US Vice President Joe Biden should urge Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucić to take concrete steps to advance human rights protection, Human Rights Watch said in a letter to Biden released today. Biden and Vucić will meet this week in Washington, DC.

“The US administration should call Belgrade out on its poor human rights record and push it to meet its international human rights obligations,” said Lydia Gall, Balkans and Eastern Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch. “That means pushing for concrete steps to end impunity for war crimes, investigate and prosecute ill-treatment of migrants and asylum seekers, beef up investigations and prosecutions into crimes against journalists, and tackle discrimination against Roma.”

Human Rights Watch said Biden should press Vucić to:

• Promptly speed up war crimes investigations and prosecutions stemming from the wars in former Yugoslavia, particularly against higher-ranking military and police officials who may bear command responsibility;
• Promptly and thoroughly investigate the 1999 transfer of bodies of hundreds of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo to Serbia in an attempt to cover-up massacres of civilians and prosecute those responsible;
• Immediately investigate allegations of police abuse against asylum seekers and migrants and hold those responsible to account;
• Conduct prompt, effective, impartial, and thorough investigations into all attacks and threats against journalists and media outlets, including cybercrimes, and prosecute as appropriate; and
• Ensure that everyone in Serbia, regardless of ethnicity, age, or employment status, can access public services, including health care and education.

“Rights protection in Serbia is progressing at a snail’s pace,” Gall said. “The US administration should make it clear to Belgrade that continued good relations between the two countries also depends on measurable improvements of Serbia’s rights record.”

The post US Should Press Serbia On Rights Issues, Says HRW appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Sanchita Bhattacharya

On May 26, a person identified as Ghulam Hassan Dar was killed by unidentified gunmen in Sopore Town of Baramulla District. Dar was the father of a sarpanch [head of panchayat, village level self-government institution] who had an Aircel mobile transmission tower installed inside his residential compound.

On May 25, terrorists shot dead an employee of a Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) franchisee, identified as Mohammad Rafiq Dar, and injured two others at Shah Fasil Market in Sopore town.

On May 23, two grenades were hurled at a residence in Sopore where a mobile transmission tower was installed, but they failed to explode.

The recent attacks on people associated with telecommunication have come after the terrorists’ hitech communication equipment installed atop a tower of an unidentified cellular company was seized by Police on May 23, 2015, in Sopore. “The equipment was used by militants for smooth communication process without detection by security agencies,” Police sources disclosed, adding that the militants suspected that their communication equipment had been handed over to the Police by the people associated with telecom companies in Sopore town.

Earlier, on May 1, 2015, two terrorists had barged into an Airtel show room at General Bus Stand in Sopore and had ‘questioned’ the staff there about their missing communication equipments. The same group of terrorists then went to a Vodafone office at the Water Tank area and subsequently to the Aircel office at Main Chowk with the same query. They threatened the employees at all the three places. Sources indicated that the terrorists might have installed some communication device which would have boosted their internet facilities, as they no longer use cell phones for communication, after reports emerged that terrorists were being traced through cellular channels. An intelligence officer noted, “Militants hardly use radios or cell phones these days. Communication is happening on Voice over Internet Protocol. That needs faster speed and they may have installed these devices to raise the internet speed”.

According to the Police, there are 37 mobile towers under their Sopore jurisdiction. Aircel has 12 towers, followed by Airtel (11), Reliance (5), Vodafone (4), Tata Indicom and Idea (2 each) and one tower of the Government-owned BSNL.

Meanwhile, posters of a hitherto unknown terrorist outfit, Lashkar-e-Islam, have been appearing in Sopore town since May 15, 2015, threatening people associated with telecom companies to stop working or be ready to face consequences. Sopore Superintendent of Police (SP) Abdul Qayoom stated, “Although the Police are investigating Lashkar-e-Islam and its motive, what we can say is it could be a shadow group of Lashkar-e-Taiba or even Hizb-ul-Mujahideen,” adding, “Cell phones have become a major source of information about the whereabouts of the militants, and this seems to be the reason why the outfit is trying to forcibly close down the operation of mobile phones in Sopore in particular and other parts of north Kashmir as well.”

General Officer Commanding 15 Chinar Corps, Lieutenant General Subrata Saha, observed that the singling out of the telecom sector in Sopore brings a new focus to the fight against terror in the Valley: “This group (Lashkar-e-Islam) has been criticized by all. We’re analyzing it as a new threat and I am sure we will expose this unheard of group.”

All major cellular companies operating in Kashmir have shut shop in Sopore. Surprisingly, none of the cellular companies had registered any complaint against the unidentified gunmen, whom they described as ‘militants’. Nevertheless, Police took cognisance of the matter and started investigations. An FIR has been registered for the attacks but no arrests have been made so far.

Terrorists have succeeded in disrupting the entire mobile communication system not only in Sopore, but across the entire Baramulla District. Indeed, on May 27, 2015, one person, identified as Imtiyaz Ahmad, a resident of Aram Mohalla of the Pattan area of Baramulla District, was fired upon and injured by unknown assailants near his home. Ahmad has two mobile phone transmission towers installed at his house.

It is far from coincidental that the epicenter of the new threat is Sopore. Sopore has been a terror stronghold for decades. The town has a vast hinterland that provides hideouts to the terrorists after they strike terror and the easiest points of infiltration into the Kashmir Valley from across the Line of Control (LoC) are to be found in the Tithwal/Tangdhar sector, which lies in the backyard of Sopore town.

Ever since armed conflict began in the Valley, separatist sentiments have run deep in Sopore. When the insurgency broke out in late 1988, Sopore became a hotbed of separatist activity; its geographical location, centered in the midst of north Kashmir, which shares a border with Pakistan, contributed directly to its prominence in the ‘troubles’. According to a report published in April 2013, the Police believe that the conspiracy for most of the attacks across J&K, is hatched in Sopore, because the terrorists receive enormous logistic support locally. Sopore is also the home town of Syed Ali Shah Geelani, leader of the separatist All Party Hurriyat Conference-Geelani (APHC-G).

The terrorist writ ran over a wide area centered around Sopore for a long time. Terrorism survived and even thrived here, despite a continuous campaign by SFs to root it out. Indeed, according to partial data collated by Institute for Conflict Management, since, 2001 a total of 208 fatalities, including 57 civilians, 52 SF personnel and 99 terrorists, have been recorded in the Sopore area of Baramulla District. During the same period, fatalities in the entire Baramulla District stood at 724 – including 130 civilians, 144 SF personnel and 450 terrorists.

Sopore had also emerged as one of the epicenters of the orchestrated rage of the stone pelting campaigns of 2010, along with Baramulla and Srinagar. Though the escalation started in Srinagar in the last week of June 2010, it progressively swelled, with a large number of demonstrations erupting in Sopore.

Indeed, much before the street protests began in June 2010, then J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah had noted, on March 2, 2010, “Militants are grouping in the Sopore area and Kulgam District. These areas are a challenge for us on the militancy front. We are taking extra measures to deal with the militants there.”

The Pakistan-backed Islamist extremist-terrorist networks in Sopore have demonstrated their surviving capacities by forcing the disruption of the telecommunication network in Baramulla through acts of targeted violence. Sopore remains a persistent pool of subversion and unrest in a Kashmir that is increasingly rejecting violence. A focused strategy to neutralize the remaining extremist-terrorist strongholds in J&K is now necessary if the trends towards a growing peace are to be permanently consolidated.

* Sanchita Bhattacharya
Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management

The post India: Ascendant Terror In Sopore, J&K – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The month of June is supposed to be filled with intense negotiations between Iran and the world powers aiming to meet the July 1, 2015 deadline and, yet, the top U.S. negotiator, namely, Secretary of State John Kerry, is undergoing a surgery due to the injury he sustained while biking in Geneva, potentially sidelining him during this crucial month. This unfortunate, and highly untimely, accident may in fact lead to the extension of the nuclear deadline, in light of the prominent direct role that kerry has played in steering the ship of US diplomacy in these talks over the past two years. He is credited for playing a huge role in reaching the April 2, 215 Lusanne agreement — on basic core elements of a comprehensive deal.

A manna from heaven for the hawkish U.S. politicians and pro-Israel lobbyists who are opposed to a final nuclear deal, Kerry’s accident serves their purpose of throwing obstacles after obstacles to delay and ultimately prevent a deal. In his absence, Kerry’s subordinates including Wendy Sherman, the chief U.S. negotiator, will need to fill his spot at the table and Kerry might engage in some remote conferencing. But, given the critical role that Kerry has played in the numerous meetings with his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, it is doubtful that such remedies will suffice to compensate for his absence in direct talks at a sensitive moment when there are still gaps in the positions of both sides that need to be bridged for the sake of a final agreement. These gaps pertain to such issues as Western demands for access to Iran’s military sites as well as its scientists, the number of centrifuges at the Fordo facility, the sequence and timeline for lifting the Iran sanctions, and the like.

After the latest bilateral round between Zarif and Kerry, Iran’s foreign minister vowed to devote full energy to reaching an agreement during this month, yet Zarif must now wonder if the American negotiation team can make the same commitment with their captain in hospital? According to a source close to the Iranian negotiation team, President Obama might need to step in and increase his input in the negotiation process now that Kerry has been temporarily sidelined. There is a residual worry in Iran that a lengthy Kerry absence might benefit the more hawkish (national security) elements in the White House who are not necessarily on the same page with the more pragmatic US Department of State officials headed by Kerry.

By all indications, there is a growing push in the U.S. for an extension of the July deadline. Case in point, Gary Samore, a former White House non-proliferation official who nowadays heads an anti-Iran advocacy group, United Against Nuclear Iran, has tried to justify an extension as a “tactical move.” United Against Nuclear Iran is reportedly funded by some right-wing, pro-Israel Jewish donors and has a history of media-savy Iranophobia.

But, with so much progress already made in narrowing the differences, it is important to maintain the momentum and reach an agreement, instead of giving the opponents of an Iran deal another window of opportunity to wreck this golden opportunity. Even a temporary extension might backfire against the delicate process of negotiations that transpires in a complex political environment that is full of hazards with respect to an Iran deal, in light of the volatile backdrop of conflicts and tensions throughout the Middle East today. Indeed, Kerry’s accident might not be the only one, given the proximity of hostile forces in the Persian Gulf and the region’s proneness to incidents that could trigger open hostilities. What is for sure, however, is the absence of a calm environment for the Iran nuclear talks, given the incessant Saudi-led attacks on Yemen, the on-going conflicts in Iraq and Syria, etc.

Of course, even without Kerry’s accident, a brief extension of the deadline may be inevitable because of the extent of remaining gaps that require in-depth diplomatic transactions; Kerry’s accident has simply complicated the process and it remains to be seen how quickly he can recuperate from his injury and resume the direct stewardship of the U.S. diplomacy in Iran talks. Chances are that his deputy, Anthony Blinken, who has replaced Kerry at a Paris conference on ISIS, will fill Kerry’s role during the next three to four weeks if his boss is unable to travel. The big question, then, would be if Blinken is up to task and compensate for Kerry’s skillful last-minute breakthroughs? This is highly unlikely, particularly in light of the important personal rapport that Kerry has already established with Zarif and, therefore, the bigger possibility is that Kerry will try hard to be on the negotiation scene. That would be a heroic effort on the part of the 71 year old U.S. diplomat who is a Vietnam war veteran and familiar to hardship. Should that happen, the next question would be if Kerry would be up to par with the task when his physical condition would be sub-optimal?

The post Nuclear Deal Complicated By Kerry’s Accident – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By German A. Ospina*

After two decades of coca crop-dusting as part of a counter-narcotics campaign, Colombia has decided to end its aerial coca eradication program. In a contentious decision, the Colombian government, more specifically, the National Narcotics Council, voted 7 to 1 on May 15 to officially suspend the program. The move was urged by President Juan Manuel Santos and the country’s Health Ministry on the heels of a March 2015 report by the World Health Organization’s International Agency on Research in Cancer that concluded glyphosate, the chemical used in the eradication program, was believed to be carcinogenic to humans. The decision represents a profound victory for the Left and green opposition in Colombia, which maintains that aerial spraying has produced detrimental environmental effects, damaged legal crops, and devastated the livelihoods of poor farmers. While the decision received approval from research and advocacy organizations throughout Colombia, it has led to harsh criticism by U.S. and Colombian law enforcement officials who claim that terminating the aerial spray program could lead to a boost in the production of cocaine. Facing mounting pressure, President Santos has reassured critics that Colombia will continue to find ways of eliminating illicit coca plantations used for cocaine production.[1]

Historical Background

For the past 35 years, Colombia has been a key producer for illegal drugs, most notably cocaine, and a notorious hotspot for violence, kidnappings, and an ongoing guerilla war. In the 1980s, Colombia’s drug industry boomed with the rise of drug barons, such as the infamous Pablo Escobar of the Medellín Cartel and the Rodríguez Orejuela brothers of the Cali Cartel. The role of guerrilla and paramilitary groups in the industry throughout the 1980s and 1990s deepened the violence, kidnappings, and guerrilla conflict.[2] It is well-documented that more than 50,000 perished during this period alone.[3] Currently, the annual earnings of the drug trade is estimated at $10 billion USD, and Colombia accounts for 43 percent of the world’s global coca supply.[4]

Let’s rewind the clock 20 years to when Colombia, eager to defeat the illegal drug industry, began to experiment with aerial spraying of coca crops. Under the advocacy of the U.S. DEA, the Colombian government took a militaristic approach, implementing large scale aerial spraying of glyphosate on coca fields throughout much of Colombia. As a pillar of Plan Colombia–the multibillion-dollar U.S. aid package to combat drug trafficking–the aerial eradication program fumigated around 4 million acres of land, at a total cost of $2 billion USD. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, from 2001 to the end of 2013, the coca fields in Colombia decreased in size from 345,000 acres to about 118,000 acres. While the figure seems to validate the effectiveness of the eradication practice, many analysts believe that aerial spraying has actually been inefficient, that the reduction of coca plantings can be attributed to other factors, such as the manual eradication of coca and crackdown of cocaine trafficking rings.

One critic of the aerial eradication program is Daniel Mejia, director of the Center for Security and Drug Studies in Bogotá. The center analyses the drug trade and has advised the Colombian government on drug policy. Mejia has determined that aerial spraying has had a minimal impact and that a single hectare (2.47 acre) must be fumigated multiple times before the coca is actually destroyed. His research has also led him to conclude that people who live in areas where aerial fumigation has been implemented suffer from high rates of miscarriages and other health problems.[5]

Health Concerns

In the village of Crucito, Colombia, Manuel de Jesús Sanchez, reminisced about an event that occurred four years ago when he was working in a rice paddy. A crop duster flew by and dumped large quantities of what everyone around him referred to as “the poison.” Sanchez claims that from the moment he was exposed to the glyphosate-based herbicide relied upon by the Colombian government to eradicate coca fields, his skin broke out in a yellow rash. Consequently, white blotches have spread throughout his body, while his eyesight deteriorated. He stresses that receiving treatment from a doctor is not an option, due to his inability to pay for the medication that would be prescribed. Sanchez has resorted to selling candy along the dirt streets to make a living, as he is now incapable of tilling his farm.[6]

Accounts of the harmful effects of the herbicide, ranging from skin problems to miscarriages, are prominent in the settlements along the edge of the Paramillo National Park in northern Colombia. However, tracing the health problems related to glyphosate in Crucito is impossible because exposure to other pesticides has gone on for years and the inhabitants, including a majority of coca growers, do not have the economic resources to make the three hour journey to the nearest hospital to receive care.[7]

Other peasants in the fields of southern Colombia blame their illnesses on glyphosate. Nittson Cuacialpud claims that he developed permanent facial acne a few years ago after a crop duster sprayed his one-hectare (2.47 acre) coca field close to the town of La Hormiga.[8] In a similar story, Fraklin Canacuan, a coca grower, recounts how his eight-year-old daughter became ill after being drenched by glyphosate. He is adamant that the spray makes people sick, usually leading to a fever and skin rashes. While their allegations are unverifiable, there are many claims of glyphosate-related illness in the regions of heavy spraying.

Monsanto, the American agribusiness that manufactures glyphosate, has firmly defended its product despite claims by coca farmers against the herbicide. The company argues that scientific research conducted has determined that the herbicide posed no risk to humans and that the World Health Organization (WHO) blatantly ignored this research.[9] A Latin American protest is gathering in Argentina. More than 30,000 doctors, scientists, and environmentalists launched a campaign calling for Monsanto products to be banned after the WHO report came to light. The movement is spearheaded by doctors who form part of the Federación Sindical de Profesionales de la Salud de La República Argentina (Federation of Health Professionals of Argentina; FESPROSA). FESPROSA claims the chemical is heavily linked to birth defects, unprompted abortions, skin diseases, respiratory illness, and neurological disease. Research and social organizations across Latin America are now protesting against the U.S. multinational corporation. [10]

However, before the blame is put entirely on glyphosate, it must be understood that coca farmers in Colombia regularly handle toxic chemicals. In the Colombian department of Putumayo, Sandra Tejo, a former coca grower, decided to switch to growing black pepper, admitting that leaving the drug trade was a practical decision due to the danger that comes with mixing powerful solvents, such as acetone and sulfuric acid, to turn coca leaves into cocaine. She explained that most of the coca farmers use strong chemicals without proper protection, like googles and facemasks.[11] This is the reality that must be taken into account regarding the day-to-day lives of coca farmers.

Reaction in Bogotá and Washington

Previously Santos–as defense minister under the Álvaro Uribe Administration–was a strong proponent of crop spraying as the principal weapon in the drug trade war. However, after the revelations of the negative health impacts of glyphosate from the WHO report, he urged the banning of the glyphosate spraying.[12] Santos’ decision was perhaps influenced by a 2014 Constitutional Court of Colombia ruling, which stated that serious precaution must be taken in the use of glyphosate, if there are risks to human life. [13]While Santos’ decision is being celebrated by critics of fumigation, it has created a domestic and international dilemma. Domestically, many officials are worried about the lack of initiative by the Santos Administration to come up with a comprehensive alternative to the aerial eradication program. Former Defense Minister, Juan Carlos Pinzón, defended the country’s use of aerial fumigation and claimed that it was an indispensable tool in combating narco-trafficking. In a recent statement he asserted, “We cannot permit losing the benefits [of spraying] to delinquency, crime, and terrorism.” Pinzón added, “We will continue using all our tools that help maintain security for Colombians.”[14]

Internationally, Washington had pushed Bogotá to continue the practice of aerial spraying. In a latest effort to influence the Santos Administration, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy said that the amount of land used to grow coca increased by 39 percent and that aerial spraying declined sharply last year. In addition, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicated that there is a lack of evidence that shows glyphosate poses a cancer risk to humans.[15] In an interview with Time, William R. Brownfield, head of the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, stated, “Glyphosate is today perhaps the world’s most commonly used herbicide.” He also claimed that there has not been one case of cancer caused by glyphosate.[16]

Kevin Whitaker, the American Ambassador to Colombia, recently published an op-ed article in El Tiempo, one of Colombia’s main newspapers, advocating for the continuance of the aerial spray program. Along with the piece, Ambassador Whitaker also stated that a decision to ban aerial spraying would not affect diplomatic relations, as Bogotá has been Washington’s main ally in Latin America during its War on Drugs campaign. In an interview the day before the decision was made, he commented that the ban would be Colombia’s sovereign decision and that Washington would continue to assist Bogotá with the tools necessary in combating drug trafficking.[17]

Peace Process Politics

In addition to the Constitutional Court ruling, the ongoing peace talks in Cuba likely played a pivotal role in Bogotá’s decision to ban aerial spraying. The Colombian government and Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia or FARC) have been engaged in a two-year peace effort to end the five decade long civil conflict that has caused much disorder in the Andean country. The reason for the importance of the dialogue in Cuba is that the aerial spraying has mainly been concentrated in rural areas controlled by the FARC in the southern part of Colombia, whom Bogotá has accused of financing with drug money. Last May, Santos and FARC leaders reached a provisional plan to combat the drug trade, but the FARC demanded in exchange a halt in aerial spraying.[18] The tentative peace plan calls for coca-growing communities to manually and voluntarily eradicate crops in exchange for governmental food and agricultural aid. Under the plan, with the condition that a peace pact is signed, the demobilized FARC would serve as regulators and enforcers of the coca removal plans in the impacted communities.[19]

Hungry Caterpillars as an Alternative?

Now that Bogotá is looking for new alternatives to combat the drug trade without harming coca farmers in the process, a small moth could be the answer to Colombia’s war on drugs. The caterpillars of Eloria noyesi, the Tussock moth, also known as el gringo by the locals, are known for their attraction to the leaves of the coca plant.[20] Alberto Gómez, head of Bogotá’s Quindío Botanical Garden, has orchestrated a plan that he believes could eradicate coca leaves without the use of chemicals. The plan? To flood the country with these little insects as an alternative to spraying the herbicide.[21] It is more complex than it appears, but it could potentially wipe out the drug trade’s main source of income. First, the plan would be to raise thousands of beige moths in a lab, pack them into boxes, and ultimately release them in areas of cocaine production. Gómez is convinced that the moths will immediately find their way to the coca leaves, lay their eggs, and eliminate the coca once the caterpillars hatch.

However, this would not be the first time that such a plan has been suggested. A similar plan was proposed in 2005, and it drew considerable interest from the Colombian government as an alternative to spraying herbicides. But, the general public, specifically environmental groups, were not interested in the proposal. In a 2005 interview with the Associated Press, Ricardo Vargas, director of the environmental group Andean Action, claimed that releasing a large quantity of moths into a particular area could potentially muddle the dynamics of the local ecosystem. He added, “With a plan like this, the chance for ecological mischief is very high and very dangerous.”[22] While experts on biological control agree that the moths will not solve Colombia’s drug trade problem, most believe that it could be a better option than carcinogenic chemicals.[23]

Conclusions

Colombia’s unilateral decision to scrap the aerial coca eradication program is a significant stride on the road to peace. Bogotá’s commitment to steer away from its militaristic approach is admirable considering the country’s history; however, this poses a new challenge for the Santos Administration. Illicit coca production and narco-trafficking continue to be major societal issues and the government must implement measures to combat the drug trade in ways that do not cause harm to its citizens. Ultimately, history will decide whether the decision to ban aerial spraying by Santos–a man who has banked his presidential legacy on the outcome of a peace accord–will be successful.

*German A. Ospina, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Notes:
[1] http://www.ibtimes.com/colombia-halts-us-backed-aerial-coca-eradication-program-citing-dangers-herbicide-1924471

[2] http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/13/colombia-calls-a-draw-in-the-war-on-drugs/

[3] http://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/book/roots-violence-colombia

[4] http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/13/colombia-calls-a-draw-in-the-war-on-drugs/

[5] http://www.wsj.com/articles/colombia-close-to-ending-aerial-assault-on-drug-crops-1431202902

[6]http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_COLOMBIA_COCA_SPRAYING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=&CTIME=2015-05-14-00-01-12

[7] http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/science/article/In-rural-Colombia-ban-on-anti-coca-herbicide-is-6262442.php

[8] http://time.com/3855670/cocaine-surge-usa/

[9] http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/05/15/406988063/colombia-will-end-coca-crop-dusting-citing-health-concerns

[10] http://www.fruitnet.com/americafruit/article/165084/argentine-doctors-call-for-monsanto-ban

[11] http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/05/15/406988063/colombia-will-end-coca-crop-dusting-citing-health-concerns

[12] http://www.wsj.com/articles/colombia-takes-u-turn-on-drug-policy-1431650471

[13] http://www.wortfm.org/colombian-authorities-call-for-end-to-glyphosate-aerial-spraying-of-coca-crops/

[14] http://www.wsj.com/articles/colombia-wants-aerial-spraying-of-coca-plants-suspended-1430245232

[15] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/colombia-stops-spraying-herbicide-on-its-cocaine-plants-10253646.html

[16] http://time.com/3855670/cocaine-surge-usa/

[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/world/americas/colombia-halts-us-backed-spraying-of-illegal-coca-crops.html?_r=0

[18] http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/15/colombia-shelves-its-air-war-on-cocaine.html

[19] http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/colombia/article21078951.html

[20] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cocaine-eating-moths-could-be-new-weapon-drug-war-180955307/?no-ist

[21] http://magazine.good.is/articles/cocaine-eating-moths-colombia

[22] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cocaine-eating-moths-could-be-new-weapon-drug-war-180955307/?no-ist

[23] http://www.popsci.com/colombia-plans-fight-cocaine-hungry-moths

The post New Challenge For Santos Administration: Colombia’s End To Aerial Coca Eradication Program – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By David W. Murray and John P. Walters*

The anti-marijuana legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) has issued recommendations to Congress for rule changes regarding research on marijuana. Among their six proposals are to allow multiple sites beyond the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to grow and dispense research marijuana, to eliminate Public Health Service (PHS) oversight review for research applications, and to facilitate without Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) involvement the marijuana component Cannabidiol, in hopes that it will have medical value.

These proposals are contrary to current law and even violate international treaties, but are said to be necessary, because NIDA has been too modest in exploring marijuana’s potential medical value, and because the federal government stands accused of “blocking” such research.

News accounts of the recommendations quote UCLA professor Mark Kleiman, a marijuana legalization consultant, who thinks this is “a good step,” as, “I don’t think there’s any question that cannabinoids … have medical utility, and we have to find out what that is.”

Kleiman’s praise invokes an inappropriate standard for those seeking to develop new medications, however. We should not explore a substance because it “may have medical utility,” but rather, as for any pharmacological development (especially given the abuse potential of this drug), ask “is there a clinical need that can be met by a substance derived from marijuana, demonstrating acceptable safety in use, with established therapeutic value for a specific condition that equals or exceeds that of existing medications?”

Moreover, the demonstration of safety and therapeutic value must precede efforts to change the law to make the substance available.

SAM appears to be responding uncritically to activist claims that are misleading, and their “solution” will be counter-productive. Importantly, it does not solve the problem of marijuana research that it was designed to address. Though legalizers blame government control of the drug, in reality the impediments are found in the nature of proper clinical trials.

It is difficult to design a research protocol concerned with a non-purified, non-standardized substance, most commonly smoked, that is a compound of multiple chemicals, some which are known to be dangerous, with no established dose for any specific medical condition.

Mere “shot-gunning” for potential value is not a proper research protocol. The point of having NIDA and PHS review committees is to ensure that proposed protocols are sufficiently rigorous that the results can be meaningfully interpreted. Claims of therapeutic value have not met the standards to which any drug is subjected, and so far, research that has been conducted suffers from small numbers of participants whose adherence to double-blind, case-controlled conditions is problematic.

Moreover, inadequate research protocols threaten to provide findings that would be, in reality, false positives, if the claimed medical value is illusory. Were we to provide the substance as an approved medicine where safety and efficacy have not been carefully controlled and demonstrated we can actually harm patients suffering from multiple medical conditions (such as veterans suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).

Finally, by removing the stricture of having one official source for the drug with appropriate review panels, the door is open to potential abuse of medical pronouncements by activists, who might conduct “science by press release.” This happens where tentative and non-replicated results are allowed to drive headlines and build political pressure for greater acceptance of the substance, a scenario similar to that shown this week by retracted political science results published in the journal Science.

Encouraging “multiple centers” that are given authority to dispense marijuana runs the risk that they will provide the drug to political activists. The work of such activists, working in coordination with a compliant and pro-marijuana press, is a situation that is not likely to provide sound medical outcomes.

We would look askance at calls to “loosen up” research protocols to explore the medical value of vodka under pressure from corporations that market alcohol, as well as studies undertaken by commercial alcohol enterprises, or even researchers operating with alcohol industry grants. In fact, we already experience concern when pharmacological companies are felt to be too involved in studies of new drugs that they themselves hope to market.

Finally, the call to abandon current DEA supervised strictures, or to rush forward with a special dispensation for the (presumed) safer and potentially beneficial Cannabidiol, in the absence of actual demonstration in clinical trials that Cannabidiol has these characteristics, is unwise, at best. If and when Cannabidiol has proven merit, it is unlikely to be offered as a raw, smoked plant, but will rather be a purified, synthesized medicine.

A sensible person should always ask, “Of all the medications available today—including many that are dangerous and subject to abuse—why is marijuana the only substance that cannot demonstrate effectiveness and safety within established protocols?” Well, actually, there are medications based on marijuana that have been proven safe and effective for some conditions, and they are currently available for prescription.

If more components of cannabis are worthy new medicines, they too should be scientifically proven and handled within established structures. Research into any drug, including marijuana, should be independently validated, and held to strict medical standards, to protect the integrity of a medical system that serves and protects all Americans.

*About the authors:
David W. Murray, Senior Fellow

John P. Walters, Chief Operating Officer

Source:
This article was published by the Hudson Institute.

The post Not-So-Smart Proposals On Marijuana Research – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Fortum said Monday it has completed the divestment of its Swedish electricity distribution business, which was announced on March 13, 2015. The transaction has all the necessary regulatory approvals and the customary closing conditions have been met.

The total consideration from the divestment is SEK 60.6 billion on a debt- and cash-free basis (corresponding to approximately EUR 6.5 billion). Fortum will book a one-time sales gain of approximately EUR 4.3 billion corresponding to close to EUR 5 per share. The final sales gain will be reported as part of the second quarter 2015 results of the discontinued operations. Distribution segment has been presented as discontinued operations since the first quarter of 2015.

The new owner of the Swedish distribution business is a consortium comprising Swedish national pension funds Första AP-Fonden (AP 1) (12.5%), Tredje AP-Fonden (AP 3) (20.0%), Swedish mutual insurance and pension savings company Folksam (17.5%) and the international infrastructure investor, Borealis Infrastructure Management Inc. (50%). A total of approximately 400 employees will continue their work in the sold business. The electricity distribution to the approximately 908,000 customers will also continue without disruption upon closing.

Upon the closing of the transaction, Fortum completes the divestment process of its distribution businesses in Sweden, Norway and Finland. The divestment process started in December 2013, when Fortum concluded a strategic assessment of the future alternatives for the distribution business.

After the distribution divestment, Fortum will focus in line with its strategy on CO2-free hydro and nuclear power production and efficient combined heat and power generations as well as electricity sales and the development of related services to its customers, the company said.

The post Fortum Completes Divestment Of Swedish Electricity Distribution Business appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Jonathan Cook*

Only a few weeks into Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government, the intense strain of trying to square its members’ zealotry with Israel’s need to improve its international standing is already starkly evident.

The conundrum was laid out clearly by Tzipi Hotovely, a young political ally of Netanyahu’s recently appointed to oversee the foreign ministry on his behalf.

She called together the country’s chief diplomats last week to cite rabbinical justifications for taking Palestinian land. Her broader message was that Israeli embassies abroad needed to stop worrying about being “smart” and concentrate instead on being “right”. Urging the country’s envoys into a headlong confrontation with the world community, she told them the “basic truth” was: “All the land is ours.”

Netanyahu is too experienced a politician to take Hotovely’s advice fully to heart himself. Having briefly spoken his mind to ensure he won the recent general election, he has now walked back a comment much criticized by the White House that he would never permit a Palestinian state.

Damage control was also the reason he quickly cancelled defense minister Moshe Yaalon’s plan to create separate buses for Jewish settlers and Palestinian laborers as they return to the occupied territories at the end of a day in Israel.

Unlike most in his cabinet, Netanyahu understood that, denied by his military of even the flimsiest security pretext, the historical antecedents of bus segregation were too uncomfortable, especially for Israel’s patron, the United States.

The graver danger for Netanyahu is that, stuck with a cabinet of the like-minded – of ultranationalists, settlers and religious extremists – he lacks a solitary fig leaf to soften his image with the international community.

In his two previous governments, he relied on such sops: Ehud Barak, his defense minister, followed by Tzipi Livni as justice minister became the sympathetic address in the Israeli cabinet craved by Washington and Europe. Both spoke grandly about Palestinian statehood, even while they did nothing to achieve it.

With no veteran of the peace-process to hand, the west now faces an Israeli foreign ministry led jointly by Hotovely and Dore Gold, appointed director-general this week. Gold, a long-time hawkish adviser to the prime minister, is deeply opposed to Palestinian statehood, and even floated two years ago the idea of annexing the West Bank.

The minister in charge of talks with the Palestinians – hypothetical though such a role is at the moment – is Silvan Shalom, another Netanyahu intimate who publicly rejects the idea of two states and supports aggressive settlement building.

Other key ministries affecting Palestinian life are similarly burdened with righteous – and outspoken – extremists.

Shortly before announcing his bus segregation plan, Yaalon suggested that Israel, in dealing with Iran, might ultimately follow the example set at the end of the Second World War by the US, as it dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yaalon’s deputy, Eli Ben Dahan, a leading settler rabbi, refers to Palestinians as “sub-human”.

Ayelet Shaked, who spoke in genocidal terms against Palestinians in Gaza last summer, calling them “snakes”, now oversees Israel’s justice system, the sole – and already feeble – form of redress for Palestinians struggling against the occupation’s worst excesses.

Other ministers are no less dogmatic in their fanatical opposition both to Israel signing an agreement with the Palestinians and to the US signing one with Iran. The self-evident absurdity of diplomacy in these circumstances may be one reason why Tony Blair, the already deeply ineffective Middle East peace envoy, threw in the towel this week.

Similarly, Barack Obama is certain to find the new Israeli government an even bigger headache than Netanyahu’s previous two.

While the US tries to reach a deal on Iran’s nuclear program and revive peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel – however futile such a process may be – Israeli ministers will be in a contest to see who can make most mischief.

Netanyahu, already an unloved figure at the White House, will now find no one across the Israeli cabinet table helping him to apply the brakes.

The irony is that, just as the White House gears up for another 18 months of humiliation and sabotage from Netanyahu and his government, Obama is showering Israel with gifts, as part of its long-standing “security” doctrine.

Last week, it was reported, the US agreed to provide Israel with $2 billion worth of arms, including bunker-buster bombs and thousands of missiles, to replenish stockpiles depleted by Israel’s sustained attack on Gaza last summer that killed more than 2,000 Palestinians.

The news broke just as United Nations officials reported that unexploded ordnance was still claiming lives in Gaza nearly a year later.

According to the Israeli media, the US is also preparing to “compensate” Israel with other goodies, including possibly more fighter planes, if Netanyahu agrees to restrain his criticisms over an expected deal with Iran in June.

And Washington averted last week a threat to Israel’s large, undeclared nuclear arsenal by blocking the efforts of Arab states to convene a conference to make the Middle East free of nuclear weapons by next year.

The lesson drawn by Netanyahu should be clear. Obama may signal verbally his disquiet with the current Israeli government, but he is not about to exact any real price from Israel, even as it shifts ever further to the fanatical right.

* Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Visit: www.jonathan-cook.net. (A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.)

The post US Rebukes Israel While Showering It With Arms And Favors – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Morocco’s King Mohammed VI addressed a message of condolences and compassion to US Vice President
Biden over the death of his 46-year-old son, Beau.

King Mohammed expressed his sympathies for the veteran of the Iraq War who served
eight years as Delaware’s attorney general.

Beau Biden had announced recently that he planned to run for governor of Delaware in
2016. He had served in the Delaware National Guard, including a yearlong deployment
in Iraq, where he was awarded a Bronze Star.

He was first diagnosed with brain cancer in August 2013.

Beau chose to continue a year’s stint in the National Guard in Iraq rather than be
appointed to the Senate seat his father left to become vice president in 2009.

In his message, HM the King said he was very moved by this sad news concerning the
passing of Beau Biden. In this painful circumstance, HM the King extended to the US
vice-president, his wife and their family’s members, his heartfelt condolences and
sincere solidarity and compassion, Praying God to give them strength and comfort.

The post Morocco’s King Sends Condolences To Biden Family appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Rwanda Utilities Regulatory Authority (RURA) placed an indefinite suspension on BBC broadcasts in the county’s most common language. The BBC’s FM broadcasts in Kinyarwanda was suspended in a row over the broadcasting on the documentary, Rwanda’s Untold Story.

According to Kigali authorities, the documentary had made “a litany of claims and assertions” that “violate Rwandan law, the BBC’s own ethical guidelines and limitations to press freedom”. It also accused the film of “minimizing and denying” the 1994 genocide, urging the government to “initiate criminal and civil processes”.

Through a spokesperson, the BBC responded: “We are extremely disappointed by the decision of the commission to indefinitely suspend the BBC Kinyarwanda programme. The BBC World Service (including the English and Swahili to which the ban doesn’t apply) reaches an audience of over 2 million in Rwanda who rely on the BBC for impartial news and information. We stand by our right to produce our independent journalism and strongly reject any suggestion that the documentary Rwanda’s Untold Story constitutes genocide denial.”

Rwanda has strict laws against the diffusion of “genocide ideology”, historic revisionism and incitement of hatred. The use of these laws by authorities has been strongly criticized by the opposition and other nations, as an attempt to impose a favorable image of the current administration.

The post Rwanda Suspends BBC Broadcasts Indefinitely appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The Abuja-based Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) arrested six senior central bank officials over an alleged N8 billion ($40 million) currency fraud.

The EFCC said the fraud contributed to the failure of the government’s policy of reducing inflation in recent years.

The anti-corruption agency also held 16 private bank workers in connection to the scam.

The move comes just days after President Muhammadu Buhari was sworn into office, vowing to fight corruption as a priority.

The post Nigeria: 6 Central Bankers Arrested In Alleged Fraud Case appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Michael Lelyveld

China’s government appears to be planning a major restructuring of its petroleum industry that would force state-owned giants to sell their pipeline networks.

The limited breakup of the oil and gas monopolies under consideration by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) would establish pipeline operators as independent businesses to ensure competitive access, Bloomberg News reported on May 12.

In theory, state-owned industry leaders China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) and Sinopec could also benefit from the sales, which would raise cash for more profitable exploration and production activities.

Neil Beveridge, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. in Hong Kong, estimated that China’s 120,000 kilometers (74,500 miles) of pipelines could be worth as much as U.S. $300 billion (1.86 trillion yuan), Bloomberg said.

The companies have not commented on the report.

On its face, the spinoff plan bears a resemblance to the reforms of the European Union’s “third energy package” for gas and power regulation, which ordered “unbundling” of energy suppliers from networks starting in 2011.

The goal was to prevent producers from controlling access to pipelines and transmission systems to limit competition and keep prices high.

How far China’s government will go with similar unbundling remains to be seen.

Officials are said to be discussing creation of a national pipeline company that would manage the infrastructure or a series of regional companies. Neither option suggests that the networks would be privatized.

Some preliminary steps have been underway for the past year.

In May 2014, CNPC sparked interest with a plan to transfer its first and second West-East gas pipelines to a subsidiary in preparation for an auction that would leave the company without any stake in the assets.

But two months later, industry sources told Reuters that the company had reconsidered the plan and would instead sell the pipelines to an affiliate that was 50-percent owned by its PetroChina subsidiary.

The latest report suggests that the government could go beyond half-measures to spur competition and production.

Growth of gas production is vital to China’s efforts to improve air quality by reducing reliance on high-polluting coal.

But so far, it seems more likely that investment opportunities will be limited to the “mixed-ownership” model that the government has promoted to lure private capital into sectors that remain under state control.

Reform discussions

The pipeline plan is one of a series of reported reform discussions within government agencies that appear to be trial balloons.

In April, the official Xinhua news agency said that the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) was studying a “massive” merger and acquisition plan for its main state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that would cut their numbers from 112 to 40.

The proposal followed months of reports that the government was considering a CNPC-Sinopec merger to create a “national champion” that could compete with international oil majors. But both plans have faced criticism for reducing competition within China.

Philip Andrews-Speed, a China energy expert at National University of Singapore, said the issue of pipeline access is significant for China’s efforts to develop new sources of unconventional gas, including coalbed methane and shale gas.

“In both industries, there are a number of local state-owned and private companies that cannot easily get access to pipelines, so third-party access has been an issue for several years,” Andrews-Speed said in an email message.

“It is even more critical now with the perceived opportunities for shale gas and, in the future, for synthetic natural gas,” he said.

Both CNPC and Sinopec opened new pipelines from their shale gas development projects last month, Platts energy news service reported.

China’s unconventional gas production in 2014 reached 4.9 billion cubic meters (173 billion cubic feet), representing less than 4 percent of domestic gas output of 132.9 billion cubic meters (bcm), according to Ministry of Land and Resources figures. But the unconventional gas volume jumped 42 percent from a year earlier, making it a source of new growth, Platts reported in January.

Coalbed methane output climbed 23.3 percent to 3.6 bcm, while shale gas production rose by more than five times to 1.3 bcm, Platts said.

So far, there has been no word on whether the spinoff plan would affect CNPC’s control over oil and gas import pipelines from Central Asia, which have been developed over the past decade with major long-term investments.

Change in ownership outside China seems unlikely, in part because it could require renegotiation of agreements with transit countries.

Potential investors in any future pipeline company within China may also be dealing with uncertainty over state regulation and control of the infrastructure.

“Even with ‘independent’ owners and operators of the pipelines, the government will need to regulate the terms of access, including quantity and price, which will be a new task,” Andrews-Speed said. “Those who purchase the network will face an untested regulatory regime.”

The government may already have a partial model in the power sector after having separated electricity generators from transmission with the creation of state grid companies over a decade ago.

Far from perfect

In practice, however, the model has been far from perfect.

Over the years, government regulators have frequently blocked market forces in the power sector by manipulating “on grid” and retail rates.

While the pipeline plan may still be in preliminary stages, it appears to be part of larger energy reforms that the government has promised to advance.

In March, the State Council, or cabinet, released a document on “deepening” reform in the power sector, focusing on distribution and changes in the pricing system. A final decision on allowing foreign investment in distribution and sales was expected, the official English-language China Daily said.

In April, the National Energy Administration (NEA) again pledged pricing reforms, suggesting reduced regulation but leaving details vague.

“The costs and prices of electricity transmission and distribution will be monitored, but the price determined by the market,” the NEA said, according to Xinhua.

In May, the State Council also said it would “improve” natural gas pricing mechanisms as one of the items on its list of priorities for economic reforms this year.

Where the pipeline spinoff plan fits into the agenda is hard to predict. But successive Chinese governments have experimented with energy pricing reforms for years, and those policies may have to progress further before the economics of selling the energy networks become clear.

The government has been sending mixed signals about investment opportunities under its plans for mixed-ownership and public-private partnerships (PPP).

On March 25, the NDRC released a list of more than 1,000 projects that will be open for investment under the PPP model. The projects have a potential value of nearly 2 trillion yuan (U.S. $322 billion), Reuters reported.

But on the same day, the SASAC suggested it would keep a tight rein on asset selloffs under mixed-ownership that may limit restructuring and profitability.

The agency plans to “increase supervision to prevent losses” and “the draining of state assets during a mixed-ownership period,” Xinhua said.

The post China Eyes Pipeline Sale Plan – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Titli Basu

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to the United States (US) in late April and early May 2015 and his meeting with President Barack Obama was aimed at demonstrating two things: First, Japan’s readiness to shoulder extra responsibilities within the framework of the US-Japan security alliance, which, since its inception, has been an asymmetrical arrangement owing to the constraints imposed by Japan’s pacifist constitution. The categorical message that emerged from the Japanese side was that the alliance with the US will continue to be at the core of Japanese security strategy despite unfolding changes in that policy. Second, America’s reiteration of its commitment to the rebalancing strategy in the wake of East Asia’s geopolitical transition as well as extension of assurance to Japan that it will continue to be the key anchor of American strategy in East Asia. Although the seven decade old alliance has been put to test on several occasions, Obama underlined its essence as being “with and for each other”.1

What are the variables driving America and Japan to further strengthen their security alliance? What challenges confront them as they shape their partnership? And, what do these developments imply for regional stability? These are the questions that this Issue Brief explores.

Abe’s visit to the US needs to be seen through the prism of security, economics and the history which has sparked a renewed sense of nationalism in the region against the backdrop of the 70th anniversary of World War II. The biggest take away from his state visit was that the core of the US-Japan security alliance, i.e., the Guidelines for US-Japan Defense Cooperation, has been revised after 18 years, reflecting a vertical and horizontal deepening of security relations. Moreover, the economic pillar of Obama’s rebalancing strategy, namely the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade negotiations, which has tested the depth of the US-Japan partnership in recent times as the two countries fiercely debated rice and automobile tariff barriers, has reportedly reached its penultimate stage. However, it did not translate into an actual agreement during the summit. Furthermore, while addressing the US Congress, Abe adopted a measured approach in articulating Japan’s perspective on the critical history issue,2 as the region debates the possible content of his upcoming August 15 speech vis-à-vis Japan’s ‘deep remorse’ and ‘apology’ for its role during World War II.3 This has sparked critical responses from regional actors including China and the Korean Peninsula.

Post-war Japan relied exclusively on the US-Japan security alliance, which has served both nations’ interests. The conservative pragmatist school of thought in the Japanese security discourse, led by Yoshida Shigeru, supported the alliance since it enabled Japan to direct post-war resources on economic development while depending on the US to ensure security. At the same time, this alliance allowed the US access to Japanese bases,4 thus facilitating the forward deployment of troops and other military assets to bolster its strategic presence in East Asia aimed at containing the Soviet Union and communist China.5 Bases in Japan were used by US forces during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Moreover, in 1954, the US transported hydrogen-bomb equipped F-100 fighter-bombers to the Kadena air base situated in Okinawa.6 Even as Japan is faced with the predicament associated with the stationing of marines in Okinawa, public opposition and HNS (Host Nation Support) burden sharing issues, the Japanese foreign policy discourse suggests that the “US presence in the region is a stabilizing factor for which there is no substitute”.7 While the alliance has survived several challenges including severe trade frictions and the collapse of the Soviet Union, troop commitments to Japan and South Korea constitute the core of the US presence in Northeast Asia.

The China Variable in the US-Japan Alliance

The alliance is navigating through the post-Cold War challenges originating from the expanding Chinese sphere of influence and the provocative rhetoric and behaviour of nuclear North Korea. The two primary drivers reinforcing the US-Japan commitment to the alliance includes managing China’s relative increase of power in the post-Cold War era as well as an unpredictable North Korea. The People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) military modernisation and China’s expansive territorial claims in the East China Sea have increased Japanese apprehensions. Even as Japan has been articulating its concern about the lack of transparency in China’s military budget, the latter’s defence expenditure has increased by nearly four times during the last 10 years and by 40 times in the last 26 years.8 Numerous incidents, including nuclear powered Chinese submarines entering Japanese territorial waters southwest of Okinawa in 2004, the collision between a Chinese fishing boat and a Japanese Coast Guard vessel in September 2010, a Chinese vessel directing its radar at a Japanese naval destroyer in January 2013, China’s establishment of an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) in November 2013 encompassing the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, and Xi Jinping’s advice to the PLA to strengthen combat responsiveness, maintain military readiness and advance its fighting capability “to win regional wars in the information age”,9 all have made Japan nervous. During April-September and October-December 2014, there were reportedly 20710 and 16411 instances, respectively, of Japan’s Air Self-Defence Force (ASDF) scrambling fighter jets to deal with intruding Chinese aircraft. Moreover, in 2014, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan reported 88 instances of Chinese vessels being found lurking in the “territorial sea” . In addition, China’s assertive behaviour regarding the nine-dash line in the South China Sea and its reported reclamation work in various disputed islands have also raised Japanese anxiety.

China’s military modernization, largely sustained by a rapidly growing economy, is worrying to the US and its other regional allies as well. Besides, the ongoing debate over power transition altering the post-war regional order depending on whether China in due course will dislodge the US as the principal power in East Asia; Xi Jinping’s New Asian Security Concept founded on the slogan of Asia for Asians13 ; the Chinese Dream and rejuvenation narrative seeking the centrality it once enjoyed in Asia; China consolidating naval power with sophisticated nuclear attack submarines; China’s stationing of nuclear armed “boomers” in Hainan Province aimed at constricting US involvement in regional hotspots and capable of striking Hawaii, Alaska and the continental US from the mid-Pacific; China’s robust Anti-Access Area Denial strategy (A2AD) to deal with US power projection in the Western Pacific; Chinese efforts to drive rival militaries including the US from regional conflicts by increasing operational reach through intermediate and medium-range conventional ballistic missiles besides long-range, land-attack, and anti-ship cruise missiles;14 Sino-US differences over freedom of navigation and military activities within EEZs; all pose a serious challenge to the US. It is in response to all this that the Obama administration crafted the ‘pivot’ to Asia policy and its attempting to bolster its alliances and partnerships with important stakeholders in the region.

The North Korea factor

The security threat posed by North Korea is also a vital issue determining Japan’s alliance with the US. 15 In addition to conducting three nuclear tests and further developing smaller nuclear warheads, North Korea has deployed ballistic missiles that can target the whole of Japan. And as North Korea has placed a satellite in orbit in December 2012, this technology can be employed to deliver nuclear warheads to the west coast of the US. The North Korean regime has categorically asserted that Japan will be “consumed in nuclear flames”16 if it shoots down any North Korean missile and that Japan will “have to pay a dear price”17 for supporting US policy. Moreover, North Korea has conveyed its objective of devastating Washington into a “sea of fire”18 and that it should remember that the Anderson air force base in Guam and US bases in Japan and Okinawa are inside the striking capability of “DPRK’s precision strike means”.19

Besides, North Korea’s augmentation of its ballistic missile development as well as their transfer and proliferation also pose serious concerns. In 2013, North Korea resumed its 5 MWe gas-graphite plutonium production reactor, capable of producing six kgs of plutonium annually, at Yongbyon nuclear facility to increase the weapons-grade plutonium supply. Moreover, it reportedly has expanded the size of the facility that hosts the gas centrifuge plant for uranium enrichment at Yongbyon. In 2014, there were indications of a major excavation at the Punggye-ri nuclear test site. In addition, gantry modifications at the Sohae launch site in northwest North Korea could be aimed at supporting the launch of rockets of up to 50 meters in length. In 2013, the building of new facilities was evident at the Tonghae Satellite Launching Ground. A UN report suggests that North Korea has engaged in selling weapons to Iran, Syria and Burma.20

Lately, North Korea has fired a series of short-range ballistic missile into the Sea of Japan, further heightening security concerns. In April 2014, then US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel responded to North Korea’s “provocative and destabilizing actions”21 with the decision to deploy two additional Aegis-class ballistic missile defence ships by 2017 in Yokosuka naval base. Moreover, to counter the North Korean ballistic missile threat, a second Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance (AN/TPY-2) has been deployed in Kyogamisaki, Japan, in December 2014.22

Besides, North Korea’s spy-boats, espionage operations and abduction incidents constitute a major irritant for Japan. Several instances of North Korean spy vessels, camouflaged as fishing boats, venturing into Japanese territorial waters have been documented including the 2001 incident of spy-boats in the sea southwest of Kyushu, the 1999 incident when suspicious vessels were identified off the coast of the Noto Peninsula and the October 1990 Mihama incident.

Revised defence guidelines adding depth to the alliance

The November 1978 defence guidelines were drawn up by the US-Japan Security Consultative Committee under the guidance of James Schlesinger (the then US Secretary of Defence) and Michita Sakata (the then Director General of the Defence Agency of Japan) during the Cold War keeping in mind the threat of a Soviet invasion. The guidelines outlined the distribution of responsibility between the US military and the Japanese Self-Defence Force (SDF). While Japan was expected to have “defence capability…within the scope necessary for self-defense”, the US was supposed to uphold “nuclear deterrent capability and the forward deployments of combat-ready forces”.23 In case of an armed attack against Japan, the SDF was to mainly conduct defensive operations in Japanese territory, its surrounding waters and airspace. The US military agreed to conduct operations to complement functional areas which surpassed the limits of the SDF. While this arrangement worked during the Cold War, it had to adapt to the drastically transformed environment of the post–Cold War era.

The need for revisiting the defence guidelines surfaced in the wake of the Taiwan Strait crisis and the North Korean challenge. While the 1995 Nye Initiative presented the policy rationale for continued US military commitment in the Asia-Pacific region and redefining the US-Japan alliance, the 1996 Taiwan Strait crisis offered both the US and Japan the raison d’être to strengthen bilateral security ties. The strategic importance of Taiwan in securing Japan’s national interest was underscored during the crisis since most of its oil imports sourced from the Middle East and trade passed through this maritime space. The significance of Okinawa base in the US military strategy was stressed given its geographical proximity to Taiwan.

The September 1997 revised guidelines presented three basic types of security cooperation aimed at crafting a strong foundation for more effective and credible cooperation “under normal circumstances”; “in case of an armed attack against Japan”; and in “situations in areas surrounding Japan that will have an important influence on Japan’s peace and security”. A noteworthy development here was that the revised guidelines charted an extended role for Japanese SDFs in the defence of not only Japan’s own territory, but also in areas surrounding it during any contingency. Consequently, Japan was required to enact new laws to enable the SDF to contribute in a number of activities particularly those connected to situations in areas surrounding Japan as indicated in the revised guidelines. The Diet had established the legal framework by 2000 and this enabled Japan to cooperate with US forces in areas surrounding Japan.

For long, the alliance suffered operational limitations as Japan refused to exercise the right to collective self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. However, the 2015 revision of the US-Japan defence guidelines go beyond the original post-World War bargain and is founded on the July 2014 reinterpretation of the concept of right to collective self-defence by the Abe administration. Post-war Japan had considered the exercise of the right of collective self-defence as going beyond the limit on self-defence sanctioned under Article 9 of its constitution and therefore not permissible. However, following criticism of ‘chequebook diplomacy’ (Japan contributed $13 billion) during the 1991 Gulf War, Japan incrementally expanded its role with overseas deployment of SDFs. Following the September 2001 attacks, Japan supported the US-led war on terror. It promptly enacted the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law on October 29, 2001, which permitted the extension of logistical and other support to US forces while at the same time constricting Japanese involvement in direct offensive combat. Three Maritime Self-Defence Force (MSDF) vessels including the fuel supply vessel Hamana and the escort vessels Kurama and Kirisame left Sasebo naval base on November 9, 2001 for the Indian Ocean. Two more ships, the Sawagiri and the Towada, joined them later.24 MSDF vessels performed refuelling of other nations’ ships involved in Operation Enduring Freedom. At the same time, the ASDF was involved in carrying cargo for the US military in Japan and abroad.25

Moreover, Japan enacted the Law Concerning the Special Measures on the Humanitarian and Reconstruction Assistance in Iraq in July 2003. The Ground Self-Defence Force (GSDF) was sent off to Samawah for humanitarian and reconstruction work. The ASDF was despatched to Kuwait for transporting supplies. Subsequently, the rapidly changing East Asian security architecture compelled the leadership to initiate a fresh debate on Japan’s defence policy. After Abe assumed power in December 2012, he spearheaded the national debate on the right to collective self-defence. The debate culminated in the July 2014 cabinet approval for re-interpreting the constitution. According to this re-interpretation, Japan possessed the right to exercise limited collective self-defence as well as to engage in wider involvement in US military operations. And earlier this month, on May 14, 2015, the Japanese cabinet approved a package of bills that would increase the role of the SDFs. The latest revision to the US-Japan defence guidelines is based on this fundamental shift in Japanese security policy.

The April 2015 US-Japan defence guideline revision agreed on seamless defence cooperation in all phases from peacetime to contingencies. In the Security Consultative Committee 2+2 meeting, the two countries agreed to cooperate in intercepting ballistic missiles and asset protection, real-time information sharing pertaining to ballistic missile threats and airspace infringement, expanding SDF operations beyond areas surrounding Japan, joint operations to protect waters surrounding Japan, enhancing maritime security by way of inspection of vessels, sweeping international sea lanes for mines including in the Hormuz Strait, and SDF operations to counter an armed attack against a foreign nation that has close relations with Japan. While these revised guidelines bring a qualitative depth to the alliance, it needs to be noted that they are not legally binding.

Predicaments shaping the partnership

The need to sustain the US alliance at a time when Chinese President Xi Jinping is promoting the concept of a “New Type of Great Power Relations” with the US, when China has emerged as America’s biggest creditor, and when fears of entrapment have grown within the US strategic community vis-à-vis the Senkaku dispute, has compelled Japan to think about alternative security frameworks including with Australia and India. Moreover, budgetary constraints remain a major concern regarding future US commitments in the region. While the US has welcomed the changes in Japanese security policy and has revised the US-Japan defence guidelines factoring in the reinterpretation of Article 9, nevertheless, to operationalise the agreement, Abe needs to pass several laws in the Diet to translate the cabinet approval into action.

Moreover, Abe also has to garner public support for these measures. A recent poll conducted by Kyodo has brought out that 47.9 per cent were against and only 35.5 per cent for the revised guidelines. Further, an Asahi Shimbun poll published on May 19 indicated that 60 per cent of respondents were against the passage of new security laws in the ongoing Diet session. Another critical challenge in the US-Japan alliance is the controversial plan to relocate US Marine Corps Air Station Futenma from Ginowan to Henoko (Nago) in Okinawa prefecture. Strong anti-base sentiments of the Okinawa Governor Takeshi Onaga and the local population’s abhorrence of the US military footprint given a series of crimes committed by US forces as well as noise pollution and additional burden on taxpayers to maintain these bases, are major stumbling blocks for the Abe administration.

Abe is keen to strengthen Japan’s position in the fast changing regional security environment by re-energising the security alliance with the US which has served as the core of the country’s security policy since the end of World War II. Hence, his initiative in advancing the concept of Active Pacifism and spearheading the domestic debate on the right to collective self-defence in order to enable Japan to emerge as an equal partner and shoulder greater responsibilities within the framework of the alliance. In addition, the idea is also to build Japan’s own capabilities for dealing with developments in East Asia.

Regional response

The revised defence guidelines have triggered concerns in China. Questioning the value of the US-Japan alliance, the Chinese defence ministry termed it as an “out-dated product” and asserted that it “should not harm the interests of any third party” or “contain the development of other countries”.26 For its part, the Chinese foreign ministry stressed that the alliance should not “undermine” regional peace and stability. China has systematically accused the Abe administration of fabricating a China Threat Theory to rationalise Abe’s ambition of a ‘normal’ Japan and strengthened security alliances.

South Korea, a major US ally in the region and with which Japan has deep historical issues, exercised caution while responding to the revised guidelines. Its foreign ministry indicated that it expects the US and Japan to engage in consultations with the South Korean leadership vis-à-vis issues pertaining to security on the Korean Peninsula and South Korea’s legitimate national interests. Meanwhile, North Korea has referred to the alliance as a “cancer like entity”27 that poses a serious security threat to the Korean Peninsula.

Way ahead

Japan is at a crossroads. Shinzo Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party and coalition partner Komeito have concurred on the new security bills to expand the scope of the SDF’s role abroad and the areas in which they can operate. Abe’s cabinet approved the draft security bills on May 14. As the bills translate into laws, cooperation between the SDF and US military will deepen in conformity with the freshly revised defence cooperation guidelines. This fundamental shift in Japanese security policy complements the US’ decades-old calls upon Japan to share a greater portion of the security burden in the alliance. But given that countries in the region are wary of Abe’s ‘revisionist’ ambitions owing to Japan’s aggressive policies in the past, it is Japan’s responsibility to make tangible efforts for gaining the confidence of its neighbours and preventing China from exploiting the historical fault lines to its own advantage.

The US-Japan convergence of interests and shared values of democracy and rule of law will sustain the alliance in the coming years. Meanwhile, the US is cultivating relations with other regional actors including China and South Korea. While the US is anxious about the status of relations between Japan and South Korea, Japan is nervous about the evolving relationship between the US and China. Japan needs to realise that the US will not be held captive in the intra-regional historical conflicts. For instance, the State Department expressed its disappointment when Abe visited the Yasukuni Shrine in December 2013.

As nationalism runs high, any escalation of tension in the region, whether it is between China and Japan or between Japan and the Korean Peninsula, is neither in the US nor in Japan’s interest. Regional stability cannot be solely guaranteed by reaffirming the US-Japan security alliance. Though re-energising the US-Japan security alliance and revising the US-Japan defence guidelines are positive developments, unless there is de-escalation of tensions between Japan and China and Japan and the two Koreas, peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific are likely to be remote possibilities.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/issuebrief/USJapanSecurityAlliance_tbasu_290515.html

1 “Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Abe of Japan in Joint Press Conference”, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, April 28, 2015

2 “Toward an Alliance of Hope“, Address by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to a Joint Meeting of the U.S. Congress, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, April 29, 2015

The post US-Japan Security Alliance: Standing The Test Of Time – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Conventional wisdom says stocks are a riskier investment than bonds. But IESE’s Javier Estrada says it depends how you define risk.

Sure, stocks tend to be more volatile than bonds. But, to paraphrase Warren Buffet’s investment partner Charlie Munger, what difference does extra volatility make so long as it all works out in the end?

Working out in the end is the focus of Estrada’s empirical study spanning 19 countries over 110 years. The professor of finance analyzes the terminal wealth resulting from an initial $100 investment in either stocks or bonds held for 10, 20 and 30 years (measuring all possible overlapping holding periods between 1900 and 2009).

The results: Stocks win. For long-term investors, stocks offer more upside potential and more downside protection than bonds, even when “tail risks” strike.

What Tail Risk?

Tail risks are extreme events that have a large impact on a portfolio but a very low probability of occurring. (As the standard distribution of returns follows a “bell curve,” both the upper and the lower extremes or edges of the bell are described as the tails.)

So, why focus on tail risks? Estrada explains: “Most investors tolerate moderate levels of volatility and losses, which are typically seen as inherent to investing. What investors fear the most, and what has a big influence on their investment decisions, are extreme events, often called outliers or black swans. Hence the approach discussed here that emphasizes tail risks.”

Eyes on the Prize: Terminal Wealth

Specifically, Estrada looks to the bottom 10, 5 and 1 percent of investment results for both stocks and bonds and finds that even in these bad (to worst) case scenarios, stocks offered more investment protection than bonds in the 10-, 20- and 30-year holding periods for the countries studied (with a few exceptions). For long term investors, stocks have been less “risky” than bonds if risk is measured with terminal wealth in mind.

For example, look at a $100 investment in stocks vs. a $100 investment in bonds held over 30 years in two global portfolios (of the 19 countries in the study) — one of stocks and the other of bonds. If you were unlucky enough to land in the bottom 5 percent of results for a 30-year stretch, you saw your investment in bonds fall considerably (to $58 adjusted for inflation), with terminal wealth more than 40 percent below the initial investment. But if you were in the bottom 5 percent of returns for stocks, you saw your initial investment merely double (to $216, adjusted for inflation) over 30 years. Put another way, if the 5-percent “lower tail risk” struck your pension fund, you tended to be much better (272 percent better) off in stocks.

And what about the upside potential? For the average returns over 30 years, $100 in stocks yielded $622, on average, while $100 in bonds yielded $188, on average. For perspective, Estrada also looks at the “upper tail” terminal wealth and finds $100 in stocks yielding $1,281 in the upper 5 percent of returns and bonds yielding $568.

Risk: Bumpy Ride or Final Tally?

Estrada sums up: “Investors who focus on uncertainty are likely to view stocks as riskier than bonds, and those who focus on long-term terminal wealth are likely to view stocks as less risky than bonds even if they are concerned with tail risks.” These are the conclusions reached by his study because even when investors were unlucky enough to land in the bottom 10, 5 or 1 percent of the distribution curve, they were better off in stocks than bonds — with very few exceptions.

In his article for the Journal of Asset Management on the study, Estrada notes that his “rethink” of risk is especially relevant to younger investors saving for retirement. “For this type of investor, how relevant are the short-term fluctuations in the value of his portfolio that will inevitably occur along the way?” If that profile of investor can hold on for the duration, the bumpier road might work out best in the end.

The post Stocks Vs. Bonds: Where The Risk Lies appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mark Inkey

Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) party appears to have finally shown some support for the nation’s persecuted Rohingya Muslims after years of ignoring their plight.

According to a report in the Independent, NLD spokesman U Nyan Win said: “The problem needs to be solved by the law. The law needs to be amended. After one or two generations [of residence] they should have the right to be citizens.”

This is in marked contrast to what Suu Kyi and the NLD have previously said on the Rohingya situation.

Suu Kyi has never spoken up for the Rohingya. When pressured to do so she has refused to condemn either the Rakhine Buddhists or the security forces for the violence that erupted in Rakhine State in recent years. Instead she pointed out that there had been violence from both Buddhists and Rohingyas and she has preferred to talk about the rule of law and non-violence rather than criticising the way the Rohingya have been treated.

Activists have criticised her for this stance. Chris Lewa of the Rohingya advocacy group The Arakan Project said: “Silence is not remaining neutral. It’s giving a green light to those who want violence, keeping this climate of impunity and insecurity.”

In a 2013 report Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth was also critical of Suu Kyi’s stance. He said: “The world was apparently mistaken to assume that as a revered victim of rights abuse she would also be a principled defender of rights.”

It is not just Suu Kyi who has remained silent. The NLD has not spoken out for the Rohingya and at times has seemed to condone behaviour that would worsen their plight.

The 1982 Burma Citizenship Law, which recognises the 135 national races in Burma but explicitly omits the Rohingya, has been used as justification to deny the Rohingya citizenship and rights. When the NLD was asked in 2012 whether the law should be changed an NLD spokesman told DVB that it was up to the national parliament to decide whether the citizenship law should be repealed.

More recently, in January of this year, NLD MP Daw Khin San Hlaing submitted a proposal to parliament to exclude temporary citizens, also known as white card holders because of the colour of their ID cards, from voting in the constitutional referendum.

There are about 1.5 million white card holders and most of them are Rohingyas.

The reason Daw Khin San Hlaing gave for submitting the proposal was that under amendments made to the Political Parties Registration Law last year white card holders should not be allowed to vote in the constitutional referendum.

She conveniently ignored the fact that the amendments she was referring to had been drawn up by the Rakhine National Party who do not want the Rohingya to be allowed to take part in politics and regard them as illegal ‘Bengali’ immigrants.

Since then the government declared that all white cards would expire on March 31 and should be handed back before May 31. After white card holders have handed back their cards they will, at a later date, have to go through a ‘citizen verification’ process before they are issued with new identity documents.

Many Rohingya have refused to give up their white cards because they are worried that once they give up their only form of ID it will be far easier for the government to force them out of the country.

In his report Kenneth Roth gave reasons why Suu Kyi has not defended the Rohingya. He said of her: “Because the vulnerable and stateless Rohingya are so unpopular in Burma, she has refused to come to their verbal defense as they have been violently attacked. The Nobel laureate defends her stance by saying that she was always a politician and remains so.”

It is clear that the Rohingya are unpopular with many people who could potentially vote for the NLD and if the NLD were to openly support the Rohingya they may well lose votes. The rise in popularity of the fundamentalist Buddhist monk Wirathu, his 969 movement and the Fundamental Buddhist Mar Bar Tha goup (translation: the Committee for the Protection of Nationality and Religion) has also stoked popular resentment against the Rohingya.

Again, doubtless due to these groups’ popularity, Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD have not spoken out against them or Wirathu. Rather, they seem to prefer to placate them.

When the NLD information officer Htin Linn Oo spoke out against Buddhist fundamentalism and Ma Ba Tha the NLD removed him from his post following pressure from Ma Ba Tha. At present he is being prosecuted under Article 295(a) for ‘defaming religion’, and Article 298 for ‘hurting religious feelings’.

Many people will welcome this recent apparent about turn by the NLD, but, taking into account their past behaviour, it is not surprising that there are also many who are sceptical that Suu Kyi and the NLD will publically endorse Nyan Win’s statement.

Mark Farmaner from Burma Campaign UK said: “We have to be cautious about this statement by Nyan Win. It was an off-the cuff remark rather than an official policy statement and we have seen NLD spokespeople being made to retract statements made in this way in the past. When it’s on NLD headed paper, we’ll know there really has been a policy change.”

Phil Robertson, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia division, was equally circumspect on hearing the news.

He said: “Nyan Win’s statement is a variation of the NLD’s standard formulation of asserting ‘rule of law’ as the cure-all to solve knotty problems, but it’s hopeful that they are at least considering the issue of citizenship for the Rohingya. He’s right that they are humans, and their rights need to be respected. But Aung San Suu Kyi still has the last word in that party, so she should clarify where she stands on this.”

The post Will Aung San Suu Kyi Break Her Silence On Burma’s Rohingya Crisis? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

As extreme weather marked by tornadoes and flooding continues to sweep across Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott has requested – and President Obama has granted – federal help.

I don’t begrudge Texas billions of dollars in disaster relief. After all, we’re all part of America. When some of us are in need, we all have a duty to respond.

But the flow of federal money poses a bit of awkwardness for the Lone Star State.

After all, just over a month ago hundreds of Texans decided that a pending Navy Seal/Green Beret joint training exercise was really an excuse to take over the state and impose martial law. And they claimed the Federal Emergency Management Agency was erecting prison camps, readying Walmart stores as processing centers for political prisoners.

There are nut cases everywhere, but Texas’s governor, Greg Abbott added to that particular outpouring of paranoia by ordering the Texas State Guard to monitor the military exercise. “It is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed upon,” he said. In other words, he’d protect Texans from this federal plot.

Now, Abbott wants federal money. And the Federal Emergency Management Agency is gearing up for a major role in the cleanup – including places like Bastrop, Texas, where the Bastrop State Park dam failed – and where, just five weeks ago, a U.S. Army colonel trying to explain the pending military exercise was shouted down by hundreds of self-described patriots shouting “liar!”

Texans dislike the federal government even more than most other Americans do. According to a February poll conducted by the University of Texas and the Texas Tribune, only 23 percent of Texans view the federal government favorably, while 57 percent view it unfavorably, including more than a third who hold a “very unfavorable” view.

Texas dislikes the federal government so much that eight of its congressional representatives, along with Senator Ted Cruz, opposed disaster relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy – adding to the awkwardness of their lobbying for the federal relief now heading Texas’s way.

Yet even before the current floods, Texas had received more disaster relief than any other state, according to a study by the Center for American Progress. That’s not simply because the state is so large. It’s also because Texas is particularly vulnerable to extreme weather – tornadoes on the plains, hurricanes in the Gulf, flooding across its middle and south.

Given this, you might also think Texas would take climate change especially seriously. But here again, there’s cognitive dissonance between what the state needs and how its officials act.

Among Texas’s infamous climate-change deniers is Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, who dismissed last year’s report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as “more political than scientific,“ and the White House report on the urgency of addressing climate change as designed “to frighten Americans.”

Smith is still at it. His committee just slashed by more than 20 percent NASA’s spending on Earth science, which includes climate change.

It’s of course possible that Texas’s current record rainfalls – the National Weather Service reports that the downpour in May alone was enough to put the entire state under eight inches of water  – has  nothing to do with the kind of extreme weather we’re witnessing elsewhere in the nation, such as the West’s current drought, the North’s record winter snowfall, and flooding elsewhere.

But you’d have to be nuts not to be at least curious about such a connection, and its relationship to the carbon dioxide humans have been spewing into the atmosphere.

Consider also the consequences for the public’s health. Several deaths in Texas have been linked to the extreme weather. Many Texans have been injured by it, directly or indirectly. Poor residents are in particular peril because they live in areas prone to flooding or in flimsy houses and trailers that can be washed or blown away.

What’s Texas’s response?  Texas officials continue to turn down federal funds to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, thereby denying insurance to more than 1 million people and preventing the state from receiving an estimated $100 billion in federal cash over the next decade.

I don’t want to pick on Texas. Its officials are not alone in hating the federal government, denying climate change, and refusing to insure its poor.

And I certainly don’t want to suggest all Texans are implicated. Obviously, many thoughtful and reasonable people reside there.

Yet Texans have elected people who seem not to have a clue. Indeed, Texas has done more in recent years to institutionalize irrationality than almost anywhere else in America – thereby imposing a huge burden on its citizens.

How many natural disasters will it take for the Lone Star State to wake up to the disaster of its elected officials?

The post Texas: State Of Disaster – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The law firm of Amsterdam & Partners LLP said Monday that it has been retained as international counsel to represent Russian State Duma Deputy Ilya Ponomarev.

According to Amsterdam & Partners LLP, “The Honorable Mr. Ponomarev has led a distinguished political career representing the constituents of Novosibirsk by introducing legislation with conscientiousness and fair deliberation despite the hostile, rubber-stamp environment of the Duma. He made history as the lone vote against the annexation of Crimea in a 445-1 decision. He has, however, also been forced to live in exile since August 2014, as the Russian authorities have pursued politically motivated, trumped-up charges against him, effectively preventing his return home.”

International lawyer Robert Amsterdam, the founding partner of Amsterdam & Partners LLP, says that the criminal case brought against Mr. Ponomarev bears all the hallmarks of a political persecution and cannot be taken at face value by international institutions.

“The charge brought against the Honorable State Duma Deputy Ponomarev not only lacks merit, it is incoherent to the point that it is not even worthwhile to refer to it as a ‘legal case,’” said Amsterdam. “Having seen similar abuses of process by the Russian prosecutors in the past, our top priority at this point is to communicate the fundamental absence of grounds of any applicable laws before a number of international forums, such as Interpol.”

According to Amsterdam & Partners LLP, Ponomarev was named by top police officials in Russia as the key organizer of protests in Moscow in May 2012. His prosecution started in 2013, when he was first subjected to a frivolous civil claim relating to the alleged misappropriation of funds at the Skolkovo Foundation, a group set up to build an ambitious technology and innovation campus on the outskirts of Moscow. In 2014 he was named by Russian media a “national traitor” and a Kremlin-controlled NGO posted billboards with his face on streets of Moscow and Novosibirsk. Then, in early April 2015, the Duma voted 438-1 to strip Ponomarev’s immunity so that he would be prosecuted on criminal charges relating to the same case, despite the clear, established fact that he as a legislator never had any control or authority over disbursement of any funds. Further, the Investigative Committee has neglected to explain how Ponomarev or any other party supposedly benefited from the alleged misappropriation.

The persecution of Ponomarev has received wide coverage in the media. The New York Times reported that “Mr. Ponomarev’s exile is political payback.” The Wall Street Journal has noted that his only real crime is that “he has been outspoken in denouncing Mr. Putin, both inside and outside the country,” noted Amsterdam & Partners LLP.

Amsterdam & Partners LLP is an international law firm with offices in London and Washington DC. Past clients have included the former head of Yukos Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former Prime Minister of Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra, and the former President of Zambia Rupiah Banda. In 2013, the firm was awarded the American Lawyer Global Pro Bono Dispute of the Year award for representing the whistleblower Georges Tadonki in a case against his former employer at the United Nations.

Amsterdam & Partners LLP will be representing Mr. Ponomarev on a pro-bono basis.

The post Amsterdam & Partners LLP Retained By Russian Duma Deputy Ilya Ponomarev appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena said a social discourse should be commenced on the demand to enforce capital punishment against those who are selling and distributing drugs.

Sirisena was speaking at the national program held at BMICH Monday to mark the world tobacco day 2015. The theme of this program was ‘Stop Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products in Sri Lanka.’

“When I make such a suggestion, some groups will attempt to make an influence against me alleging that human rights will be violated by that. But, we have to ignore those oppositions when taking decisions for the betterment of the country,” the President emphasized.

Sirisena mentioned that the countries that have been successful in preventing drugs did not hesitate to impose death penalty against drug trafficking. The President suggested this discourse against drugs should be created widely among the religious leaders, social activists, school community, media and other fields.

Sirisena said that media organizations should focus on programs to find out the views of the people regarding the drug menace and through those programs a concept should build in society towards eliminating the drug menace from the society.

Sirisena further said that according to the reports of the Department of Census and Statistics the pivotal reason for the poverty in Sri Lanka is the drug menace. “There is no need to waste time on decision-making processes about making the country’s future a prosperous one by eliminating poverty.”

Sirisena recalled that how the former leader stood up for the needs of the tobacco companies, when he, then as the Health Minister, committing towards making Sri Lanka a tobacco-free country. The President further said that even though he faced so many obstacles, ultimately, his campaign to make Sri Lanka a tobacco-free country progressed successfully.

“President Maithripala Sirisena will be a part of the history as the first leader who gave political leadership to the campaign for Tobacco-Free Sri Lanka,” said Dr Rajitha Senaratna, Minister of Health and Indigenous Medicine.

The post Sri Lanka: Sirisena Says Need For Social Discourse On Capital Punishment appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Saudi graduates from universities in the United States have accused Saudi companies of dumping their curricula vitae (CV) at a job fair held in Washington.

Photographs have been posted on social networking sites allegedly showing the CVs of graduates on the floor at the pavilions of some companies that had participated. Fifteen thousand graduates had attended the fair.

Mohammed A-Arjana, a Saudi graduate from the University of Indiana, said: “Some companies’ officials had welcomed us. However, it appears that they were not interested in checking our qualifications to determine whether we had the skills. Many only asked us how old we were and whether we had any physical disabilities.”

Yusuf Al-Anzi, another graduate, said: “Most officials from Saudi universities were asking only one question: ‘Do you have a Ph.D.?’ There were no jobs available for graduates with bachelor and master’s degrees.”

Mohammed Al-Essa, the Saudi Cultural Attaché in the US, was quoted as saying by a local publication that an investigation is under way to determine what happened. The footage from closed circuit cameras would be studied, he said.

Al-Essa said the government had this year replaced its ceremony for graduates with a job fair. Over 120 private and public sector firms and institutions had participated including the King Salman Youth Center and the Saudi Credit and Savings Bank.

The post Saudi Grads Claim Saudi Companies ‘Dump’ CVs At US Job Fair appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The challenge of how to address Africa’s massive $100+ billion annual infrastructure deficit is a step closer to being met, following a three-year project by the World Economic Forum aimed at promoting public-private cooperation and identifying solutions to the bottlenecks that cause large infrastructure projects in the region to fail.

The Forum-led Africa Strategic Infrastructure Initiative (ASII) was launched in 2012 and has consisted of two phases:

Phase 1 – Fostering public-private collaboration: A methodology was developed to identify projects that were suitable for public-private collaboration and acceleration. Out of 51 individual programs already earmarked under the African Union Commission’s Program for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA), three potential pilot programs were selected: West Africa Hub, Rail and Port, Beira Nacala Corridor and the Central Corridor. At the outset of 2014, heads of state and business agreed to accelerate the Central Corridor in East Africa as a pilot project, due to its potential for opening up landlocked countries and supporting secondary markets in the region.

Phase 2 – Pilot acceleration: This was initiated in June 2014 with the Central Corridor, an integrated multimodal transport program (port, rail and road) spanning Tanzania, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). With an estimated US$18 billion investment requirement, acceleration work initially focused on the quality and quantity of data, aligning stakeholders, championing transparency and improving planning principles. With these barriers reduced, work has progressed to the stage where 23 cornerstone prioritized Phase 1 projects among the 121 sub-projects have undergone an independent technical review and showcased at a market sounding – valued at US$9.7 billion.

“The work that has been achieved since 2012 not only demonstrates that it is possible for the public and private sectors to cooperate effectively on large-scale infrastructure projects in Africa, it also proves that there is strong interest among financial investors to participate in programs such as the Central Corridor. With interest rates remaining at historic lows, we now have a window in which to turn this interest into action,” said Alex Wong, Head of Global Strategic Infrastructure Initiative, World Economic Forum.

Apart from project prioritization and acceleration, the initiative has continued to develop innovative ideas and informative publications that support the delivery of African infrastructure. There is a paradox within infrastructure financing: while there is plenty of private-sector interest in financing bankable projects, the available project-preparation resources are insufficient to advance the projects to a bankable state. This means the pipeline of well-prepared projects is meager, and investment opportunities are limited. A new report called A Principled Approach to Project Preparation, prepared in collaboration with The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and launched today, outlines a new approach to Infrastructure Project Preparation Facility (IPPF). It involves enhancing private-public collaboration during the earlier stages of projects, and designing them for effective and sustainable operation.

“Early-stage project preparation and financing has been a perennial problem with African infrastructure projects, with the private sector understandably wary of contributing financially during early stages. However, we are confident that with a well-designed IPPF, we can now offer investors a reassuring vehicle that will enable us to bring them on board as early as possible,” said Patrick Dlamini, Chief Executive and Managing Director of the Development Bank of Southern Africa and Co-Chair of the Africa Strategic Infrastructure Initiative (ASII).

There is no one-size-fits-all design. Dr. Philipp Gerbert, a senior partner of The Boston Consulting Group and adviser on the report, explains: “IPPFs vary in their underlying circumstances and strategic objectives, so their design has to vary too. There is a range of choices to be made when structuring an IPPF – the sector and project focus, the approach to recover project-preparation expenses, and the governance structure, to mention just a few. Note too that some IPPFs will want to involve the private sector, not just for its financing but for its expertise as well; and appropriate mechanisms, such as a technical board, need to be put in place.”

With Phase 2 at its conclusion, the World Economic Forum will be handing the initiative over to the NEPAD Agency on 3 June 2015. NEPAD will continue the work and replicate the acceleration for further pilots, using the tools and processes created over the past years, and adapting and enhancing them as they systematically progress through the remaining PIDA programmes. The Forum will continue its contribution by facilitating public-private collaboration on infrastructure, with particular focus on sustainable development and financing.

More than 1,250 participants are taking part in the 25th World Economic Forum on Africa in Cape Town, from 3 to 5 June 2015. The theme of the meeting is “Then and Now: Reimagining Africa’s Future”.

The post New Blueprint Offers Hope Of Closing Africa’s Infrastructure Deficit appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Linda S. Heard

Islamophobia is a relatively new phenomenon. When I was growing up in London during the early 1970s the word didn’t exist in the English language. Britain’s capital welcomed the influx of vacationing Muslims — in particular Arabs and Iranians — with open arms, as did most other European and American cities. I certainly didn’t come across anyone in those days expressing an irrational dislike of Muslims. If anything, people tended to be respectful of the faith and fascinated with the Islamic culture.

Then, there were no laws banning the veil or barring the construction of minarets. There were no newspapers or magazines running disrespectful cartoon contests. Muslim graves weren’t vandalized and mosques weren’t firebombed as so many have been in France and Sweden. There were no “Burn a Quran” days. No anti-Islamic posters plastered on the sides of New York buses and heavily armed right-wing thugs didn’t congregate outside mosques to hurl insults at worshipers as occurred in Phoenix, Arizona last Friday.

Moreover, Muslims were able to fly without being humiliated by their fellow passengers or discriminated against by cabin crew, as Tahera Ahmad, a director of interfaith engagement at Chicago’s Northwestern University, recently was when a United Airlines flight attendant refused to give her an unopened can of Diet Coke claiming she could use it as a weapon.

Then minutes later, that same attendant merrily offered a closed can to another passenger. When Ahmad complained and looked to other passengers for support, one swore at her; another told her to shut-up.

So why is Islamophobia on the increase globally, as asserted by the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion during meetings with EU representatives?

The reasons given are anti-terrorism concerns combined with escalating illegal immigration, primarily from predominantly Muslim countries in the throes of conflict. There’s no doubt that ordinary folk are appalled at the sheer bestiality of terrorist groups purporting to be Muslim and it’s true that European countries are being swamped by an influx of migrants fleeing wars and poverty. But for people to tar 1.6 million Muslims representing a quarter of the world’s population with the same brush is not only utter stupidity but also blatantly unjust.

In reality, some of the root causes of this current tsunami of Islamophobia date back to George W. Bush’s responses to the 9/11 attacks when the entire Muslim world was asked to apologize for the crimes of 19 men, while their countries were being invaded and occupied. The word Islamophobia came to the fore in 2001 when thousands of Muslims in America were detained without access to family members or lawyers, hundreds were flown to Guantanamo, chained, hooded and gagged or abducted to countries willing to extract confessions using torture.

Passenger fears led to turbaned Sikhs, and Muslim men seen praying or simply wearing a T-shirt embossed with Arabic, being ejected from American flights. Women were accosted in the street by bigots, who removed their headscarves. Unfounded mass paranoia built to the extent that all Muslims were drawn into a web of suspicion. In 2001, anti-Muslim attacks rose by 1,700 percent on the previous year.

Worsening Islamophobia will continue to be one of the factors eliciting anger among young Muslims born in western countries who feel so alienated from the mainstream they are susceptible to radicalization and the lure of a caliphate — even one that’s constructed on the skulls of innocents.

Terrorism and Islamophobia are alike; they both feed off loathing. In many parts of Europe, notably, France, Italy, Sweden, Greece and The Netherlands — extreme right-wing parties proudly touting their anti-Islamic/anti immigration policies are gaining ground. The US has also witnessed a spike in Islamophobia since the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, the release of the movie “American Sniper” and videos of the Islamic State’s beheadings on social media.

Put simply, Muslim peoples are being sandwiched between ignorance and hatred on the one side and ignorance and terror on the other. More Muslims have been killed by car bombings, suicide bombings, and IEDs than the adherents of any other faith and, making their situation even worse, they’ve been placed under the microscope of western governments and are liable to being harangued on US and European streets. Governments must come together to find solutions to this widening chasm before it becomes an unbridgeable problem destined to tear their societies apart.

The post Islamophobia On The Rise – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.