prime Minister would be clearly aware that any attempts to placate and please China to ensure peace in the borders would be a futile exercise if India would not be capable of giving befitting reply to China in the case of military conflict.

China already has two Asian countries namely Pakistan and North Korea under its full control. China will use North Korea to create problems for Japan and will use Pakistan to create problems for India.

Possibly, foreseeing such grim possibilities, it would be appropriate for India to sign firm military pact with USA. If India has to pay some price for entering such military pact, it would be a much lesser price than what it has to pay for remaining passive against confrontation by China.

India should not do the mistake of allowing China to enter Bhutan, as India did in the case of Tibet earlier, not confronting China when it entered Tibet several decades back.

By Ebony Slaughter-Johnson*

During a speech to a group of police officers in July, President Trump returned to one of his favorite themes of the campaign season: violence. “Please don’t be too nice” to the “thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon,” Trump advised the officers. Be “rough.”

The president’s endorsement of police brutality was met with applause from the officers and shock from activists and pundits alike.

Sensing the brewing backlash, the White House insisted that the president was simply making a joke. Even Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the country’s top law enforcement official — a man with his own complicated history of encouraging the worst impulses of the police — attempted to distance himself from the controversy.

Yet the president just proved that when it comes to endorsing police brutality, especially against communities of color, he’s dead serious.

For more than 20 years, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona terrorized Latino communities, harassed immigrants, and made life a living hell for prisoners in his care in order to build a reputation as “America’s toughest sheriff”.

These systematic violations of human and constitutional rights eventually landed Arpaio in legal trouble of his own. Then President Trump pardoned him.

Arpaio had been awaiting sentencing for a July conviction of criminal contempt.

Back in 2011, a federal judge ordered Arpaio to stop targeting and detaining Latinos just to inquire about their immigration status. Nevertheless, Arpaio persisted for another 18 months, insisting that his racial profiling was lawful. He emasculated inmates, forcing them to wear pink underwear, and attempted to starve them with food that was called inedible.

He tortured them, too: Beginning in the 1990s, Arpaio opened Tent City Jail, which forced inmates to live outside in the extreme Arizona heat. An untold number of inmates died.

To the law, Arpaio is a convicted criminal who built his career on denying the constitutional and human rights of the most vulnerable among us. To Trump, he’s “a patriot” who kept “Arizona safe.”

“Throughout his time as sheriff,” a White House statement bleated, “Arpaio continued his life’s work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration.” In other words, the innocent immigrants who were harassed, and the prisoners who were tortured, were the real criminals.

Trump promised to be the “law and order candidate” during his campaign. He codified this promise once he became president in the “Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community” section of the White House website. “The Trump administration will be a law and order administration,” it echoed.

For the president, it seems, “standing up” for law enforcement includes allowing officers to subvert the rule of law to commit acts of brutality with impunity. Empowering law enforcement to “keep our streets free of crime and violence” means supporting racial profiling. And “law and order” only applies to some, namely those that support the president.

With Trump’s pardon of Arpaio, a message has been sent: When it comes to police brutality of the kind Arpaio perpetuated for decades, the Trump administration won’t simply be complicit in it. It will promote it.

And that’s nothing to joke about.

*Ebony Slaughter-Johnson is a freelance writer whose work covers history, race, and the criminalization of poverty. Distributed by OtherWords.org

A three-month old crisis in the Gulf that has pitted Qatar against an alliance led by the UAE and Saudi Arabia has settled into a family squabble in which the protagonists appear to be singing different variations of the same song.

Qatar and its detractors disagree on how they view the world around them and how they would like to shape it, but are in tacit agreement on the fundamental political structure of their respective states that seems designed to put a 21^st century veneer on traditional autocratic and tribal rule.

To be sure, Qatar has couched the defense of its controversial foreign policy and relationships with Islamic militants in the language of a forward-looking state that embraces concepts of democracy and press freedom. The UAE defends its approach as a pillar of the fight against terrorism and extremism.

Yet, several interviews in which senior UAE diplomats make no bones about their defense of autocracy and the fact that their country’s alignment with the United States is based on interests rather than shared values is just as applicable to Qatar, which advocates greater political freedoms for others rather than itself.

At the core of the dispute in the Gulf are different strategies for regime survival as Gulf autocracies are forced to diversify and rationalize their economies and rewrite social contracts that no longer offer citizens cradle-to-grave welfare in exchange of surrender of political rights. The different strategies are rooted in perceptions of how to come to grips with a post-9/11 world and a region whose fundaments were rocked by the 2011 popular revolts.

Qatar’s embrace of the rise of political Islam and the quest for change that exploded onto the political scene with the uprisings that toppled four Arab leaders, constitutes, despite naively assuming that the Gulf state itself can remain immune to transition, a direct challenge to survival strategies adopted by the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt.

Among the four, the UAE has been the most radical and consequential in its effort to ensure the survival of its rulers. More than any other Gulf state, the UAE opted to discard past sensitivity to public empathy with Islamic causes in favour of wholly aligning its counter-terrorism policies with those of the United States, positioning itself as an indispensable military ally, and brutally suppressing dissent.

The policy overhaul aimed to ensure US military support for a country whose sense of security has in part been shaped by Iran’s continued occupation of three Gulf islands, Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs. Iran seized the islands in 1971, two days before the UAE achieved independence. The policy change also constituted a response to the rejection on national security grounds by the US Coast Guard and Congress of a 2006 bid by Dubai Ports World to take over the management of several major American ports. “Having a company right out of the heartland of Al Qaeda manage those ports…is madness,” US Representative Peter King thundered at the time.

The rise of US President Donald J. Trump with his apparent empathy for Arab autocracy and lack of interest in the traditional US promotion of democratic values, has emboldened UAE officials to be more forthright about the political philosophy that informs their system of government.

”We have our own style of democracy. We have something called the majlis system, which is open forums where people address their leaders, where they voice their grievances and they come and they say, ‘I need this’ or ‘This is a problem’ or ‘My son’s school isn’t working,’ and this is the Bedouin style of democracy. Is this the Jeffersonian style of democracy? No. But it works for us, it works for our culture, it works for our identity,” Yousef Al Otaiba, the UAE’s influential ambassador to the United States, recently told The Atlantic magazine.

“If you asked the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Bahrain what kind of Middle East they want to see in 10 years, they would have opposed that of Qatar,” Mr Al Otaiba said in a separate television interview. Instead, he said, Qatar’s detractors were pushing for “strong, stable and prosperous secular governments.”

Mr. Al Otaiba’s promotion of Western style-secularism appeared in contrast to the lyrics of the UAE’s national anthem that embodies Islam as part of the country’s identity. “You have lived for a nation whose religion is Islam and guide is the Qur’an,” the anthem says.

The arrest in Abu Dhabi only days after Mr. Al Otaiba’s remarks and sentencing to a year in prison of two Singaporeans, a man and a pre-operative transgender woman, on charges of cross-dressing suggested that the ambassador’s notion of secularism was more akin to public norms extolled in the anthem than any notion of secularism. The sentences were subsequently reduced and the two Singaporeans allowed to return home.

In yet another interview, Omar Ghobash, the UAE ambassador to Russia, was equally blunt in his defense of autocracy. “We do not claim to have press freedom. We do not promote the idea of press freedom. What we talk about is responsibility in speech.” Ghobash appeared to justify the UAE’s position on the same argument implicit in Mr. Al-Otaiba’s statements: the country’s rulers rather than its citizens know what is best for them. “Speech in our part of the world has a particular context, and that context can go from peaceful to violent in no time simply because of words that are spoken,” Mr. Ghobash said.

Messrs. Al Otaiba and Ghobash’s portrayal of the UAE’s political philosophy seemed more in line with a decades-old news clip in a music video entitled ‘$heikh it’ by Kuwaiti-American hip-hop group Shafiq Husayn & the Sons of Yusuf than with a cutting-edge, 21^st century state.  “A man torn between two worlds. He’s an Arab sheikh who was born in an old Arabia and will die in a new one. He worships Allah, loves the desert, and is one of the richest men in the world. His forefathers ruled the world from the back of a camel, he rides it in a limousine. But he remains, as they were, the centre of tribal life. He’s the man you serve, the man you hunt with, and the many you fight for. Above all, he’s the man who leads,” the news reader intoned.

To be fair, the news reader’s portrayal of change in the Gulf is equally true for Qatar, where the Gulf crisis has sparked a new wave of nationalism that centres on support for the country’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. Like his counterparts in the UAE and Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Tamim is “the man who leads” and brooks no dissent. Time will tell whether that is a political model that can withstand far-reaching economic reforms, the radical rewriting of social contracts, and unstoppable technological advances. So far, however, it has allowed Qatar to stand its ground in a dispute in which the protagonists have beyond their differences much in common.

A new investigative article published by The Intercept reveals previously unknown details of US support for Honduras’ 2009 coup d’etat that ousted the democratically elected government of President Manuel Zelaya.

Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) Research Associate Jake Johnston’s exposé is based on thousands of pages of newly obtained US military intelligence documents and on interviews with Honduran and American officials involved in the US response to the coup. A Spanish version of the article is pending publication.

With the coup occurring just six months after Obama came to office pledging new relations with the hemisphere, the article focuses on the Pentagon and its Latin American subsidiary, SOUTHCOM, and how vested interests undermined official US policy, helping the coup succeed and ushering in a new wave of violence and repression in Honduras.

“This is a story that reveals much about how foreign policy works in general, not just in Honduras,” Johnston explained. “The investigation shows the often hidden roles that various actors within the US foreign policy establishment play in determining and carrying out policy. What’s clear is that personal relationships matter just as much as any official policy position announced in Washington.”

According to the report, a high-level US military official met with Honduran coup plotters late the night before the coup, indicating advance knowledge of what was to come.

While the US ambassador intervened to stop an earlier attempted coup, a Honduran military advisor’s warning the night before the coup was met with indifference, the report found, adding that  multiple on-the-record sources support the allegations of a whistleblower at SOUTHCOM’s flagship military training university that a retired general provided assistance after-the-fact to Honduran military leaders lobbying in defense of the coup.

Additionally, the report found that US training of Honduran military leaders, and personal relationships forged during the Cold War, likely emboldened the Honduran military to oust Zelaya and helped ensure the coup’s success

US military actors were motivated by an obsessive concern with Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez’s perceived influence in the region, rather than just with developments in Honduras itself, according to the report.

Evidence described in the article suggests that the Pentagon’s main interest was in maintaining relations with a close military ally, rather than in overturning the coup. Though the battle over Honduras appeared to be fought along partisan lines, in the end it was the Obama administration’s State Department that sabotaged efforts to have Zelaya restored to the presidency, as statements by former Secretary Clinton and other high-level officials admit.

Since the coup, the militarization of Honduras has increased. While human rights abuses continue to shock the public, US security assistance and military training continue unabated. Under President Trump and the coterie of military officers surrounding him, including former SOUTHCOM commander and now White House chief of staff John Kelly, US-backed militarization appears likely to deepen in Honduras and elsewhere throughout the region.

“What this reveals are behind-the-scenes aspects of an episode that profoundly damaged the US relationship with Latin America as a whole, as the US was an outlier in supporting the coup, and opposition to the coup among Latin American governments was led by Brazil,” Johnston said. “In the end, the US State Department quietly allowed the military and other hard-line factions to determine policy and support the coup’s success.”

This story is especially relevant for the current moment, as the hard-line, military factions who prevailed in shaping the US response to the Honduran coup are now in senior positions in the Trump administration, raising troubling prospects for what the US reaction to another military coup d’etat would be under Trump.

At the start of the August congressional recess, Senator Bernie Sanders announced that he will introduce a senate bill this September “to expand Medicare to cover all Americans.” Since the election, the movement for improved Medicare for all, has been urging Sanders to introduce a companion to John Conyers’ HR 676: The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, which currently has a record 117 co-sponsors in the House and is considered the gold standard by the movement.

Recent reports are that Sanders’ bill falls far short of HR 676 in fundamental ways. In fact, Sanders’ bill is a multi-payer system not a single payer system. His bill reportedly would allow private insurers to compete with the public system, allow the wealthy to buy their way out of the public system and allow investor-owned health facilities to continue to profit while providing more expensive and lower quality health care.

As a leader in the Democratic Party in the Senate, Sanders is trying to walk the line between listening to the concerns of his constituency, which overwhelmingly favors single payer health care, and protecting his fellow Democrats, whose campaigns are financed by the medical industrial complex. Sanders needs to side with the movement not those who profit from overly expensive US health care.

Today, August 30, Health Over Profit for Everyone steering committee members and supporters sent the letter at the end of this article to Senator Sanders raising specific concerns and urging Senator Sanders to amend his bill before it is introduced.

There are two realities

It has become the practice in Washington, DC to offer weak bills, which fail to address the roots of the crises we face, to make them ‘politically feasible’. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is an example of this. It was a compromise with the health insurance, pharmaceutical and private hospital industries from the start – an attempt to appease them with public dollars in exchange for greater access to care. The ACA was built on a foundation of private industry even though the priorities of those industries are profit for a few, not health for everyone. That faulty foundation has perpetuated the healthcare crisis – tens of millions without health insurance, tens of millions more who have health insurance but can’t afford health care and poor health outcomes including tens of thousands of deaths each year.

There are two realities that must be considered. The healthcare crisis will not end until a system is put in place that guarantees universal comprehensive and affordable healthcare coverage through National Improved Medicare for All or another form of single payer system such as a national health service. That is what we call the ‘real reality’, and it simply won’t change until there are real changes in policy that solve it. The political reality of what is ‘politically feasible’ is the other reality. This reality will change as people organize and mobilize to demand what they need. Politicians change their positions when they believe it is necessary to maintain their position of power. It is the task of movements to change what is politically feasible.

The movement for National Improved Medicare for All has been working for decades to educate, organize and mobilize the public to change the political reality. And it is working. There is broad public support for Improved Medicare for All and legislation in the House that articulates the demands of the movement. What is needed now is a companion bill in the Senate that is as strong as HR 676. Once that is introduced, activists will work to secure support for it.

Sanders has it backwards. Rather than starting from a position of strong legislation and building support for it, he is starting from a position of weak legislation that he considers to be more politically feasible. By doing so, he is losing the support of the movement that he needs to pass expanded and improved Medicare for all.

Activists versus legislators

This is where it is important to recognize the difference between activists and legislators. Activists and legislators have different priorities. Activists work to solve crises. Their dedication is to an issue. Legislators work to maintain their position, whether it is re-election, seats on committees, good standing with other legislators or continued funding from Wall Street or other wealthy interests. Legislators compromise when they believe it is in their personal best interest. Activists can only compromise when it is in the interest of solving the crisis they face.

To win National Improved Medicare for All, activists need to follow the principles outlined in I.C.U.:

The “I” stands for independence. Activists must keep their allegiance to their issue independent of the agenda of legislators and political parties. The goal is to solve the healthcare crisis, and politicians from both major parties will need to be pressured to support Improved Medicare for All. Remember, the movement is going against the interests of the big money industries that finance members of Congress.

The “C” stands for clarity. Legislators will attempt to throw the movement off track by claiming that there are ‘back doors’ to our goal or smaller incremental steps that are more ‘politically feasible’. They will use language that sounds like it is in alignment with the goals of the movement even though the policies they promote are insufficient or opposed to the goals of the movement. This is happening right now in the movement for Improved Medicare for All. Numerous people, who consider themselves to be progressive but who are connected to the Democratic Party, are writing articles to convince single payer supporters to ask for less.

And the “U” stands for uncompromising. Gandhi is quoted as saying that one cannot compromise on fundamentals because it is all give and no take. When it comes to the healthcare crisis, the smallest incremental step is National Improved Medicare for All. That will create the system and the cost savings needed to provide universal comprehensive coverage. Throughout history, every movement for social transformation has been told that it is asking for too much. When the single payer movement is told that it must compromise, that is no different. The movement is demanding a proven solution to the healthcare crisis, and anything less will not work.

The momentum is on the side of the movement for National Improved Medicare for All. Act now to push Sanders to amend his bill so that it matches HR 676. Sign and share the petition tool, and read the letter below to understand the concerns about Sanders’ bill.

*********

Dear Senator Sanders,

For almost fifteen years the movement for National Improved Medicare for All has organized around HR 676: The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, introduced each session since 2003 by Congressman John Conyers. As you know, HR 676 has 117 co-sponsors so far this year. This legislation is considered by the movement to be the gold standard framework for a universal healthcare system in the United States.

We appreciate your support for Improved Medicare for All and the work that you have done to elevate the national dialogue on Improved Medicare for All. We hope to continue to work with you to make this a reality in the near future.

To that end, we are writing to share our concerns about the legislation that you are planning to introduce. These concerns are based on what we have learned about your legislation without having the benefit of reading a draft of it.

In order to maintain the cohesion and strength of the movement for Improved Medicare for All, the legislation in the senate must be in alignment with HR 676. This is important so that the movement is unified and so that the process begins from a position of asking for what we want and need, rather than starting from a position of compromise. It is the task of the movement to build political support for the legislation in Congress.

Here is a list of our concerns:

1. We oppose the inclusion of copayments and deductibles in an Improved Medicare for All bill.

As outlined in the recent letter to you from Physicians for a National Health Program, including copayments adds administrative complexity and creates a barrier to care, which leads to delay or avoidance of necessary care. Economic analyses indicate that the administrative and other savings inherent in a well-planned single payer system offset the added expense of eliminating copayments and deductibles. HR 676 does not include copayments. The movement for Improved Medicare for All has coalesced around the elimination of these financial barriers to care.

2. We support a rapid transition to National Improved Medicare for All. The Medicare system was implemented within a year of passage without using computers. Unlike when Medicare became law, the United States now has basic infrastructure in place for a national health insurance based on Medicare. We urge you to utilize the timeline in HR 676, which would start the universal system in less than two years, rather than delaying or phasing it in by age group over time. Beginning with a universal system allows savings and cost controls that can be used to provide comprehensive benefits without cost sharing.
3. We support a single payer healthcare system. We understand that your legislation will allow employers to continue to provide employee health insurance that duplicates what the national health insurance covers to avoid conflict with the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA). We urge you to include a carve out of ERISA for national health insurance so that the new system is a single payer system. Without doing so, your bill will be a multi-payer system. This is required to achieve administrative simplicity and significant cost savings. HR 676 allows private insurance that does not duplicate the benefits of the system. Employers and unions would be able to provide extra benefits beyond what the system covers.
4. We support a universal system. We understand that your legislation will allow health providers to opt out of the national health insurance system. This would create a parallel health system for the wealthy and undermine the quality of the public system. Universal systems are of higher quality than tiered systems because they create a social solidarity in which everyone has an interest in making the system the best it can be. We urge you to reject a tiered healthcare system as healthcare is a human right and should not be based on wealth.
5. We oppose inclusion of investor-owned health facilities. Investor-owned health facilities treat health care, which is a necessary public service, as a commodity for profit. These facilities have an incentive to cut corners, under and over treat and charge higher prices. The result is higher cost and lower quality. We urge you to reject profiteering in the healthcare system so that the bottom line is improving the health of our population, not profits for Wall Street.

The above concerns are based on what we know about your legislation at present. We do not know if they are warranted because we have not read the text. Upon reading it, there may be additional concerns.

We hope that you will share the draft text of your legislation with us and address the above concerns before it is introduced. Our support for your Improved Medicare for All legislation will depend upon whether or not it will serve as a companion to HR 676. If it is, we are ready to work in our states to build political support for it. If the above concerns are not addressed, then your bill will not be a single payer Improved Medicare for All bill and we believe it will undermine the movement for HR 676.

We recognize that legislators tend to compromise from the start to build political support for legislation. This has served as a failed strategy because the final legislation is too weak to accomplish its goals. We suggest a different approach of beginning from a position of what is required to solve the healthcare crisis. We have organized for too long to concede from the start on these fundamental principles.

Signed,

Vanessa Beck, Health Over Profit for Everyone Steering Committee

Claudia Chaufan, MD, California Physicians for a National Health Program*

Andy Coates, MD, past president, Physicians for a National Health Program*

Dena Draskovich, Leader of Indivisible Omaha and disabled citizen*

Margaret Flowers, MD, director of Health Over Profit for Everyone

Leslie Hartley Gise MD, Clinical Professor Psychiatry, University of Hawai’i*

Leigh Haynes, People’s Health Movement-USA*

Joseph Q Jarvis MD MSPH, Utah*

Stephen B. Kemble, MD, Physicians for a National Health Program advisory board, past president of Hawaii Medical Association*

Edgar A Lopez MD, FACS, member, Physicians for a National Health Program, Kentuckians for Single Payer*

Ethel Long-Scott, Women’s Economic Agenda Project (WEAP)*

Eric Naumburg, MD, co-chair Maryland chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program*

Carol Paris, MD, president, Physicians for a National Health Program*

George Pauk, MD

Julie Keller Pease, MD, Topsham, Maine

Julia Robinson, MD, People’s Health Movement-USA*

Anne Scheetz, MD, Illinois Single-Payer Coalition, Physicians for a National Health Program and steering committee of Health Over Profit for Everyone*

Mariel Scheinberg, OMS 4, Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine*

Lee Stanfield, Health Over Profit for Everyone Steering Committee and Single Payer Tucson NOW*

Bruce Trigg, MD, Public Health and Addiction Consultant

John V. Walsh, MD, California Physicians for a National Health Program*

Robert Zarr, MD, past president, Physicians for a National Health Program*

Kevin Zeese, co-director of Popular Resistance

*For identification purposes only.

This article was published at Health Over Profit.

From peacekeeping to climate change, China’s foreign policy has reflected its vision for global governance as its influence grows around the globe. After many years of sitting on the sidelines, China contributes more troops to UN peacekeeping missions than any other permanent member of the U.N Security Council. China ranks 12th amongst nations contributing blue helmets, and China is the second largest financer of the force behind the United States. Beijing is financially helping Syria’s refugee crisis pledging millions of dollars to Middle Eastern countries dealing with refugees who are displaced.

China is also investing heavily on port development across the globe to expand and secure trade routes through its Belt and Road Initiative. While Beijing’s non-interventionist policy grows, it remains steadfast to their Five Principles for Peaceful Coexistence plan. These principles include mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in other internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. Because of these principles, China has been reluctant to vote for sanctions in the U.N Security Council, but recently, Beijing supported the new sanctions against North Korea after another missile test was carried out by the hermit country. The sanctions were carried out to increase economic pressure on Pyongyang to return to negotiations on its nuclear program.

China’s Priorities on the Korean Peninsula

The biggest priority for China on the Korean Peninsula is denuclearization, and Beijing is deeply committed to non-proliferation where all sides can work together to prevent the DPRK from developing its nuclear capacity. China is also in favor of a peaceful resolution between the different actors to solve this issue.

If you talk to many senior officials in Washington, they say that China is unwilling to do more when it comes to tensions and diffusing the crisis with North Korea. Washington cannot only point the finger at China, but there really isn’t much China can do to leverage any pressure on North Korea to diffuse the situation. The only way this situation between Washington and Pyongyang can diffuse itself is for the United States to agree to the double freeze policy proposed by China and Russia for a halt on U.S-South Korea military exercises in exchange for North Korea to reduce its nuclear tests.

This kind of reciprocity would allow all the sides involved in the Korean Peninsula issue to talk and make progress. The North Koreans agreed to the double freeze policy for over three years now, and China has embraced this formula. Denuclearization might be the long-term goal, but talks that can lead to a diplomatic solution could be a huge step towards achieving peace on the Korean Peninsula.

In terms of economic pressure, China is the main source of trade for North Korea, but there are some serious humanitarian concerns in the DPRK. The two economic prongs of China’s engagement with North Korea are trade and investment, two main factors that have been affected by U.N Security Council sanctions. Some of the products that have not been able to get into North Korea because of the sanctions have been seafood, ore, iron, and coal to name a few. Most people including the critics are skeptical of Chinese assistance from reaching the DPRK, but is it politically correct to cut off a country from food and energy supplies because the government is conducting nuclear tests? China’s position is not to punish the North Korean people for what the North Korean government, but the humanitarian situation there is beyond catastrophic.

The bottom line to all of this is for the United States to conduct a policy of diplomacy to negotiate with the North Koreans. Many Americans have said that the North Koreans are not interested in any kind of talks, but this is not entirely true. North Korea has said that they are willing to return to the negotiating table, but the U.S is asking the North Koreans to return to the talks that took place in 2005, where the North Korean government would commit to denuclearization, but this was a precondition that proved to be difficult for Pyongyang. The DPRK may want to talk about the nuclear issue, but now is not the time. Instead, the North Koreans would be interested in a double freeze and an immediate reconciliation.

How Does China’s Djibouti Base Factor into its Non-Intervention Policy?

China opened its first overseas military base in the Horn of Africa, specifically for logistic support more than military support. The overseas base in Africa is also used for urgent emergency issues and the ultimate purpose of the Djibouti base is for economic, trade, and personnel issues. In the future, this base could be further expanded for military purposes and China could build more bases in the long-term.

China’s fundamental philosophy of peace and stability is by promoting economic growth and good governance that comes together with military assistance. Djibouti is not only the beginning of China’s foot in the door in Africa, but it is also the first Chinese naval base overseas. China has always had the agenda of a peaceful rise on the international stage. Since 2009, China has surpassed the United States as Africa’s biggest trading partner, and the reason for this is because African companies and governments see from the Chinese perspective, something favorable compared to the western system of maximizing corporate profits. China has a different goal, and that goal is to conform to the five principles of peaceful coexistence to benefit the African countries, and China can get natural resources in exchange for providing machinery and technology to the region. In addition, the Chinese perspective in Africa is vastly different from the old, colonial, western model of extracting industries that got rich off Africa.

China has been a stabilizing force in Africa. In some ways perhaps, China’s efforts to make good relations with the U.S, and going along with the U.S in Libya, for example, backfired when they abstained on U.N Resolution 1973, which authorized the use of force to protect civilians, but the NATO countries (U.S. Britain, and France) took an aggressive approach to overthrow the Libyan government, and this was something China did not want to sign onto. In fact, the borders of the African continent were created by the European colonial powers for colonial purposes and interests.

The consequences of colonialism were created in Africa to benefit the colonial powers, and the special case of China was that they were not a part of this legacy. China is a part of the developing world that is anti-colonialism, and the African people will see China as a partner that can bring real change by developing much-needed infrastructure and economic projects that can fill the void of the western powers.

How do Peacekeeping Missions Benefit China?

China has contributed more peacekeeping troops than the four other members of the U.N Security Council. The People’s Liberation Army can benefit from peacekeeping missions because it gives troops combat experience, and the missions will also give troops the exposure to managing operations. This is a learning experience for China because China has never been involved in a confrontational conflict in over three decades, the last time this happened was with Vietnam in 1979.

The peacekeeping missions by the PLA give China more maneuverability in Africa since the United States has lost its stature in the continent. When Trump became president, he announced a significant reduction on UN peacekeeping efforts, and at the same time, we see China filling the void in different activities that are carried out by the United Nations. In 2015, China, along with the Obama Administration agreed on the Paris Climate Agreement and since the Trump Administration withdrew from the deal, China has taken over the leadership role on climate change. In addition, China is emerging as one of the dominant powers in the U.N Security Council, and its peacekeeping missions have made a great contribution to the global community.

The United Nations was created by the United States and the European powers after the Second World War that built a new framework for global governance. As a result, the United States replaced the British as the dominant world power, and it wanted to play this role. It is also interesting and important that we have the Trump Administration pushing hard for an ‘America First’ policy that pushes the U.S as an exceptional power rather than pushing the U.S as a leadership role model. China as a rising global power should step into the global community not by challenging U.S hegemony, which a lot of policymakers get wrong in Washington, but as a power that can play a more responsible role on global issues.

Can China Stick with Peaceful Coexistence in the Future?

China’s five principles goals work in theory, but we live in a geopolitical world that is far from peaceful. If you talk to Chinese diplomats today, they would say that China will still stick to its non-intervention principles, and they will also use active engagement to carry out these principles. We should also make a distinction between the three I’s: Intervention, Interference, and Influence. When China contributes U.N peacekeepers for peacekeeping missions, China does not see this as interference of a recipient country’s internal affairs. Then comes the tricky point of influencing policy because does influencing policy constitute interference? This depends on who you ask. However, in the case of China, it has a very rich box of tools to influence other countries policies for example, using economic incentives like coercive investment and trade opportunities, so China has other tools to influence other countries without using military force.

China’s five principles are proactive principles that create a structural framework for Chinese foreign policy. China would have a different set of principles if they force to react to menacing moves by an outside power that are a threat to China. For example, if the United States carried out military force on the Korean Peninsula, China would feel that their national interests are compelling them to do something since it shares a border with North Korea. China’s principles are again, proactive, but reactive states need to react to their own challenges of protecting national interests which is not only up to China, but other major players in the world.

South Asia is considered as one of the most insecure and unstable regions of the world, where Pakistan and India are two major powers in terms of military might, population, economy and territory.

South Asia has been a victim of traditional and non-traditional security issues where countries focus more on traditional security than non-traditional security issues. This factor has severely affected the overall security dimensions of the region. Due to various conflicts between both states, regional politics have witnessed the play of power.

Pakistan is forced to remain in vigorous competition with India to ensure its security. On the other hand India is struggling to achieve symmetry with China. To achieve its objectives of regional hegemony, India has instituted the strategy of military modernization and increased defence spending. The triangle of Pakistan, China and India, and upcoming India-US collaboration has added new dimensions to the regional security equation and has increased the concerns of policy makers regarding stability of region.

Since 1997, Indian defense spending has been growing at an average of 6.3 percent per year and has doubled in real terms. Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi announced a 10.95 percent hike, raising the 2017–2018 defence budget to $43 billion. Presently, India is the world’s largest importer of conventional weapons, with upwards of $100 billion expected to be spent on modernizing its defense forces over the next decade. In the context of India’s military modernization, two prospects are prevailing, first India aims to upgrade its outdated army and secondly, India is trying to cover the gap with China.

Consequently, trends of recent technology development and Indian acquisition reflect that India’s defence acquisition is largely facilitated by Russia, France, Israel, United States and other European States. Due to these arms suppliers, India is ranked as world’s largest arms importer and foreign assistance has allowed India to achieve its ambitions of surveillance-armed drones, MIRVs, short and long-range missiles, development of BMD system and sophisticated space program. Acquisition, development and integration of these sophisticated technologies in India’s military forces reflect India’s future aspirations and offensive strategies to acquire the status of regional hegemon.

In 2004, India introduced a new military doctrine as a part of its grand strategy to ensure training, procurement, services and national policies to achieve an edge in future military operations under the nuclear umbrella against Pakistan. It is based on the pre-emptive strike to reduce the mobilization period of integrated battle groups for limited war. The aim of the doctrine is to launch a retaliatory punitive conventional strike to inflict maximum damage by using conventional arms at the time of crisis and use it as a bargaining chip.1 Though Pakistan specific Cold Start exercise is still in initial stage, but it has increased the concerns of Pakistan defence planners because of its offensive posture.

On 6 September 2015, Former Chief of Army Staff Gen Raheel Sharif stated: “Pakistan is capable of dealing with all kinds of internal and external threats, be it conventional or sub-conventional, cold start or hot start. We are ready”. Such developments reflect that India’s increased defence spending and Cold Start Doctrine based on the huge militarization thrust, force the regional states to enhance their military capabilities as well as such developments has the potential to disturb the balance of power and increase instability in region.

Along with conventional acquisition of India, its nuclear stockpiles are also a matter of great concern for regional as well as global security planners. In SIPRI 2017 report titled as “Trends in World Nuclear Forces 2017”, it is stated that “India is gradually expanding the size of its nuclear weapon stockpile as well as its infrastructure for producing nuclear warheads. It plans to build six fast breeder reactors, which will significantly increase its capacity to produce plutonium for weapons. India is also currently expanding its uranium enrichment capabilities with the construction of a new unsafeguarded gas centrifuge facility. India’s expanded centrifuge enrichment capacity has been motivated by plans to build new naval propulsion reactors, but the potential excess capacity could also signify its intent to move towards thermonuclear weapons by blending the current plutonium arsenal with uranium secondaries.”

Such developments have challenge the security and strategic stability of the region and influenced the nuclear postures of regional states; and reveals that the combination of India’s massive conventional and nuclear capabilities is worrisome for regional peace.

To conclude, although Pakistan has sophisticated conventional capabilities and credible delivery system for the purpose of its security and nuclear deterrence against the outside aggression but Indian Cold Start Doctrine, high military spending, missile development program and acquisition of BMD-system as well as nuclear powered submarine along with long range ballistic missiles development indicates that India has aggressive intentions regarding strategic interest in the region, which is alarming for regional security and stability.

*Asma Khalid, Writer is Research Associate at Strategic Vision Institute (SVI) Islamabad, can be reached at asmaakhalid_90@hotmail.com

Being part of the OBOR Strategy, CPEC is playing an inevitable role in China’s aim for economic expansion that will definitely benefit Pakistan’s economic situation.

CPEC depends upon Pakistan’s ability to sustain its political stability, internal security situation and provincial harmony and ability to curb extremism which is up to certain extent Pakistan have been successful. There are social, bilateral basis for CPEC which is multifaceted as on one hand it is important for China to cooperate through economics and trade according to liberal views.

It is pertinent o discuss here that it is an apprehension in some analysts’ views that China is capitalizing on vacuum in the bilateral relations of Pakistan and US for its economic and its strategic interests. I am differing here that Pakistan’s aspirations for the concrete relations with China is not against the US or at the cost of Pak-US relations, which have been strained since 2015 — instead both China and Pakistan have been trustworthy friends and diplomatic relations throughout their history.

This project will increase Pakistan’s regional connectivity prospects as well as for the economic growth by boosting the demands for domestic goods and services. Apart from this, there is optimism regarding this project that it could create peace and stability in the region, including Afghanistan. The operationalization of the Gwadar Port in 2016 is the obvious example of what CPEC is delivering on ground.

As China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said, “If One Belt One Road is like a symphony involving ad benefitting every country then the construction of China Pakistan Economic Corridor is a sweet melody of the symphony’s first movement”.

So if this is a sweet melody then all the stake holders of this mega project must take deep interest to secure this making peace in Baluchistan. On the progressive way of CPEC, the negative impulses are overtly coming from India towards proposed CPEC routes and the development of Gwadar Port because of two obvious reasons; first is that these planned routes passes through the conflicted territories of Gilgit-Baltistan and Kashmir among India China and Pakistan.

The second reason is that India has serious concerns that Gwadar will be a Chinese naval base. In response to this both China and Pakistan clarified that the port will be only used for economic purposes, but India still have fears of the Chinese navy access to Indian Ocean.

Last year India’s PM termed the corridor “unacceptable” for the same reason. As far as the security is concerned Andrew Small in his book “The China-Pakistan Axis” maintains that the biggest concern for the Chinese is growing terrorism in the region, especially in its most trusted ally Pakistan where Beijing has agreed to invest $46 billion (earlier cost) for CPEC. However, Islamabad has repeatedly raised its voice against India that it claims is fomenting attacks with just that goal in mind. In recent days Donald Trump has made harsh remarks on Pakistan, long accused of harboring terrorists, having drawn an accurate response from China and Russia, which are two emerging allies of Pakistan and have participated in various talks to resolve the Afghan crises.

“We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars, at the same time they are housing the same terrorists that we are fighting”, Trump said on a televised address on Monday 21 August 2017. Further he said that he is committed to leading the US to victory in America’s longest war in history and warned that Islamabad had “much to lose” by continuing to offer safe havens to agents of Chaos.

It is pertinent to discuss here that since 2001, the US has lost more than 2,200 troops in Afghanistan and in Trumps’ new strategy he will be deploying more 4,000 troops. As Pakistan, Moscow and Beijing since 2016, held a series of table talks to wipe out terrorism in the region.

According to an estimate of South Asia Terrorism Portal, there were 22,000 Pakistani civilians and 6,800 security personals that have been killed since 2003. It does matter in the unbiased analysis whether it had been acknowledged by US or not.

Looking at Pakistan’s diplomatic relations with Russia and China, Trump’s statement has some counter statements. Such as Chinese Foreign Ministry spokes person Hua Chunying appreciated Pakistan, its all-weather friend for making great sacrifices and important contributions in the fight against terrorism and called international community to fully recognize Islamabad’s efforts. And Russian Envoy to Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov speaking on Russia’s Afghanistan Daily that Pakistan is key regional player to negotiate with. He further said, “putting pressure on Pakistan may seriously destabilize the region-wide security situation and result in negative consequences for Afghanistan.

Summing up the whole discussion I would say that Pakistan and China will be accomplishing their mutual ventures particularly CPEC despite the many obstacles and hindrances put forward by India with the assistance of US. Pakistan will not be sandwiched between India’s and US’ stringent policies in the South Asia region because it has realized the unfruitful results in the long period of war on terror, at that time Pakistan has not another option except to be with the US. but now it is in better position in the whole geostrategic fulcrum of US.

*Asia Maqsood is Research Associate at Strategic Vision Institute Islamabad. she can be reached at asiamaqsood.09@gmail.com

India and China diplomatically agreed to pull out their troops in Doklam in Bhutan territory on August 27 after a 72 days fierce scuffle against the protests made to China to stop building road on the Doklam plateau, heading towards the Jampheri ridge.

This was first time when China bowed to India’s strong determination for not budging an inch, even though India ramped up its military presence on the other side of LAC ( Line of control) for the first time. It was also first time when Chinese strategy for cowing down India ended in nadir in the border disputes. Chinse media, Global Times, was puzzled and paradoxical. At one point it escalated the threat of China’s military might, saying, “New Delhi did not draw lessons from 1962 border war”. It triggered a threat of war , clamouring “India’s provocation will trigger all-out confrontation on LAC ….India has most to lose in border spats.”

But, at another point of time, Global Times applauded India’s growth potential in the beginning of stand-off. It stated that, “As low cost manufacturing is gradually moving away from China, it is now critical for India , whether it can replace China as the next world’s factory”. This deciphers China’s bewilderment, unlike the previous border disputes

What had made China a volta-face in the beginning of stand-off and a later turnaround? Were the fears for boomerang by its own people, who are operating businesses successfully in India and loosing India’s support in accelerating globalization after Trump receded, haunted China’s strategy for accelerating threat of confrontation?

Presumably, three reasons prompted China to reverse its anti-India protests. First, Chinese investment in Indian manufacturing and infrastructure projects, second, the upcoming 9th Summit meet of BRICS in Xiamen in China in September and its sensitiveness for solidarity where China is likely to gain more because of its big stakes in New Development Bank, affiliated to BRICS and AIIB ( Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank) and third, Trump’s relook into Asia-Pacific policy, where India is likely to regain its role as linchpin, entrusted during Obama administration

India-China economic relation increased manifold during Modi administration. Unlike his predecessors, Mr Modi tried to woo Chinese investment with two main goals. First, to increase Chinese investment as FDI since India requires huge cash flow to uptick its Make in India initiative and generate employment and use Chinese investment to reduce wide trade deficit gap through curbing cheap Chinese exports, instead of using anti-dumping measures. Modi administration’s forward outlook to Chinese investment seemed to have encouraged Chinese investors, burying the hatchet of the security threat.

Eventually, these yielded results. Chinese companies, who were loosing business in their domestic market, were attracted by India’s higher growth trajectory, large pool of middle class and non-aging people. Six top brand Chinese smartphone makers (Xiaomi, Oppo, Oneplus, Gionee, Vivo, Huawei) have established their manufacturing facilities in India.

India has become the new turf for these Chinese companies to meet their global ambition. India accounted for 60 to 70 percent of the global sales of these Chinese companies. Global sales account for 30 to 35 percent of the total sales of these companies. In a way, India acted an engine for the global presence of these Chinese companies. For Xiaomi’s smartphones, India accounts for 67 percent of its global sales, for Vivo, it is 73 percent, for Oppo, it is 48 percent and for Gionee, it is one-fourth.
Besides, China has become the fourth company to manufacture metro coaches in India as a part of India’s drive for import substitution.

Gung-ho Chinese investment woke up Indian authorities to perceive the Chinese financial muscle for investment, since FDI has become an important instrumental to Make in India. India has mulled a relaxation of visa rules and considered withdrawing China from the list of PRC ( Prior Referral Category).

With Modi-Xi Jinping relations entering in the horizon of hobnob, Chinese investors rushed into India with mega investment proposals. During 2016, Chinese companies proposed US $2.3 billion worth of investment in India. The proposals included acquisition of 86 percent stake, worth US $1.4 billion, by Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical Co in Hyderabad Grand Pharma Ltd, Beiiing Miteno Communication Technology ‘s investment of US$900 million in Media.net, Jiangsu Longzhe’s investment of US$125 million in Diamond Power Infrastructure and Tidfore Equipment’s investment of US$150 million in Uttam Galva Metal Works.

Responding to the Chinese relook towards India as an important investment destination, Indian think tank NITI Aayug renewed interests in attracting Chinese investment, despite the security concern. Underpinning the concern over a large trade deficit, close to US $53 billion — which alone accounts for almost half of India’s global trade deficit — Indian honchos assert that India cannot forever remain a Chinese market without broader economic ties. Both NITI Aayug and the National and Reform Commission of China entered several agreements of economic cooperation in November 2016, embracing energy, urban development, Digital India, Internet Plus, as well as greater access to Indian IT firms in China.

Against this backdrop, the Docklam stand-off imparted back gears to the Chinse companies. The Chinese big investors – Oppo and Vivo – plunged into low sales in India. More than 400 Chinese expats returned home after sharp falls in sales in July and August.

China Railway Corporation (CRC) is carrying out feasibility studies of high speed trains between the Chennai – New Delhi route. It will be no wonder if China can grab the construction deal of the longest route of high speed train and could pose a major challenge to Japanese hegemony in the high speed train field. China has already proven its capability after winning the Jakarta – Bandung 150 km high speed rail project against stiff competition from Japan. Both China and Japan carried out comprehensive studies of the project.

Given the Chinese penchant to invest in India, Sino-India relation has made a strategic shift from politically dominated to business relation. After loosing the low cost manufacturing competitiveness in the wake of the Chinese currency yuan appreciation, China went to vie for overseas investment for survival. Given the India’s sustainable growth and vast domestic market, China cannot afford to lose the attraction of Indian market. Chinese investment should warrant a wake-up call to Chinese aggressive policies for political outreach.

Views expressed are personal

Pursuant to the Paris Agreement, India has been spearheading the clean energy revolution in Asia and has set itself ambitious targets to reduce carbon emissions and follow sustainable development by generating 175 gigawatts of renewable energy (RE) by 2022.

To achieve its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) goals, India requires a whopping USD 200 billion as climate finance. The USA’s exit from its erstwhile commitments under the Green Climate Fund coupled with the shift in priorities under the Trump administration adds pressure on India and other developing countries to generate climate finance independently and place less reliance on international aids and subsidies. Towards this end, India has started developing its climate finance instruments by further economic liberalization and by following international best practices.

In recent years, India has introduced ‘green bonds’- innovative financial instruments to fund the RE sector. Green bonds have been successfully issued by several large corporate and financial institutions such as Yes Bank, Axis Bank and Hero Future Energies which have raised millions of dollars. In May, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) recognized and legitimized the use of these debt instruments and has laid down detailed disclosure guidelines which need to be followed for the issuance of green bonds.

Among other norms, the SEBI laws mandate that the funds raised through green bonds must be utilized specifically for the certain specified purposes such as RE projects; clean transportation; climate adaptation; sustainable waste management, land use and water management projects. The disclosure norms also mandate continuous end use monitoring and performance evaluation through external audit to ensure that the issuer is utilizing the funds efficiently and not misappropriating them towards other purposes.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has also legitimized the issuance of ‘masala bond’ which are debt instruments denominated in Indian currency. One emerging variant of the ‘masala bond’ is the ‘green masala bond’ which is a green bond denominated in Indian currency.

“Addressing climate change is a priority for IFC in India, and the ‘green masala bond’ demonstrates the powerful role of capital markets in mobilizing international savings to help close the climate finance gap,” remarked Jingdong Hua, Vice President, International Finance Corporation. The green bond market in India is developing at a robust pace clocking an impressive 30% growth from 2015 to 2016. The primary factor driving the success of the green bond mechanism can be attributed to the robust regulatory monitoring mechanisms in place. This framework not only increases investor confidence in these instruments but also minimizes the scope for corruption and misuse of funds by ensuring that the funds are allocated exclusively towards the specific earmarked purpose.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about all of India’s climate finance structures. One glaring example of systemic and pervasive corruption in this regard is the National Clean Energy Fund (NCEF) which is funded through the carbon tax. The carbon tax system in India is inherently flawed due for several reasons. Firstly, it is an indirect tax which transfers the ultimate burden on the consumer instead of the producer. This defeats the purpose of the levy because it does not affect the profits of the producer and consequentially fails to act as an effective deterrent against coal and does not adequately encourage a shift to RE. In addition, it increases the cost of access to electricity for the poor Indian consumers who do not have access to alternative sources of electricity.

Secondly, the carbon tax system is not in consonance with internationally recognized best practices such as adherence to the ‘polluter pays principle’; implementation of emissions trading schemes; principle of ‘revenue neutrality’ as well as other effective practices. Further, the rate of this unsound tax has rapidly escalated since its inception in 2010 and currently stands at Rs. 400 per metric tonne of coal which is disproportionately high for the Indian economy.

This regressive tax policy begs the question: where is all the public money going and what is it being utilized for? As things stand, the nation-wide cess collected from carbon tax is channeled into the NCEF The NCEF, is a non-lapsable earmarked fund which is to be exclusively allocated to fund RE projects and aid in climate mitigation efforts.

Since its inception, the NCEF has been riddled with corruption and characterized by maladministration. Till date, only a fractional 30% of the fund has been used to finance RE projects across the country while billions of dollars lie unspent. This is because, the NCEF byelaws are extremely restrictive and are available to very few RE projects which have to meet a set of arbitrary qualifications in order to be eligible for funding.

Ironically, the NCEF in its nascent history has been used to fund several unrelated pet projects of the Government which have nothing to do with the RE sector. While innovative RE projects succumb due to lack of funding, the Government indiscriminately dips into the NCEF as a general reserve on an ad hoc basis. However, the NCEF’s death knoll came recently with the introduction of a new indirect tax regime in India, i.e. the Goods and Services Tax (GST) whereby the unused funds accumulated in the NCEF amounting to approximately USD 25 billion have been diverted to a completely unrelated purpose; i.e., compensating states for losses incurred under the GST regime.

It is important to note that the NCEF is the largest Government administered RE dedicated fund and represents a huge quantum of India’s climate finance. In the absence of the NCEF, several innovative RE projects will be halted or even terminated on account of non-availability of finance. “The Fund cannot be treated as an adjunct to the general Budget, wherefrom shortfalls in meeting budgetary requirements of already approved Plan schemes can be met,” opined Sunil Mitra, former Finance Secretary of India in an inter-ministerial meeting.

The blatant embezzlement of the NCEF also has spillover effects. It may lead to loss of investor confidence and as a result may adversely affect the success of green bonds and other financial instruments. This is because the Government’s skewed climate change policies sends mixed signals to the international community and consequentially causes regulatory uncertainty. Since regulatory predictability is the cornerstone of investor confidence, the diversion of NCEF may erode India’s reputation for climate finance management among the international community at large.

The expropriation of the NCEF highlights the failure of the Government to efficiently procure and administer climate finance and casts a looming shadow over India’s 2022 objectives. While the regulatory framework ensures proper governance of private RE funds such as green bonds; the Government’s unchecked discretion indicates a disconnect between the different wings of the Government as a result of which climate change policy remains in a constant state of paralysis.

Prioritizing purely economic policies such as GST over the far more critical issue of climate change is symptomatic of Trump’s administrative regime. At a time when Trump has turned USA into a traitor in the battle against climate change, the rest of the world cannot afford another country to be trapped in a state of policy paralysis.

Developing nations in Asia depend on emerging leaders such as India and China to lead the clean energy revolution and hence it is vital for India to come out of the current policy paralysis and develop comprehensive and robust mechanisms to enable procurement and proper administration of climate finance.

*Srinivas Raman is a law student at National Law University Jodhpur (India).

On July 17, International University Travnik (Bosnia and Herzegovina) signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the European University – Macedonia. The purpose of this initiative is to continue with the development of academic relations among both universities and strengthen partnerships of IUT in the Balkans region.

Academician Prof. Dr. Ibrahim Jusufranić, the chancellor of IUT has given a special importance to the strategic internationalization oriented towards teaching, exchange of research visits and project based learning for students.

According to Prof. Dr. Ibrahim Jusufranić, “based on the decisions of the IUT Senate, the formulation of curriculum and scientific research will further improve from this Memorandum of Understanding signed with the leadership of European University-Republic of Macedonia of Skopje.”

This cooperation agreement was signed by Chancellor Prof. Dr. Lidija Naumovska (on behalf of the European University-Republic of Macedonia) and Chancellor Prof. Dr. Ibrahim Jusufranić, as the official representative of International University Travnik, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

According to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sabahudin Hadžialić at International University Travnik, “This bilateral agreement will shape the future of scientific cooperation among the two universities and set forth the groundwork of joint research projects in the fields of social sciences, transportation engineering, literature, humanities and the arts.”

Prof. Hadžialić emphasized that, “The Faculties and Students of both universities will cooperate in the field of publications of scientific work including the organization of annual conferences; seminars that will help bring closer the academic communities of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republic of Macedonia. Moreover, both Institutions have prioritized a cooperation framework in the fields of International Affairs, Economic Diplomacy and Globalization of tertiary Education.”

The leadership of International University Travnik has expressed its commitment to strengthen its cooperation with European University – Macedonia, that is mainly focused in the areas of: joint degree programs in the undergraduate and graduate levels; team work in the organization of project based learning initiatives, foster participation on events organized by both universities and exchange visits among professors and students.

Both institutions will be exchanging information on the available funds provided by the European Union and other multilateral organizations, further bolster internationalization of student programs and work together in cross disciplinary projects based on the current socio-economic challenges that affect Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Macedonia.

International University Travnik, was established in 2006, its inception was marked by the inauguration of the College of Economic Sciences and Technical Logistics. Later on the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports of Central Bosnia Canton approved the opening of the College of Transportation and Traffic Engineering. Moreover, the International University Travnik has the following Departments: Environmental Sciences; Law and Social Sciences; Media and Communications; Information Technology and Polytechnic Sciences.

The European University – Republic of Macedonia has the following Academic Departments: Economic Sciences, Informatics, Arts and Design, Law, Criminology and Police Sciences, Dentistry and Political Sciences. The European University is a cutting edge institution of advanced learning, promotes international education and provides academic support to national and international students. The Infrastructures of both universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia are modern and equipped with the last generation of technological equipment, encompassing the best IT equipment paired with top notch Faculty, educated in the Balkans and Europe.

Amidst all the looming actions, the recent upsurge in India’s defense budget by 10 percent appears quite dubious; as it has now reached $43 billion. Whereas, the increased convergence of interests between United States and India specifically in the strategic sector makes the neighboring countries apprehensive of their growing defense procurements; this continuous trend of military modernization threatens to disturb the existing regional balance.

According to a report published by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), since the last four years, India’s defense imports were far greater than those of China and Pakistan. However, India has now undergone a shift in its policy which was introduced in the year 2014. With the primary aim of making India, ‘a global manufacturing hub’ which in turn will encourage both the multinational and domestic companies to manufacture defense products within the country. Such integration would then be a major game changer for India. In the past decade, India has greatly worked in revamping and modernizing the military infrastructure.

Congruently, New Delhi and Moscow have concluded a deal by which India will acquire ‘five regiments of Russian made S-400 advanced Air Defence Systems. The S-400 in comparison to its predecessor has an upgraded radar system; nonetheless it can purportedly fire four new kinds of ‘surface-to-air (SAM) missiles. Moreover, an understanding has been reached by both the states to hold mega war games in the month of October; their armies, navies and the air forces will for the very first time carry out such an exercise.

Until now, India has not participated in tri-services exercise at this large scale. On the other hand, India’s modernization efforts have been upheld by United States, largely. As stated recently by Admiral Tom Harris that United States is willing to help India for enhancing its military capabilities in ‘significant and meaningful ways’. US acknowledgement of India as major defense partner is expected to further boost the Indo-US defense ties and open new channels for US’ defense majors to offer and make their products in India. This convergence of the two governments will upgrade the collaboration at different levels. This expanded resistance participation will prompt the advancement of robust defense industry for India.

Furthermore, by 2020 India will be acquiring the advanced medium- range surface to air missile system which will have the capacity of shooting ballistic missiles and fighter jets; would also be able to carry out an attack from the range of 70kms. Developments like these, possess the tendency of increasing the already mounted regional precariousness.

Proactive strategies, renewed defense settlements and the conventional military build-up enable Pakistan to take counter measures while balancing the strategic equilibrium at the same time; for the Pakistani establishment is right to closely track Indian defense spending , reason being India remains in terms of its military capabilities, the key threat to Pakistan’s security. Be that as it may, a levelheaded, consistent point of view is truly what is required instead of the wild guessing in some hawkish quarters.

Nevertheless, the overdependence of India in terms of its defense procurements would eventually have a negative impact over country’s aspirations of being a global manufacturing hub. Besides, India is by and by the world’s largest buyer of conventional weapons, with an upwards 100 billion dollars anticipated, that would be spent on modernizing defense forces following the coming decade. India’s immediate neighborhood developments broadly identified the need for swift modernization of its armed forces. However, its indigenous development of modern defense hardware continues to remain a concern for it also lacks sophisticated weapons and armory.

India is directing a huge scale modernization of its military mainly in six key areas namely land, air, sea, nuclear, outer-space and cyberspace. This modernization is often obfuscated by logical limitations in consort with poor decision making likewise its policy aspiration for defense self-sufficiency remains largely elusive. Additionally, the major disputes involving India and its neighbors are to say ‘land centric’, highlighting the predominant role of the army in Indian security context.

To conclude, allotting this much amount of disbursements would further act as an escalating agent in the already present disputes. Though the realization which appears necessary to occur, is that where do we draw the line in this ever-growing arms race.

*Saman Rizwan is currently working as a Researcher in Strategic Vision Institute, Islamabad and is an undergraduate student at Department of Defence and Diplomatic Studies in Fatima Jinnah Women University.

On August 28, Prof. Dr. Sadri Ramabaja published a thoughtful analysis in the Albanian News Journal. In his article Prof Ramabaja notes: “Albanians, or at least half of them, for nearly a century, have tried to have Belgrade in their backs as the imposing political capital. They have now made up their mind as a nation, like the other nations of free Europe, with their political willingness, to share sovereignty with Brussels, but without having Belgrade once again as a point of reference! The Free Trade Agreement was signed on December 19, 2006, between the Western Balkan countries in the framework of Central Europe Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA). CEFTA is an international economic organization that was established with the purpose of preparing the former communist countries of Central and Southeastern Europe to integrate to the European Union (EU) in a faster and more natural way.”

Dr. Ramabaja added that: “the lack of a clear geopolitical agenda of the EU for Southeastern Europe, especially for Albania and Albanians, gave birth to the improvised policies, such as the Berlin Process. Meanwhile, the Berlin process led to the birth of the “Common Western Balkans Market” (TPBP), in the form of the former Yugoslavia that was once created by J. B. Tito, minus Croatia and Slovenia, but adding Albania and Kosovo.”

Dr. Ramabaja emphasized: “Kosovo enters with a more specific status in this camouflaged “New Yugoslavia”, since Belgrade, in the framework of the so-called interior dialogue, is preparing to adapt the “two Germanys” model, considering the border between Serbia and Kosovo as an administrative boundary, while presenting this position as a contribution to peace and security in the region. Of course this allegedly flexible attitude of Belgrade is expected to be rewarded by Brussels!”

In continuation is the remainder of the article written by Dr. Sadri Ramabaja:
“Trieste Summit” of 12 July, where the first agreement for “The Common Western Balkans Market” (CWBM) was signed, may be described as the official date of birth of this Regional Economic Zone, which seems to be the most acceptable denomination than any other name that would be more openly associated with the New Yugoslavia!

The informal meeting that took place in Durrës, where the Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama hosted Kosovo Prime Minister Isa Mustafa, Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabic, Macedonian Prime Minister Zoran Zaev, Montenegrin Prime Minister Dusko Markovic and chairman of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denis Zvizdic, along with the “Godfather” of this structure, Commissioner Johannes Hahn and Cyril Muller, the World Bank’s Vice-President for Europe and Central Asia, generated no hopes that a similar fabricated agenda may enable forward looking steps related to the multiannual action plan for the Regional Economic Zone for which they agreed at the Trieste Summit.

“We have an action plan with 115 points in function of this transformation involving the movement of goods, services, capital, skilled workers, which will make the region much more attractive than what it is currently,” emphasized with much fanfare Albanian Prime Minister Rama.

But neither he nor the Serbian Prime Minister (I don‘t even want to mention the outgoing dwarfed Prime Minister of Kosovo), did not dare a conversation about the political agenda that would make this economic agenda credible!

Brussels now clearly understands that the “good words” addressed to the nations of Southeast Europe are no longer sufficient. Other powers, such as Russia and Turkey, even China, have shown interest in the framework of a new geopolitical repositioning. The presence of Russia and Turkey, particularly, is remarkable, especially in Serbia.

But, in spite of this, Commissioner Hahn again said, using the same language of a cold-blooded diplomat, as Frank-Walter Steinmeier once did in Kosovo (“Standards, before the status”!), while stressing that “the time when it will it be possible for the Western Balkans to achieve economic and democratic standards for entry into the EU has not yet been determined”.

“Quality and not speed in the integration process. The EU has invested heavily in the Western Balkans and the result will be its European integration,” he said in Durrës, creating uncertainty over any approximate deadline.

His colleague Wolfgang Petritsch, an Austrian career diplomat, an expert of the circumstances in the Western Balkans, was even more specific saying that “Kosovo needs over 30 years to reach European standards”!

Until the next meeting in the framework of the Berlin process, expected to be held in London next summer, meanwhile a farce interior dialogue over Kosovo is launched by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, but also the obstacles that his political puppets in Prishtina are setting forth to the nation’s factorization, will certainly be stored in the history‘s folders.

Anyways, the London meeting agenda will include the public political component. Until then I expect the ideologues of this process to learn the lesson No. 2 “Father, do you remember Psalm 29?” However, until then, the Father will have full attention to Psalm No. 29, which expressly states “Look ahead, aim higher, there you will gain the glory”.

The moral of this lesson: In your field of action you must always be well-informed otherwise you may lose good opportunities.

Albanians, or at least half of them, for nearly a century, have tried to consider Belgrade in their backs as an evident imposable political capital. Albanians have now made up their mind as a nation, like the other nations of free Europe, with their political willingness, to share sovereignty with Brussels, but without having one more time Belgrade as a point of reference!

Source:
http://albaniannews.com/index.php?idm=14973&mod=2