Sonia Hukil
The recent geo-strategic positioning of China in the maritime domain has been much talked about. With this in view, the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS), in collaboration with National Maritime Foundation (NMF), engaged few prominent dignitaries in a discussion on “China’s Maritime March West”. The seminar was chaired by Adm. Pradeep Kaushiva. Briefly, Mr. Jayadeva Ranade mentioned about China’s strategic focus in the Indian Ocean by delving into China’s pursuit for reinforcing its navy and to exert a legitimate presence in the Indian Ocean. He concluded that there is urgency for India to prepare for gear up its navy for any anomaly in the region.Cdr. Kamlesh K Agnihotri interpreted China’s maritime activities in the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea. Taking the discussion further, Ms. Teshu Singh spoke on the perspectives from the littorals and explained the reactions from Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Pakistan, on the maritime security. Cdr. Gurpreet S Khurana provided an analysis of the geo-strategic implications of China’s increasing presence in the Indian Ocean, both in terms of maritime security and regional stability.
Admiral (Retd.) Pradeep Kaushiva
Director, National Maritime Foundation
Given China’s geographical location, it is possible for China to access the world via three different directions: eastwards across the Pacific, westwards across Central Asia or westwards via south to the South China Sea (SCS). Historically, China went west in the first instance via the silk route and eventually reached Europe. Today, China is positioned across the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), the Mediterranean, the west coast of Africa, and continues to reach out globally. However, there has been no historical record for it to have crossed the Pacific. Furthermore, China’s dependency on Africa for its resources, West Asia’s energy lines and its stretch across the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) makes many practitioners question the strategic contours of China’s maritime engagement.
A focus on four different aspects of China’s presence in the maritime domain will help stimulate a discussion on the issue:
•China’s strategic focus in the IOR; and an analysis of China’s pursuit of reinforcing its navy and exerting a legitimate presence in the Indian Ocean.
•Interpretation of China’s maritime activities in the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea (SCS).
•The perspectives from the littorals, especially reactions from Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Pakistan, on maritime security.
•An analysis of the geostrategic implications of China’s increasing presence in the Indian Ocean, both in terms of maritime security and regional stability.
Jayadeva Ranade
Distinguished Fellow, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi
Since the mid 1970s, China has had a deep desire of exerting its influence in the IOR. Several Chinese articles circulating around the mid and early 1970s viewed the identification of the IOR with great scepticism. For them, the Indian Ocean should not have been termed the ‘Indian' Ocean. However, no provocation existed at that time due to negligible competition between India and China. China always had a clear ambition of establishing its dominance in the IOR, which reflected in its national policies. In the 1980s, China, pursuing its ambition of developing into a regional naval power, appointed military officials for constructing and modernising its navy. This was achieved by following two trajectories: first, while planning the construction of ships, a ground work for “Self-Reliance” in the defence field was laid, which was viewed crucial at the time. Second, a major ship building program was initiated for construction of new shipyards, where new fighter ships could be built.
China’s initial priorities consisted of building a capacity of deterring and denying the foreign powers from gaining access into the SCS. Their primary focus was on building a fleet of submarines and missiles. Over the years, a lot of progress has been made in these two arenas. Several adequate markers point to China’s maritime ambitions and capabilities, such as the entry of the Chinese Navy flotilla extensively for anti-piracy operations. Successful flotillas comprising of different ships remain present in the area, demonstrating the capacity of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) for carrying out different operations. In 2008, the first flotilla entered the IOR, followed by a navy fleet public demonstration, marking the arrival of the Chinese Navy at the international stage. In 2009, China gathered increased attention in its naval capacity and sought to develop aircraft carriers.
An aircraft carrier is a manifestation of power, which is ideal at operating in the Indian and the Pacific Ocean. In 2011, photos of aircraft carriers under construction flourished on the Chinese military websites. Another Chinese ambition was the initiation of an unmanned underwater vessels program in order to improve the quality of their control and the depth to which they could progress in the IOR.
Beijing has been determined to exert its influence in the IOR. As for its dominance in the Pacific, it remains unperturbed and has left it to the US. The allocation of the seabed for resource exploitation by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) gives China legitimacy in remaining in the Indian Ocean. Interestingly, China has ensured continued legitimacy in the region for a long period. Beijing has proposed two plans in this regard: first, a rail link between Beijing up to Madrid serving as a cargo transplant and second, a rail link from Beijing through Turkey up to London and finally to India. Chinese plans mesh very neatly with their boundless national interest. As for India, it is time for it to catch up to their counterparts. The speed with which China is reaching its objectives must be a grave matter of concern for India so as to not get overshadowed in the near future.
Commodore Kamlesh K Agnihotri
Research Fellow, National Maritime Foundation
The doctrine tactics and procedures of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) all emanate from a combined military strategy of “Active Defence.” The naval component of the “Active Defence” strategic guidelines is the off-shore defence strategy. The PLAN’s tasks have been divided into two parts: traditional (inclusive of maintaining constant combat readiness; national, defence and coastal security) and non-traditional (comprising of supporting economic and social development; rescue of oversees personnel; disaster relief; anti-piracy missions; port visits etc.). These strategies translate into maritime activities in terms of two imperatives: securing their maritime interests, endeavours and boundless national interest and also the need for a growing power to find larger operating space, and striving for greater global presence. This has enabled capacity-building of the PLAN for “Blue Water” roles for effective distant water missions. It has also resulted in a quantitative up-scaling of civilian maritime activities – an indication China’s presence and purpose.
Post the deployment of the PLAN’s 15th and 16th task force – covering Kenya, Tanzania, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, South Africa, among others – China had circumscribed the African continent. This was initiated with a well-planned vision of building linkages in West Asia, North East and West Africa. Chinese activities in the IOR consist of anti-piracy escort missions in the Gulf of Aden; participation in the ‘Aman’ maritime exercises etc. Its first ever symbolic exercise in IOR is south of the Lombok Strait.
Chinese activities in the Pacific are also significant. They comprise of regular maritime exercises beyond the 1st Island Chain; and the first ‘Three Fleet’ Joint Exercise in East China Sea; extensive work up of aircraft carrier ‘Liaoning;’ an aircraft carrier in the SCS; and naval diplomacy, among others.
China is following their economic and boundless national interest which is protected by the PLAN. As a result, India stands to be affected first and to the greatest degree since the passing PLAN ships would continuously keep them in midst of critical Indian maritime area; threaten SLOCs security; negatively affect India’s naval operations and constrain maritime space for training and other exercises. For the near future, there seems to be no scope for a short-term resolution between India and China. One can only hope for the maintenance of a stable equilibrium between the two.
PERSPECTIVE FROM THE LITTORALS
Teshu Singh
Coordinator, China Research Programme, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi
Today, a new kind of geopolitics is evolving in the IOR. The region is no more a just a highway. It has become economically, strategically and politically important for all the powers. However, the most important development is the emerging role of the IOR littoral states.
There are asymmetries of power in the region with big, small and external powers taking keen interest. Smaller powers such as, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Pakistan and Bangladesh have the flexibility to meet their national interest by playing with their strengths and the major powers’ dependence on them.
Major Powers that look at the Indian Ocean as a dynamic region – one that is vital to their power and commercial ambitions – find it difficult to sustain their stakes without some support and acceptance by smaller powers. The construction of the Indian Ocean into the IOR has therefore complicated the geopolitics of the Indian Ocean with the shift to new geographies – that enhance the representation of smaller powers and the increasing stakes of major and dominant powers in the IOR.
These developments will have serious challenges to the Indian Ocean security initiatives. An Indian Ocean Security regime is still taking shape, but it is still in a very nascent stage. In the given scenario, India and China have major stakes in the region. The new regional security architecture will have to take into account all the factors, especially that of the littorals.
IMPLICATIONS IN THE INDIAN MARITIME CONTEXTS
Commodore Gurpreet S Khurana
Research Fellow, National Maritime Foundation
While the broad contours of China’s maritime strategy is amply clear, accessing China’s increasing strategic presence in the IOR in a very objective way has become the necessity.
Social Constructivist’s view of positive-sum would help in understanding both positive and adverse implications of China’s march west into the IOR. Common stakes in the IOR are security of maritime trade/energy flow; safety of seafarers; access to natural resources (including the sea-bed) and economic connectivity – for further sustaining Asia’s ‘rise’. Salient challenges in the IOR are piracy and other maritime crimes; terrorism; adverse effects of climate change; maritime disasters; geographical constraints for economic connectivity; and naval access for China in the IOR. India encounters a similar predicament in the Western Pacific. Facilitating factors between India and China are the ongoing operational coordination and information-sharing for countering piracy and China’s quest to be a part of IOR security mechanism; enhancing cooperation on China’s ‘Maritime Silk Road’ concept; and the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar economic corridor. Possible outcomes for such cooperation would be: PLAN complementing IOR naval capacity for humanitarian missions in the region, and security cooperation leading to major sea-borne commerce and economic integration of not only the IOR but also of broader Asian region.
On one hand, maintaining the regional stability in the IOR is important for securing economic investment, markets and citizens of the region. On the contrary, intra-state separatist tendencies, economic disparity leading to socioeconomic instability and fragile political systems of the region are major challenges for maintaining stability.
Facilitating factors are China’s “historic mission” for stability and humanitarian operations in the region which will discourage it from being a ‘free-rider’ during a regional crisis – that has been the case so far. Multi-faceted regional integration in the IOR will pave the way for crystallisation of norms for regional and extra-regional stakeholders that could enhance China’s stakes in the Region – further reducing the risk of regional instability.
Viewing through the realist’s view of the Zero-Sum concept, assumptions are: China wants to displace the US’ influence and create a favourable balance of power in the region–by improving ties with India. However, China’s ‘March West’ could be also seen as answer to India’s ‘Look East’ Policy. Aggravating factors in the region are: the debate over the String of Pearls that it is just a ‘sleeper facility’ or military utility; the demonstration of Chinese naval power in the Lombok Strait and other regions; increasing focus of the US rebalance strategy in the Western Pacific; China’s disregard for international norms, Chinese arms sales to the IOR littorals guided by self-interest. Possible outcomes in view of this development are: China could draw the IOR states from democracy; regional arms race; skirmishes the between PLAN and the IOR navies; China-US conflict in the West Pacific can spill into the IOR, and India-China conflict across the Line of Actual Control escalating horizontally to the Indian Ocean etc.
In the Indian perspective, China’s presence in the IOR may lead to increased avenues of maritime and economic cooperation. However, a strong Chinese naval presence in the Region would weaken India’s overall conventional deterrence against China. Future course of action for India could be strengthening operational coordination; standing agreement for mutual assistance; development of operational compatibility among navies leading to mutual trust; code of conduct for international naval encounters at sea and building strategic deterrence vis-à-vis China. It could also reinforce its partnerships with the US and the IOR littoral states.
Question/Inputs
•Is China only focused on the IOR or they are interested in going west from north as well?
•Military bases are a double-edged sword. Military bases could be counter-productive not only in terms of opposition from local forces but also from the vulnerability of operationality.
•If China is exercising an ‘aggressive maritime strategy’ in the region, how can Beijing ignore that all the Southeast Asian countries could unite against it?
•What could be the implications of the increasing population of Chinese citizens in the IOR and Pacific Islands?
•Is there any hope for peace and stability in the IOR, when so many great powers (read US and China) are involved in pursuing their own self-interests?
Responses
•China is looking for holistic presence in all maritime hotspots. China is trying to get access to every feasible area in the region and beyond. However, they follow a dualistic policy on different platforms. On the global scene, China would like to be in a bipolar world but on the regional scene they would like to be unipolar.
•China is not going to be a world power in recent future. While they have indeed signaled their intention, translating it into capability would take many years. It would take decades for the Chinese aircraft carriers to exercise sea control in the IOR. However, China’s nuclear submarines have tremendous power and endurance, which is worrisome for India.
•Maritime peace and stability in IOR is a difficult aim to achieve due to the complexity of the region, based on different languages, cultures, religions and traditions.
•Repercussions of Chinese bases are not dependent on China’s preferences but on those of the littoral states of the IOR.
•For the first time in history, the US influence is relatively decreasing in the IOR. India has also become vulnerable in its own area. Therefore, appropriate action should be taken to secure New Delhi’s interests.
•For the next two to three decades, China will be look to establish support systems for the deployment for the security of maritime resource generation, trade and energy lines. China will have self-defendant units but they do not have capability to defend geographical areas.
3 Jul 2014
THE TAHIRUL QADRI AFFAIR
D Suba Chandran
It all started during the third week of last month in Pakistan. The Punjab police raided the office of Tahirul Qadri, the maverick “Visiting” political leader of Pakistan, in the garb of clearing the encroachments made as a part of securing the Minhajul Quran headquarters of the latter. In the process, there was violence, and few supporters of Qadri were killed during the police action.
Subsequently when Tahirul Qadri decided to come back from Canada to lead a revolution in Pakistan, his flight was re-routed to Lahore, instead of landing in Islamabad. By refusing to exit from the plane, but actively engage the media sitting within the place, not only he caused considerable mayhem, but also gained significant political mileage for himself.
What makes some of our politicians, who have left the country under one pretext or another to return? What do they gain in doing so, or do they play to a different script written by someone else within the country? And in the process, do they really add value to the democratic process, or end up in becoming a nuisance for themselves and the larger nation that they profess to serve?
Certainly, Tahirul Qadri is not the first political leader in Pakistan, who has decided to return. In the recent years, Pervez Musharraf returned to Pakistan after a self imposed exile; unfortunately, the return has been a huge disaster for him. He did not get the reception he expected, or thought he deserved. There were no mammoth rallies welcoming him back to Pakistan, nor the political paradigm within Pakistan shifted. For many he was just a former dictator and responsible for many of contemporary ills of Pakistan.
Worse, for Musharraf, the cases in judiciary and Nawaz Sharif as the Prime Minister did not help at all. More than being a saviour of Pakistan, he was treated as an accused and had to be hidden in the hospital. The media did not give a positive coverage, nor did the political parties which benefitted under his rule came openly for his support. Today Musharraf is a sorry figure within Pakistan’s political landscape. He would have been better, had he not returned to Pakistan.
Another leader, who had a totally opposite reception (to that of Musharraf) within Pakistan was Benazir Bhutto. Not just once, twice she came back from an exile and both time she got a historical reception. Following the death of Zia ul Haq, the then military ruler of Pakistan, Benazir returned to Pakistan in 1988; she was received by a mammoth crowd, ultimately resulting in her becoming the Prime Minister for the first time. Though her government did not complete the full term, the reception to her return was grand.
After another exile during the last decade during Musharraf’s period, she returned to Pakistan for the second time in 2007. She got a bigger reception; in fact those who opposed her return were so terrified about her leadership and the popular support, she had to be assassinated brutally while she was leading an election campaign.
Now back to Tahirul Qadri, he is neither Musharraf nor Benazir. He has a small constituency inside Pakistan. With no stretch of imagination, this constituency of Qadri, which is a part of his educational and social welfare institutions, can help their leader lead a revolution. Though he is also the leader of Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT), a political party founded in 1989 by himself, it hardly has any popular support and will find it difficult to garner votes and win seats in any free and fair elections.
In fact, it was the police action against his Headquarters by the Punjab Police, and the diversion of his plane from Islamabad to Lahore, which has provided him a larger profile. Why did the Sharif brothers commit such a blunder? And why did Qadri decide to return in the first place?
This is not the first time that Qadri had decided to return to Pakistan from Canada. Holding the citizenship of Canada, he came immediately before the elections in 2013. His objective at that time was confusing; in fact many within Pakistan believed he is playing someone else’s agenda (read the intelligence agencies) in terms of derailing the electoral process and democracy in Pakistan. His idea of creating a “revolution” in Pakistan in 2012 envisaged a “million men march” against corruption, dissolution of Parliament and impractical electoral reforms. Less than 30,000 people took part in his million men march; however, the much abused Zardari handled the Qadri “revolution” better by allowing his march, making his “million men” claim a popular joke in electronic and social media. Qadri was engaged politically by the government, resulting in signing a declaration but ending his return to Pakistan as a comical affair.
His second return last month was dealt differently by the Sharif brothers. As mentioned above, the Punjab Police used force, which was thoroughly rebutted by the media and people. Qadri did not become a hero, but the government was seriously criticized. Worse, was the decision to re-route his flight.
Why did the government get jittery? And what did Qadri achieve in his second coming. To the first question, perhaps the government, especially the Sharif brothers smell a conspiracy in his return. During the last few months, the civil-military relations within Pakistan appear strained. The decision to talk to the Taliban, the gap between the civilian and intelligence agencies in dealing with Hamid Mir and Geo Channel and the Musharraf trial had created tension between the Prime Minister and the GHQ.
The sudden decision by Imran Khan to question the election results along with Tahirul Qadri’s proposed revolution makes a section within the government to believe that there is a conspiracy by the military and intelligence agencies against the elected government.
The role of security agencies in the return of an exiled (self or otherwise) leader is a reality in this region. However, their success is dependent on the popular support for them. This is where, the Sharif brothers over did; they could have allowed Qadri to return and organise a “million men” march with 30,000 people; except for being a nuisance value and blocking the traffic and throwing the ordinary life out of normalcy for a couple of days in Islamabad, Qadri could not have achieve much. In fact, even today, after the mis-handling of his return, there is not much support for Qadri within Pakistan. Zardari did that and made Qadri a sorrow figure; Sharif brothers did the opposite and ended up increasing Qadri’s profile.
Besides the intelligence agencies, do other factors result in the return of these leaders? Perhaps, for few, such as Musharraf, there is a self perception of a messiah, who strongly believe that they could lead their country. Musharraf’s return was more a result of his own perception about his popularity, than based on any realistic assessment. There are many such individuals, not only in political field, but also in cultural, business and sports fields, who suffer from this messiah syndrome.
Finally, the sycophants and that small section, which would benefit monetarily, also play a substantial role in boosting the ego of the leaders, resulting in their return.
But have such returns helped the country? Except for Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, there are no such case studies. This shows the need for a strong party network at the ground level and the political experience of leaders and the party as primary reasons for successful returns. Else, they will end up as disasters. South Asia has witnessed numerous such returns in different fields.
It all started during the third week of last month in Pakistan. The Punjab police raided the office of Tahirul Qadri, the maverick “Visiting” political leader of Pakistan, in the garb of clearing the encroachments made as a part of securing the Minhajul Quran headquarters of the latter. In the process, there was violence, and few supporters of Qadri were killed during the police action.
Subsequently when Tahirul Qadri decided to come back from Canada to lead a revolution in Pakistan, his flight was re-routed to Lahore, instead of landing in Islamabad. By refusing to exit from the plane, but actively engage the media sitting within the place, not only he caused considerable mayhem, but also gained significant political mileage for himself.
What makes some of our politicians, who have left the country under one pretext or another to return? What do they gain in doing so, or do they play to a different script written by someone else within the country? And in the process, do they really add value to the democratic process, or end up in becoming a nuisance for themselves and the larger nation that they profess to serve?
Certainly, Tahirul Qadri is not the first political leader in Pakistan, who has decided to return. In the recent years, Pervez Musharraf returned to Pakistan after a self imposed exile; unfortunately, the return has been a huge disaster for him. He did not get the reception he expected, or thought he deserved. There were no mammoth rallies welcoming him back to Pakistan, nor the political paradigm within Pakistan shifted. For many he was just a former dictator and responsible for many of contemporary ills of Pakistan.
Worse, for Musharraf, the cases in judiciary and Nawaz Sharif as the Prime Minister did not help at all. More than being a saviour of Pakistan, he was treated as an accused and had to be hidden in the hospital. The media did not give a positive coverage, nor did the political parties which benefitted under his rule came openly for his support. Today Musharraf is a sorry figure within Pakistan’s political landscape. He would have been better, had he not returned to Pakistan.
Another leader, who had a totally opposite reception (to that of Musharraf) within Pakistan was Benazir Bhutto. Not just once, twice she came back from an exile and both time she got a historical reception. Following the death of Zia ul Haq, the then military ruler of Pakistan, Benazir returned to Pakistan in 1988; she was received by a mammoth crowd, ultimately resulting in her becoming the Prime Minister for the first time. Though her government did not complete the full term, the reception to her return was grand.
After another exile during the last decade during Musharraf’s period, she returned to Pakistan for the second time in 2007. She got a bigger reception; in fact those who opposed her return were so terrified about her leadership and the popular support, she had to be assassinated brutally while she was leading an election campaign.
Now back to Tahirul Qadri, he is neither Musharraf nor Benazir. He has a small constituency inside Pakistan. With no stretch of imagination, this constituency of Qadri, which is a part of his educational and social welfare institutions, can help their leader lead a revolution. Though he is also the leader of Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT), a political party founded in 1989 by himself, it hardly has any popular support and will find it difficult to garner votes and win seats in any free and fair elections.
In fact, it was the police action against his Headquarters by the Punjab Police, and the diversion of his plane from Islamabad to Lahore, which has provided him a larger profile. Why did the Sharif brothers commit such a blunder? And why did Qadri decide to return in the first place?
This is not the first time that Qadri had decided to return to Pakistan from Canada. Holding the citizenship of Canada, he came immediately before the elections in 2013. His objective at that time was confusing; in fact many within Pakistan believed he is playing someone else’s agenda (read the intelligence agencies) in terms of derailing the electoral process and democracy in Pakistan. His idea of creating a “revolution” in Pakistan in 2012 envisaged a “million men march” against corruption, dissolution of Parliament and impractical electoral reforms. Less than 30,000 people took part in his million men march; however, the much abused Zardari handled the Qadri “revolution” better by allowing his march, making his “million men” claim a popular joke in electronic and social media. Qadri was engaged politically by the government, resulting in signing a declaration but ending his return to Pakistan as a comical affair.
His second return last month was dealt differently by the Sharif brothers. As mentioned above, the Punjab Police used force, which was thoroughly rebutted by the media and people. Qadri did not become a hero, but the government was seriously criticized. Worse, was the decision to re-route his flight.
Why did the government get jittery? And what did Qadri achieve in his second coming. To the first question, perhaps the government, especially the Sharif brothers smell a conspiracy in his return. During the last few months, the civil-military relations within Pakistan appear strained. The decision to talk to the Taliban, the gap between the civilian and intelligence agencies in dealing with Hamid Mir and Geo Channel and the Musharraf trial had created tension between the Prime Minister and the GHQ.
The sudden decision by Imran Khan to question the election results along with Tahirul Qadri’s proposed revolution makes a section within the government to believe that there is a conspiracy by the military and intelligence agencies against the elected government.
The role of security agencies in the return of an exiled (self or otherwise) leader is a reality in this region. However, their success is dependent on the popular support for them. This is where, the Sharif brothers over did; they could have allowed Qadri to return and organise a “million men” march with 30,000 people; except for being a nuisance value and blocking the traffic and throwing the ordinary life out of normalcy for a couple of days in Islamabad, Qadri could not have achieve much. In fact, even today, after the mis-handling of his return, there is not much support for Qadri within Pakistan. Zardari did that and made Qadri a sorrow figure; Sharif brothers did the opposite and ended up increasing Qadri’s profile.
Besides the intelligence agencies, do other factors result in the return of these leaders? Perhaps, for few, such as Musharraf, there is a self perception of a messiah, who strongly believe that they could lead their country. Musharraf’s return was more a result of his own perception about his popularity, than based on any realistic assessment. There are many such individuals, not only in political field, but also in cultural, business and sports fields, who suffer from this messiah syndrome.
Finally, the sycophants and that small section, which would benefit monetarily, also play a substantial role in boosting the ego of the leaders, resulting in their return.
But have such returns helped the country? Except for Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, there are no such case studies. This shows the need for a strong party network at the ground level and the political experience of leaders and the party as primary reasons for successful returns. Else, they will end up as disasters. South Asia has witnessed numerous such returns in different fields.
2 Jul 2014
ECONOMIC FREEDOM
Walter E. Williams
A couple of years ago, President Barack Obama, speaking on the economy, told an audience in Osawatomie, Kansas: "'The market will take care of everything,' they tell us. ... But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. ... I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory." To believe what the president and many others say about the market's not working requires that one be grossly uninformed or dishonest.
The key features of a free market system are private property rights and private ownership of the means of production. In addition, there's a large measure of peaceable voluntary exchange. By contrast, communist systems feature severely limited private property rights and government ownership or control of the means of production. There has never been a purely free market economic system, just as there has never been a purely communist system. However, we can rank economies and see whether ones that are closer to the free market end of the economic spectrum are better or worse than ones that are closer to the communist end. Let's try it.
First, list countries according to whether they are closer to the free market or the communist end of the economic spectrum. Then rank countries according to per capita gross domestic product. Finally, rank countries according to Freedom House's "Freedom in the World" report. People who live in countries closer to the free market end of the economic spectrum not only have far greater income than people who live in countries toward the communist end but also enjoy far greater human rights protections.
According to the 2012 "Economic Freedom of the World" report -- by James Gwartney, Robert Lawson and Joshua Hall -- nations ranking in the top quartile with regard to economic freedom had an average per capita GDP of $37,691 in 2010, compared with $5,188 for those in the bottom quartile. In the freest nations, the average income of the poorest 10 percent of their populations was $11,382. In the least free nations, it was $1,209. Remarkably, the average income of the poorest 10 percent in the economically freer nations is more than twice the average income of those in the least free nations.
Free market benefits aren't only measured in dollars and cents. Life expectancy is 79.5 years in the freest nations and 61.6 years in the least free. Political and civil liberties are considerably greater in the economically free nations than in un-free nations.
Leftists might argue that the free market doesn't help the poor. That argument can't even pass the smell test. Imagine that you are an unborn spirit and God condemned you to a life of poverty but gave you a choice of the country in which to be poor. Which country would you choose? To help with your choice, here are facts provided by Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield in their report "Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America's Poor." Eighty percent of American poor households have air conditioning. Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more. Almost two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half have one or more computers. Forty-two percent own their homes. The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France and the U.K. Ninety-six percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry because they could not afford food. The bottom line is that there is little or no material poverty in the U.S.
At the time of our nation's birth, we were poor, but we established an institutional structure of free markets and limited government and became rich. Those riches were achieved long before today's unwieldy government. Our having a free market and limited government more than anything else explains our wealth. Most of our major problems are a result of government. We Americans should recognize that unfettered government and crony capitalism, not unfettered markets, are the cause of our current economic problems and why the U.S. has sunk to the rank of 17th in the 2013 "Economic Freedom of the World" report.
A couple of years ago, President Barack Obama, speaking on the economy, told an audience in Osawatomie, Kansas: "'The market will take care of everything,' they tell us. ... But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. ... I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory." To believe what the president and many others say about the market's not working requires that one be grossly uninformed or dishonest.
The key features of a free market system are private property rights and private ownership of the means of production. In addition, there's a large measure of peaceable voluntary exchange. By contrast, communist systems feature severely limited private property rights and government ownership or control of the means of production. There has never been a purely free market economic system, just as there has never been a purely communist system. However, we can rank economies and see whether ones that are closer to the free market end of the economic spectrum are better or worse than ones that are closer to the communist end. Let's try it.
First, list countries according to whether they are closer to the free market or the communist end of the economic spectrum. Then rank countries according to per capita gross domestic product. Finally, rank countries according to Freedom House's "Freedom in the World" report. People who live in countries closer to the free market end of the economic spectrum not only have far greater income than people who live in countries toward the communist end but also enjoy far greater human rights protections.
According to the 2012 "Economic Freedom of the World" report -- by James Gwartney, Robert Lawson and Joshua Hall -- nations ranking in the top quartile with regard to economic freedom had an average per capita GDP of $37,691 in 2010, compared with $5,188 for those in the bottom quartile. In the freest nations, the average income of the poorest 10 percent of their populations was $11,382. In the least free nations, it was $1,209. Remarkably, the average income of the poorest 10 percent in the economically freer nations is more than twice the average income of those in the least free nations.
Free market benefits aren't only measured in dollars and cents. Life expectancy is 79.5 years in the freest nations and 61.6 years in the least free. Political and civil liberties are considerably greater in the economically free nations than in un-free nations.
Leftists might argue that the free market doesn't help the poor. That argument can't even pass the smell test. Imagine that you are an unborn spirit and God condemned you to a life of poverty but gave you a choice of the country in which to be poor. Which country would you choose? To help with your choice, here are facts provided by Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield in their report "Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America's Poor." Eighty percent of American poor households have air conditioning. Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more. Almost two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half have one or more computers. Forty-two percent own their homes. The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France and the U.K. Ninety-six percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry because they could not afford food. The bottom line is that there is little or no material poverty in the U.S.
At the time of our nation's birth, we were poor, but we established an institutional structure of free markets and limited government and became rich. Those riches were achieved long before today's unwieldy government. Our having a free market and limited government more than anything else explains our wealth. Most of our major problems are a result of government. We Americans should recognize that unfettered government and crony capitalism, not unfettered markets, are the cause of our current economic problems and why the U.S. has sunk to the rank of 17th in the 2013 "Economic Freedom of the World" report.
FINANCING TERRORISM
Cliff May
TEL AVIV, ISRAEL -- I pay lots of taxes. Some of my money supports U.S. Special Forces, and that pleases me. I have no problem helping fund the U.S. Park Service or the Centers for Disease Control. I am, however, a tad uneasy about my tax dollars -- and yours --going to support terrorists.
You think I’m joking? The U.S. government gives more than $400 million a year to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Last week, the Israeli prime minister’s office presented figures on the PA’s payments to terrorists imprisoned in Israel: In 2011-2012, the PA’s Ministry of Prisoners Affairs transferred $150 million to imprisoned terrorists, released terrorists, and the families of terrorists. Some prisoners are better paid than Palestinian police officers.
One might argue that these payments are charity – that most of the money goes to women and children who have no breadwinner at home. But Palestinian Minister of Prisoners’ Affairs Issa Karake has not made that argument. He recently said that the salaries are paid “out of esteem for [the] sacrifice and struggle” of those who, under Palestinian laws, are seen as “martyrs,” “prisoners of war,” and resistors of “occupation.”
In other words, both incentives and rewards are in place for the killing of Israelis (and, in some cases, Americans and other foreigners) anywhere in Israel – not only in the so-called Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza.
The salaries reflect the severity of the crimes. A terrorist serving a five to 10 year sentence gets $1,200 a month, a terrorist serving 25 to 30 years receives $2,900, and those serving sentences of more than 30 years – for example, for the mass murder of women and children – is eligible for $3,500.
At a congressional hearing in Washington in April, Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) asked Assistant Secretary of State Anne W. Patterson: “If the PA is paying for terrorists in prison, we ought to also be willing to hit them with some economic sanctions of that sort, don't you agree?” Ambassador Patterson replied: “I think they plan to phase it out.”
Two months later, Hamas, the U.S.-government designated terrorist entity that rules Gaza, publicly ended its often lethal, seven-year feud with the PA, which rules the West Bank. The two entities announced a “government of national unity.”
Among the changes this new government has announced: The Ministry of Prisoner Affairs is moving from the PA to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and being renamed the “Authority of Prisoners’ Affairs.”
The PLO, and its political party, Fatah, are usually described as the main forces within the PA. In fact, there are no clear lines separating the three – and all are headed by Mahmoud Abbas. (To be fair, Abbas has said many times that he opposes terrorism, that it is unhelpful to the Palestinian cause. Also to be fair, he has never taken serious steps to end anti-Israeli incitement or eliminate financial incentives for terrorism.)
Speaking on official PA TV on June 5, PA spokesman Ehab Bessaiso explained with refreshing candor the reason for the name-change and bureaucratic shuffle. Doing so, he said, will "provide political and legal cover" and "eliminate arguments ... that [foreign] aid money [to the PA] is going to the prisoners."
The interviewer asked if it was correct to say that the prisoners’ “rights -- under a ministry that became an authority -- will remain the same." Bessaiso said that was correct: salaries will continue to be paid as usual, no changes, no interruptions.
Where the PLO and Fatah get their funds is something of a mystery. Presumably from the PA but also probably from the Palestine National Fund (PNF), which has been described in the past as a PLO clearinghouse. Testifying recently before the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, my colleague, Jonathan Schanzer, recommended that Congress attempt to determine whether the U.S. directly or indirectly funds the PNF.
Under current U.S. law, aid is prohibited to any Palestinian government that has “undue” Hamas presence or influence. The Obama administration argues that despite the creation of the unity government, so long as the ministries within the “unity” government are run by “technocrats” with no formal Hamas affiliations, American funds may continue to flow. The administration adds that these funds provide “leverage.”
Republican Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Marco Rubio of Florida don’t see it quite that way. They have termed the White House position an “end run” around the law and called for a suspension and review of aid to the PA. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) has suggested that, at the least, further conditions should be attached to U.S. assistance. On June 2, Rep. Nina Lowey (D-NY) said that unless Hamas adopts pro-peace policies “funding for this unity government is in jeopardy.”
Ten days after she said that, three Israelis teenagers (one of them also a U.S. citizenship) were kidnapped while hitchhiking near the West Bank settlement of Gush Etzion. On Monday their bodies were found, partially buried, less than 12 miles from where they had been abducted.
Israeli authorities have named two Hamas members as suspects, adding that the pair acted with the knowledge and approval of senior Hamas political officials. In particular, suspicions are focusing on Saleh Arouri, the founder of Hamas’ Qassam Brigades who, according to multiple sources, is based in Turkey. “I have no doubt that al-Arouri was connected to the act,” an unnamed security official told The Times of Israel.
Should any of those responsible for the kidnappings and murders end up in an Israeli prison, they may be eligible for $3,500 a month. Some of that money may come from American taxpayers like me and you. I can imagine better uses for our hard-earned dollars. We will soon learn how many members of Congress agree.
TEL AVIV, ISRAEL -- I pay lots of taxes. Some of my money supports U.S. Special Forces, and that pleases me. I have no problem helping fund the U.S. Park Service or the Centers for Disease Control. I am, however, a tad uneasy about my tax dollars -- and yours --going to support terrorists.
You think I’m joking? The U.S. government gives more than $400 million a year to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Last week, the Israeli prime minister’s office presented figures on the PA’s payments to terrorists imprisoned in Israel: In 2011-2012, the PA’s Ministry of Prisoners Affairs transferred $150 million to imprisoned terrorists, released terrorists, and the families of terrorists. Some prisoners are better paid than Palestinian police officers.
One might argue that these payments are charity – that most of the money goes to women and children who have no breadwinner at home. But Palestinian Minister of Prisoners’ Affairs Issa Karake has not made that argument. He recently said that the salaries are paid “out of esteem for [the] sacrifice and struggle” of those who, under Palestinian laws, are seen as “martyrs,” “prisoners of war,” and resistors of “occupation.”
In other words, both incentives and rewards are in place for the killing of Israelis (and, in some cases, Americans and other foreigners) anywhere in Israel – not only in the so-called Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza.
The salaries reflect the severity of the crimes. A terrorist serving a five to 10 year sentence gets $1,200 a month, a terrorist serving 25 to 30 years receives $2,900, and those serving sentences of more than 30 years – for example, for the mass murder of women and children – is eligible for $3,500.
At a congressional hearing in Washington in April, Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) asked Assistant Secretary of State Anne W. Patterson: “If the PA is paying for terrorists in prison, we ought to also be willing to hit them with some economic sanctions of that sort, don't you agree?” Ambassador Patterson replied: “I think they plan to phase it out.”
Two months later, Hamas, the U.S.-government designated terrorist entity that rules Gaza, publicly ended its often lethal, seven-year feud with the PA, which rules the West Bank. The two entities announced a “government of national unity.”
Among the changes this new government has announced: The Ministry of Prisoner Affairs is moving from the PA to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and being renamed the “Authority of Prisoners’ Affairs.”
The PLO, and its political party, Fatah, are usually described as the main forces within the PA. In fact, there are no clear lines separating the three – and all are headed by Mahmoud Abbas. (To be fair, Abbas has said many times that he opposes terrorism, that it is unhelpful to the Palestinian cause. Also to be fair, he has never taken serious steps to end anti-Israeli incitement or eliminate financial incentives for terrorism.)
Speaking on official PA TV on June 5, PA spokesman Ehab Bessaiso explained with refreshing candor the reason for the name-change and bureaucratic shuffle. Doing so, he said, will "provide political and legal cover" and "eliminate arguments ... that [foreign] aid money [to the PA] is going to the prisoners."
The interviewer asked if it was correct to say that the prisoners’ “rights -- under a ministry that became an authority -- will remain the same." Bessaiso said that was correct: salaries will continue to be paid as usual, no changes, no interruptions.
Where the PLO and Fatah get their funds is something of a mystery. Presumably from the PA but also probably from the Palestine National Fund (PNF), which has been described in the past as a PLO clearinghouse. Testifying recently before the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, my colleague, Jonathan Schanzer, recommended that Congress attempt to determine whether the U.S. directly or indirectly funds the PNF.
Under current U.S. law, aid is prohibited to any Palestinian government that has “undue” Hamas presence or influence. The Obama administration argues that despite the creation of the unity government, so long as the ministries within the “unity” government are run by “technocrats” with no formal Hamas affiliations, American funds may continue to flow. The administration adds that these funds provide “leverage.”
Republican Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Marco Rubio of Florida don’t see it quite that way. They have termed the White House position an “end run” around the law and called for a suspension and review of aid to the PA. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) has suggested that, at the least, further conditions should be attached to U.S. assistance. On June 2, Rep. Nina Lowey (D-NY) said that unless Hamas adopts pro-peace policies “funding for this unity government is in jeopardy.”
Ten days after she said that, three Israelis teenagers (one of them also a U.S. citizenship) were kidnapped while hitchhiking near the West Bank settlement of Gush Etzion. On Monday their bodies were found, partially buried, less than 12 miles from where they had been abducted.
Israeli authorities have named two Hamas members as suspects, adding that the pair acted with the knowledge and approval of senior Hamas political officials. In particular, suspicions are focusing on Saleh Arouri, the founder of Hamas’ Qassam Brigades who, according to multiple sources, is based in Turkey. “I have no doubt that al-Arouri was connected to the act,” an unnamed security official told The Times of Israel.
Should any of those responsible for the kidnappings and murders end up in an Israeli prison, they may be eligible for $3,500 a month. Some of that money may come from American taxpayers like me and you. I can imagine better uses for our hard-earned dollars. We will soon learn how many members of Congress agree.
THE PERIL OF POWER
Erica Wanis
"Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things." Colossians 3:1-2, NIV.
As a Christian, I'm quite familiar with this passage, and always took it as an admonition against the kind of "worldly" sins addressed in this particular Pauline epistle. Be honest, love your neighbor, don't be a lover of material things, shun the pleasures of the flesh, etc...
Recently, however, I've begun to consider these words in a different, more fundamental way. The seemingly endless litany of scandals rocking the Obama Administration is largely responsible for this. Like most conservatives, I'm outraged and horrified at the conduct of our President and his appointees. His willingness to abuse Executive authority with impunity and his cavalier attitude about the responsibilities of his office seems to betray a contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the principles it embodies. His reticence to exert American influence and leadership in foreign affairs is condemnable. His blithe dismissal of issues like the Benghazi terror attack and the IRS targeting debacle as "phony scandals" bespeaks an arrogance of massive proportions. His refusal to enforce immigration laws is leading to a humanitarian crisis on our southern border. The Middle East is imploding.
One could go on and on. Predictably, the frustration on the Right is epic, and it's not just directed at the Oval Office. The impression among many is that President Obama has been aided and abetted by a complicit Congress, including "establishment" Republicans who are more concerned about feathering their own political nests than they are about representing the people and principles that got them where they are. People are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore; or at least, they aren't going to keep voting for the same people they've been voting for. It's time for change! Time to throw the bums out and install some fresh blood – people of principle who will not betray their constituents at the first opportunity.
The Tea Party is often the group seen to represent this sentiment, but on the Left the same dynamic is present to some extent in movements like Occupy Wall Street. There is a general feeling that something's gone terribly wrong in Washington – in America – and that something major needs to happen in order to set things right.
And here's where I've begun to see a problem. On both the Right and the Left, the perpetual tendency is to place the mantle of blame on specific, iconic bogeymen. For the Right, of course, the root of all evil and dysfunction in Washington lies with President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder and their ideological ilk. On the Left it's "Wall Street," the infamous Koch brothers, Fox News, and pretty much anything "big," e.g. Big Business, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc. And of course Dick Cheney. Always Dick Cheney.
"If we could just neutralize these influences and infuse the system with people who think like us," goes the sentiment, "everything would be okay. Government would be ethical and society would be just. Prosperity and equity would reign and America would finally live up to the promise of her founding ideals."
Would that this were true, but it's not. The entire government could be taken over by an ideological majority of one stripe or another and it's quite likely that ultimately very little would change. This is because it's not Progressive people or Conservative people or Libertarian people that are the problem, per se, but people in general. People are the problem, and Power is the problem.
I capitalize the word Power in tribute to French philospher Bertrand de Jouvenel, who wrote his seminal work, On Power, as World War II raged. For Jouvenel, Power is not merely a tool used to achieve an objective, but a self-serving force that seeks first and foremost to aggrandize itself. Power seeks above all else, more power for its own sake. This maxim has been true in all times and in all places but has been allowed to flourish with particular vigor, suggests Jouvenel, under the mantle of democratic liberalism. Mark Mitchell, professor of Political Theory at Patrick Henry College and editor-in-chief of Front Porch Republic (a website "dedicated to political decentralism, economic localism, and cultural regionalism") articulates well Jouvenel's insights into the seemingly intractable relationship between power and the modern nation state:
The social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau argued that sovereignty originally resides in individuals who are absolutely free and equal in a state of nature. People freely cede their rights to the sovereign in order to gain the benefits of civil and political order. But in a regime based on popular sovereignty, there is little distrust of Power, for Power is wielded by the people, and no one would oppress himself. The limits that were placed on Power in the Medieval world were seen as superfluous in the new age of rule by the people, but this cavalier attitude toward Power is the very thing that leads Jouvenel to claim that democracy "paves the way for tyranny."
Jouvenel sees the modern nation state as the ideal vehicle for carrying the consolidation of Power forward to new heights. And herein lies a profound criticism of liberalism, itself, for the state has steadily eroded the social powers that could stand against it and in so doing limit it. This process has been cheered on by the people who, in seeking liberation from all social power, unintentionally encouraged the nation state’s corrosive work.
Jouvenel argues that only those capable of fighting Power will enjoy any semblance of political liberty. He suggests that Power must be countered by "make-weights," alternative centers of power that resist consolidation. The separation of powers described by Madison in Federalist 51 is an example of an institutional mechanism established to oppose the expansion of power, yet the steady growth of power since the Founding suggests that this mechanism alone is insufficient.
If Jouvenel is correct, authentic, ordered human liberty and the social flourishing that should flow from it has been and continues to be subverted by the very system design to sustain and advance it. The innate hubris that undergirds democratic liberalism provides ideal fodder for the endless growth and consolidation of power under the guise of popular sovereignty.
"Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things." Colossians 3:1-2, NIV.
As a Christian, I'm quite familiar with this passage, and always took it as an admonition against the kind of "worldly" sins addressed in this particular Pauline epistle. Be honest, love your neighbor, don't be a lover of material things, shun the pleasures of the flesh, etc...
Recently, however, I've begun to consider these words in a different, more fundamental way. The seemingly endless litany of scandals rocking the Obama Administration is largely responsible for this. Like most conservatives, I'm outraged and horrified at the conduct of our President and his appointees. His willingness to abuse Executive authority with impunity and his cavalier attitude about the responsibilities of his office seems to betray a contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the principles it embodies. His reticence to exert American influence and leadership in foreign affairs is condemnable. His blithe dismissal of issues like the Benghazi terror attack and the IRS targeting debacle as "phony scandals" bespeaks an arrogance of massive proportions. His refusal to enforce immigration laws is leading to a humanitarian crisis on our southern border. The Middle East is imploding.
One could go on and on. Predictably, the frustration on the Right is epic, and it's not just directed at the Oval Office. The impression among many is that President Obama has been aided and abetted by a complicit Congress, including "establishment" Republicans who are more concerned about feathering their own political nests than they are about representing the people and principles that got them where they are. People are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore; or at least, they aren't going to keep voting for the same people they've been voting for. It's time for change! Time to throw the bums out and install some fresh blood – people of principle who will not betray their constituents at the first opportunity.
The Tea Party is often the group seen to represent this sentiment, but on the Left the same dynamic is present to some extent in movements like Occupy Wall Street. There is a general feeling that something's gone terribly wrong in Washington – in America – and that something major needs to happen in order to set things right.
And here's where I've begun to see a problem. On both the Right and the Left, the perpetual tendency is to place the mantle of blame on specific, iconic bogeymen. For the Right, of course, the root of all evil and dysfunction in Washington lies with President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Holder and their ideological ilk. On the Left it's "Wall Street," the infamous Koch brothers, Fox News, and pretty much anything "big," e.g. Big Business, Big Oil, Big Pharma, etc. And of course Dick Cheney. Always Dick Cheney.
"If we could just neutralize these influences and infuse the system with people who think like us," goes the sentiment, "everything would be okay. Government would be ethical and society would be just. Prosperity and equity would reign and America would finally live up to the promise of her founding ideals."
Would that this were true, but it's not. The entire government could be taken over by an ideological majority of one stripe or another and it's quite likely that ultimately very little would change. This is because it's not Progressive people or Conservative people or Libertarian people that are the problem, per se, but people in general. People are the problem, and Power is the problem.
I capitalize the word Power in tribute to French philospher Bertrand de Jouvenel, who wrote his seminal work, On Power, as World War II raged. For Jouvenel, Power is not merely a tool used to achieve an objective, but a self-serving force that seeks first and foremost to aggrandize itself. Power seeks above all else, more power for its own sake. This maxim has been true in all times and in all places but has been allowed to flourish with particular vigor, suggests Jouvenel, under the mantle of democratic liberalism. Mark Mitchell, professor of Political Theory at Patrick Henry College and editor-in-chief of Front Porch Republic (a website "dedicated to political decentralism, economic localism, and cultural regionalism") articulates well Jouvenel's insights into the seemingly intractable relationship between power and the modern nation state:
The social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau argued that sovereignty originally resides in individuals who are absolutely free and equal in a state of nature. People freely cede their rights to the sovereign in order to gain the benefits of civil and political order. But in a regime based on popular sovereignty, there is little distrust of Power, for Power is wielded by the people, and no one would oppress himself. The limits that were placed on Power in the Medieval world were seen as superfluous in the new age of rule by the people, but this cavalier attitude toward Power is the very thing that leads Jouvenel to claim that democracy "paves the way for tyranny."
Jouvenel sees the modern nation state as the ideal vehicle for carrying the consolidation of Power forward to new heights. And herein lies a profound criticism of liberalism, itself, for the state has steadily eroded the social powers that could stand against it and in so doing limit it. This process has been cheered on by the people who, in seeking liberation from all social power, unintentionally encouraged the nation state’s corrosive work.
Jouvenel argues that only those capable of fighting Power will enjoy any semblance of political liberty. He suggests that Power must be countered by "make-weights," alternative centers of power that resist consolidation. The separation of powers described by Madison in Federalist 51 is an example of an institutional mechanism established to oppose the expansion of power, yet the steady growth of power since the Founding suggests that this mechanism alone is insufficient.
If Jouvenel is correct, authentic, ordered human liberty and the social flourishing that should flow from it has been and continues to be subverted by the very system design to sustain and advance it. The innate hubris that undergirds democratic liberalism provides ideal fodder for the endless growth and consolidation of power under the guise of popular sovereignty.
DRIVING THE AMERICAN DREAM
Marco Rubio
As we gather with family and froiends this week to mark the Fourth of July, let us keep in mind the defining value that sets this nation apart – the founding principle that stands as our greatest cause for pride and celebration: that every American deserves an equal opportunity to achieve a happy and fulfilling life.
Equality of opportunity is the driving force behind the American Dream. Yet while this Dream was born on a July day in 1776, one of its greatest strides toward full realization came on a July day in 1964. The enactment of the Civil Rights Act 50 years ago today helped bring the American Dream within reach of millions who had been excluded from its promise.
By outlawing discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or country of origin, the Civil Rights Act gave legal backing to our core value of equal rights so that America could begin to heal its racial fractures and, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “live out the true meaning of its creed.”
The movement that gave rise to this legislation was the work of many men and women in many cities and towns around the country, but Florida is proud to be home to one of the central fronts in the entire Civil Rights Movement: the city of St. Augustine.
The struggle against racial discrimination and segregation in St. Augustine lasted for years and attracted nationwide attention. Even today, many are familiar with the images of the marches down King Street, the chaos in the swimming pool of the Monson Motor Lodge, and peaceful integrationists met with violence on the beaches of Anastasia Island.
Many have credited the images of horror and the stories of courage that came out of St. Augustine with helping to awaken the conscience of a nation and propel the Civil Rights Act toward passage.
As we’ve seen in the papers in recent weeks, many of the Floridians who showed outstanding courage in the St. Augustine Movement are with us to mark this anniversary. To them, we say thank you for having the courage to stand up for what was right, and for setting our people and our nation on the path toward equal opportunity for all, and toward a more complete American Dream.
As we gather with family and froiends this week to mark the Fourth of July, let us keep in mind the defining value that sets this nation apart – the founding principle that stands as our greatest cause for pride and celebration: that every American deserves an equal opportunity to achieve a happy and fulfilling life.
Equality of opportunity is the driving force behind the American Dream. Yet while this Dream was born on a July day in 1776, one of its greatest strides toward full realization came on a July day in 1964. The enactment of the Civil Rights Act 50 years ago today helped bring the American Dream within reach of millions who had been excluded from its promise.
By outlawing discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or country of origin, the Civil Rights Act gave legal backing to our core value of equal rights so that America could begin to heal its racial fractures and, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “live out the true meaning of its creed.”
The movement that gave rise to this legislation was the work of many men and women in many cities and towns around the country, but Florida is proud to be home to one of the central fronts in the entire Civil Rights Movement: the city of St. Augustine.
The struggle against racial discrimination and segregation in St. Augustine lasted for years and attracted nationwide attention. Even today, many are familiar with the images of the marches down King Street, the chaos in the swimming pool of the Monson Motor Lodge, and peaceful integrationists met with violence on the beaches of Anastasia Island.
Many have credited the images of horror and the stories of courage that came out of St. Augustine with helping to awaken the conscience of a nation and propel the Civil Rights Act toward passage.
As we’ve seen in the papers in recent weeks, many of the Floridians who showed outstanding courage in the St. Augustine Movement are with us to mark this anniversary. To them, we say thank you for having the courage to stand up for what was right, and for setting our people and our nation on the path toward equal opportunity for all, and toward a more complete American Dream.
THE STOLEN JOB MYTH
Jeff Jacoby
IF ANYONE ought to appreciate the power of immigration to stimulate employment, it is America's energetic anti-immigration advocates, whose jobs wouldn't exist if it weren't for the influx of immigrants they spend their days seeking to curtail.
Then again, appreciating anything about immigration — least of all the ironies of our endless debate on the subject — goes against the restrictionists' grain. Fulminating about immigrants is one of America's enduring pastimes, and it doesn't leave a lot of room for wry humor. Or for logical consistency. Which helps explain why immigrants can be depicted on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays as indolent leeches who flock to the United States to go on welfare — and condemned on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays for taking away jobsthat would otherwise go to Americans.
Last week the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors sharp reductions in immigration, released a report purporting to show that all net jobs created in the United States over the past 14 years have gone to immigrants, both legal and illegal. Using data collected by the Census Bureau, the report's authors, Steven Camarota and Karen Ziegler, note that between 2000 and 2014, the number of working-age native-born Americans with jobs declined by 127,000, while the number of immigrants with jobs climbed by 5.7 million.
"This is truly remarkable," Camarota and Ziegler write, "because natives accounted for two-thirds of overall population growth among the working-age population." As a result, the number of US-born natives who don't have jobs — both the unemployed as well as those who have dropped out of the labor force altogether — has swelled by 17 million since 2000. The takeaway? Far more native-born Americans would be working if immigrants hadn't soaked up all the job growth since the turn of the 21st century.
But the report's incendiary conclusion — "What employment growth there has been has all gone to immigrants" — doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
To begin with, the number of native-born Americans working in 2014 has not declined since 2000. It has increased by 2.6 million. The authors of the report acknowledge as much — in an endnote, on page 17. It is only by excluding the record-high cohort of workers 65 and older, one of the fastest-growing age groups in the labor market, that Camarota and Ziegler can claim that immigrants are taking all the available new jobs. But it is just as plausible to blame the long-term stagnation in the employment of "working-age" American natives on older employees as on those born in other lands. Should senior citizens who wish to work be forced to retire at 65?
In the zero-sum world of the anti-immigrant advocates, foreign-born workers can only gain at the expense of the native-born. But in the real world, immigration generally enlarges the economy, boosts productivity, and adds jobs. Immigrants amount to less than 13 percent of the US population. Yet 28 percent of all new American companies launched in 2011, as Rupert Murdoch wrote in a Wall Street Journal essay last month, were founded by immigrants.
Broadly speaking, immigrant workers and US-born workers are not substitutes but complements; because they tend to have different skills, they generally don't compete for the same jobs. Immigrants are more likely to be employed at the high or low ends of the labor market, explains Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, while most Americans have skills in the middle. Supplying the immigrant skills needed by the economy simultaneously enlarges demand for native skills.
Restrictionists hint at some kind of inverse correlation between gains in employment for US-born and foreign-born workers, but they can't show what doesn't exist. Look past their tendentious presentation of the data, as Nowrasteh wrote about an earlier Center for Immigration Studies report, and you notice that for the most part "net gains in employment for natives and immigrants move in the same direction." When natives gain, immigrants gain, and vice versa. We all work in the same labor market.
Which isn't to say that all workers are created equal. Not only are immigrants disproportionately entrepreneurial, they are also more likely to move to wherever work is to be found. Almost by definition, newcomers to the United States are self-selected for mobility and flexibility. Less encumbered by local ties, they're quicker to take advantage of employment opportunities. Their hustle is admirable, not a cause for resentment.
Immigrants aren't taking jobs that "belong" to Americans. They are fueling the economic engine that creates more opportunity for everyone, and we would be poorer by far without them.
IF ANYONE ought to appreciate the power of immigration to stimulate employment, it is America's energetic anti-immigration advocates, whose jobs wouldn't exist if it weren't for the influx of immigrants they spend their days seeking to curtail.
Then again, appreciating anything about immigration — least of all the ironies of our endless debate on the subject — goes against the restrictionists' grain. Fulminating about immigrants is one of America's enduring pastimes, and it doesn't leave a lot of room for wry humor. Or for logical consistency. Which helps explain why immigrants can be depicted on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays as indolent leeches who flock to the United States to go on welfare — and condemned on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays for taking away jobsthat would otherwise go to Americans.
Last week the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors sharp reductions in immigration, released a report purporting to show that all net jobs created in the United States over the past 14 years have gone to immigrants, both legal and illegal. Using data collected by the Census Bureau, the report's authors, Steven Camarota and Karen Ziegler, note that between 2000 and 2014, the number of working-age native-born Americans with jobs declined by 127,000, while the number of immigrants with jobs climbed by 5.7 million.
"This is truly remarkable," Camarota and Ziegler write, "because natives accounted for two-thirds of overall population growth among the working-age population." As a result, the number of US-born natives who don't have jobs — both the unemployed as well as those who have dropped out of the labor force altogether — has swelled by 17 million since 2000. The takeaway? Far more native-born Americans would be working if immigrants hadn't soaked up all the job growth since the turn of the 21st century.
But the report's incendiary conclusion — "What employment growth there has been has all gone to immigrants" — doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
To begin with, the number of native-born Americans working in 2014 has not declined since 2000. It has increased by 2.6 million. The authors of the report acknowledge as much — in an endnote, on page 17. It is only by excluding the record-high cohort of workers 65 and older, one of the fastest-growing age groups in the labor market, that Camarota and Ziegler can claim that immigrants are taking all the available new jobs. But it is just as plausible to blame the long-term stagnation in the employment of "working-age" American natives on older employees as on those born in other lands. Should senior citizens who wish to work be forced to retire at 65?
In the zero-sum world of the anti-immigrant advocates, foreign-born workers can only gain at the expense of the native-born. But in the real world, immigration generally enlarges the economy, boosts productivity, and adds jobs. Immigrants amount to less than 13 percent of the US population. Yet 28 percent of all new American companies launched in 2011, as Rupert Murdoch wrote in a Wall Street Journal essay last month, were founded by immigrants.
Broadly speaking, immigrant workers and US-born workers are not substitutes but complements; because they tend to have different skills, they generally don't compete for the same jobs. Immigrants are more likely to be employed at the high or low ends of the labor market, explains Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, while most Americans have skills in the middle. Supplying the immigrant skills needed by the economy simultaneously enlarges demand for native skills.
Restrictionists hint at some kind of inverse correlation between gains in employment for US-born and foreign-born workers, but they can't show what doesn't exist. Look past their tendentious presentation of the data, as Nowrasteh wrote about an earlier Center for Immigration Studies report, and you notice that for the most part "net gains in employment for natives and immigrants move in the same direction." When natives gain, immigrants gain, and vice versa. We all work in the same labor market.
Which isn't to say that all workers are created equal. Not only are immigrants disproportionately entrepreneurial, they are also more likely to move to wherever work is to be found. Almost by definition, newcomers to the United States are self-selected for mobility and flexibility. Less encumbered by local ties, they're quicker to take advantage of employment opportunities. Their hustle is admirable, not a cause for resentment.
Immigrants aren't taking jobs that "belong" to Americans. They are fueling the economic engine that creates more opportunity for everyone, and we would be poorer by far without them.
RUSSIA AND THE UKRAINE CRISIS: AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
Ranjit Gupta
Since the Crimean Parliament’s 6 March, 2014, decision to seek independence, India has issued several official statements regarding evolving events in or related to Ukraine, including a warmly worded message of congratulations to Mr. Petro Poroshenko on his election as Ukraine’s President.
The statement issued on 6 March, inter alia, stated that “India hopes that a solution to Ukraine’s internal differences is found in a manner that meets the aspirations of all sections of Ukraine’s population. It would be important, in this context, for a legitimate democratic process to find full expression through free and fair elections that provide for an inclusive society. India calls for sincere and sustained diplomatic efforts to ensure that issues between Ukraine and its neighboring countries are resolved through constructive dialogue.”
Later on 6 March, India’s National Security Advisor speaking informally to the press said, “We hope that whatever internal issues there are within Ukraine are settled peacefully and that the broader issues of reconciling the various interests involved, and there are after all legitimate Russian and other interests involved, are discussed and negotiated.”
The statement issued on 18 March, inter alia, stated that “President Vladimir Putin telephoned the Prime Minister today and discussed the evolving situation in Ukraine and the recent referendum in Crimea… The Prime Minister thanked President Putin for explaining the Russian position with regard to recent developments in Ukraine. He emphasized the consistent position India has had on the issues of unity and territorial integrity of countries. The Prime Minister expressed his hope that all sides would exercise restraint and work together constructively to find political and diplomatic solutions that protected the legitimate interests of all countries in the region and ensured long-term peace and stability in Europe and beyond.”
It would be relevant to note Russia’s take on this conversation. As per published excerpts from a press conference held by Russian President Vladimir Putin on 24 May at St. Petersburg, in relation to India’s position he stated that “Speaking of India’s stance, we are, of course, grateful to the Indian government and to the Indian people for their level-headed stance. I am glad that the Indian government considered the historical and the current political aspects in approaching this issue. I am glad that they based their opinion on these fundamental principles, including the importance of Russia-India relations. We appreciate it.”
The main reason why Putin was pleased with India’s stance despite the Indian Prime Minister specifically raising the issue of the importance of maintenance of the unity and territorial integrity of states in his conversation with Putin was because India had not condemned the Russian action and had – along with 57 other countries, including all BRICS countries – abstained in the vote on the UN resolution on 27 March.
Though India has been uncomfortable about the annexation of Crimea, India has also been cognizant of Russia’s very deep civilisational and historical linkages with Crimea. Also, India cannot entirely ignore the fact that Western activities and policies in the peripheral regions of Russia ever since the disintegration of the Soviet Union have hardly been altruistic, and appear motivated by a Cold War mindset.
Though the problem in Ukraine is pre-eminently a European problem, in an increasingly economically and geopolitically interlinked world, there are consequences even far away: the $400 billion Russia and China gas deal, which had been under negotiation for a decade, and prospects were not very optimistic, suddenly got finalised very quickly. Another and even bigger gas deal between them may soon see the light of day. These are significant strategic consequences and they enhance China’s strategic flexibility and leverage increasing its proclivity to be assertive vis-à-vis all its neighbours. Any strengthening of the Russia-China relationship has implications for India.
Even though India has very good relations with Ukraine and is sympathetic to its plight, India has a vital national interest stake in maintaining a strong partnership with Russia. The erstwhile Soviet Union, and later Russia, has been India’s strongest, indeed more often than not the only strategic supporter amongst the major powers for India for the best part of the past six decades. Lacking the leverage provided by Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council to protect its vital national interests, India needs to maintain a strong strategic partnership with Russia. Therefore, India cannot become a partner in any Western scheme of isolating Russia.
Notwithstanding the high sounding rhetoric about principles and values that great powers constantly spout, the unvarnished reality is that it is the mechanics of global geopolitics and the imperatives of national interests that determine the stances of every country on any particular issue. There is no reason why it should be any different for India.
Some or all of these reasons would perhaps have gone into determining India’s stance in relation to events in Ukraine, which has been somewhat ambiguous and decidedly nuanced, but admittedly tilted in favour of Russia.
Worse things have happened in the past decade – the unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and the complete dismantling of its erstwhile administration and army leading directly to the utterly tragic consequences we are witnessing today. No major power can claim the moral high ground.
It is highly unlikely that the annexation of Crimea would be reversed. Attempts to do so will not succeed. However Russia must cease interference in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine should have a more decentralised and federalist internal polity. Neither Russia nor the West would like a major breakdown in their mutual relationship; nor can they afford it. There are indications that Russia is stepping back. A via media will be found. The Ukraine issue is amongst many and more dramatic geopolitical changes in Eurasia in the aftermath of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and all concerned countries have learnt to live with the changes and so it is likely to be with the situation in Ukraine.
Since the Crimean Parliament’s 6 March, 2014, decision to seek independence, India has issued several official statements regarding evolving events in or related to Ukraine, including a warmly worded message of congratulations to Mr. Petro Poroshenko on his election as Ukraine’s President.
The statement issued on 6 March, inter alia, stated that “India hopes that a solution to Ukraine’s internal differences is found in a manner that meets the aspirations of all sections of Ukraine’s population. It would be important, in this context, for a legitimate democratic process to find full expression through free and fair elections that provide for an inclusive society. India calls for sincere and sustained diplomatic efforts to ensure that issues between Ukraine and its neighboring countries are resolved through constructive dialogue.”
Later on 6 March, India’s National Security Advisor speaking informally to the press said, “We hope that whatever internal issues there are within Ukraine are settled peacefully and that the broader issues of reconciling the various interests involved, and there are after all legitimate Russian and other interests involved, are discussed and negotiated.”
The statement issued on 18 March, inter alia, stated that “President Vladimir Putin telephoned the Prime Minister today and discussed the evolving situation in Ukraine and the recent referendum in Crimea… The Prime Minister thanked President Putin for explaining the Russian position with regard to recent developments in Ukraine. He emphasized the consistent position India has had on the issues of unity and territorial integrity of countries. The Prime Minister expressed his hope that all sides would exercise restraint and work together constructively to find political and diplomatic solutions that protected the legitimate interests of all countries in the region and ensured long-term peace and stability in Europe and beyond.”
It would be relevant to note Russia’s take on this conversation. As per published excerpts from a press conference held by Russian President Vladimir Putin on 24 May at St. Petersburg, in relation to India’s position he stated that “Speaking of India’s stance, we are, of course, grateful to the Indian government and to the Indian people for their level-headed stance. I am glad that the Indian government considered the historical and the current political aspects in approaching this issue. I am glad that they based their opinion on these fundamental principles, including the importance of Russia-India relations. We appreciate it.”
The main reason why Putin was pleased with India’s stance despite the Indian Prime Minister specifically raising the issue of the importance of maintenance of the unity and territorial integrity of states in his conversation with Putin was because India had not condemned the Russian action and had – along with 57 other countries, including all BRICS countries – abstained in the vote on the UN resolution on 27 March.
Though India has been uncomfortable about the annexation of Crimea, India has also been cognizant of Russia’s very deep civilisational and historical linkages with Crimea. Also, India cannot entirely ignore the fact that Western activities and policies in the peripheral regions of Russia ever since the disintegration of the Soviet Union have hardly been altruistic, and appear motivated by a Cold War mindset.
Though the problem in Ukraine is pre-eminently a European problem, in an increasingly economically and geopolitically interlinked world, there are consequences even far away: the $400 billion Russia and China gas deal, which had been under negotiation for a decade, and prospects were not very optimistic, suddenly got finalised very quickly. Another and even bigger gas deal between them may soon see the light of day. These are significant strategic consequences and they enhance China’s strategic flexibility and leverage increasing its proclivity to be assertive vis-à-vis all its neighbours. Any strengthening of the Russia-China relationship has implications for India.
Even though India has very good relations with Ukraine and is sympathetic to its plight, India has a vital national interest stake in maintaining a strong partnership with Russia. The erstwhile Soviet Union, and later Russia, has been India’s strongest, indeed more often than not the only strategic supporter amongst the major powers for India for the best part of the past six decades. Lacking the leverage provided by Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council to protect its vital national interests, India needs to maintain a strong strategic partnership with Russia. Therefore, India cannot become a partner in any Western scheme of isolating Russia.
Notwithstanding the high sounding rhetoric about principles and values that great powers constantly spout, the unvarnished reality is that it is the mechanics of global geopolitics and the imperatives of national interests that determine the stances of every country on any particular issue. There is no reason why it should be any different for India.
Some or all of these reasons would perhaps have gone into determining India’s stance in relation to events in Ukraine, which has been somewhat ambiguous and decidedly nuanced, but admittedly tilted in favour of Russia.
Worse things have happened in the past decade – the unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq and the complete dismantling of its erstwhile administration and army leading directly to the utterly tragic consequences we are witnessing today. No major power can claim the moral high ground.
It is highly unlikely that the annexation of Crimea would be reversed. Attempts to do so will not succeed. However Russia must cease interference in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine should have a more decentralised and federalist internal polity. Neither Russia nor the West would like a major breakdown in their mutual relationship; nor can they afford it. There are indications that Russia is stepping back. A via media will be found. The Ukraine issue is amongst many and more dramatic geopolitical changes in Eurasia in the aftermath of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and all concerned countries have learnt to live with the changes and so it is likely to be with the situation in Ukraine.
NC, NDA AND AUTONOMY
Shujaat Bukhari
On June 26, the resolution adopted by Jammu and Kashmir Assembly asking for greater autonomy as it existed before August 9, 1953, completed 14 years but without any substantial movement forward. The culmination of six-day-long debate on the issue in the specially convened session with this resolution was in itself a historic development in the battered political history of the state. The National Conference government passed the resolution with two-third majority in the House. But it was summarily rejected by the then National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. On July 4, the Union Cabinet rejected it as “unacceptable”.
After the cabinet rejected it the then Union Home Minister L K Advani pointed out that the State Autonomy Committee report (which the June 26 resolution recommends) questioned the very constitutionality of the post-1953 developments, including the 42 Presidential Orders passed since then in exercise of Article 370 of the Constitution of India. If the SAC report were to be accepted, these Presidential Orders would be deemed, as per Mr. Advani’s understanding, as “illegal”. So the chapter was closed there and then and there was no possibility of re-opening the case of autonomy.
The ruling NC, which was part of the NDA with Omar Abdullah as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, was in shock not just because they had lost the battle for “their people” but it was a challenge for the party to snap ties with the NDA. It took the party at least six days to come to terms and then decide to meet on July 10 that year to deliberate upon the rejection of what it called the “political bible” of the party. But the party made it clear that the meet was only to decide about whether to remain in NDA or not. I remember the nervousness with which the top brass of the party converged at the then General Secretary Sheikh Nazir’s residence to take the final call. The old guard comprising veterans like Mohiuddin Shah, Mohammad Shafi Uri and Abdur Rahim Rather were vociferous in calling it a day as far as relations with NDA were concerned. The option of recalling Omar Abdullah was the only one on table though many suggested that Farooq Abdullah and his cabinet should resign en masse to register the protest. This really sent alarm bells ringing in Delhi, as after lot of efforts which included the “services” of dreaded pro-government Ikhwan, they had managed to conduct elections in 1996 and now the Assembly was sold to the world market as the “representative body of people of Jammu and Kashmir”.
Farooq’s resignation or at least recalling Omar at that time would have given a jolt to New Delhi’s projection of “return of democracy to Kashmir” at the international level. Following the death of Farooq’s mother Begum Akbar Jehan just a day after the crucial working committee meeting had begun, it was postponed till July 14. In the meantime Vajpayee and Advani arrived in Srinagar for condolences. Vajpayee’s visit to her grave and then to Hazratbal shrine changed the course and thus rescued Farooq and his party from the most difficult test of his political career. Farooq, as I remember, was very keen to see some journalists at the shrine only to create a space for Vajpayee to say “I have invited Farooq Saheb for talks to Delhi (on the issue)”.
This is how the resolution and the report that was painstakingly prepared by his team were buried forever. Though Vajpayee maintained that it was not rejected but even during the remaining four years of his tenure it was never picked up.
“I have invited Dr. Abdullah to Delhi for further dialogue (on autonomy). Union Cabinet had not rejected the autonomy resolution outright but it was not accepted,” he told the journalists outside the shrine. But NC never followed it with seriousness. The autonomy found a routine mention in 2002 and 2008 Assembly manifestos. Till date we don’t know anything about the dialogue talked about by Vajpayee in the backdrop of the rejection and NC’s bid to part ways from the NDA.
NEW NDA:
NDA with Vajpayee as its face had rejected something that was within the ambit of Indian Constitution. This was done in spite of the fact that Vajpayee had set a different course in dealing with vexed Kashmir problem. He not only walked extra mile with Pakistan over the issue but also recognized political discontent on the ground by engaging with the separatists.
Now that a new NDA rather a Bhartiya Janta Party government is in power in Delhi, the intentions are almost clear. Though BJP has gone slow on the contentious issues it has been flagging strongly during the election campaign, its stand on Article 370 has caused fear among the people in the state.
People have a reason to be concerned about this last thread of autonomous character the state has. While in last 25 years, people have been agitating for political rights outside the Indian Constitution such as “Independence” or a section for “merger with Pakistan”, the BJP’s move to complete integration is not only to negate the aspirations of the people but also to go back on the numerous promises the leaders have made with the people since 1947. One thing is clear that people in Kashmir don’t want to live a sense of defeat and New Delhi must recognize the fact that pushing them against the wall is not the answer to the alienation on the ground, which is found more among the youth.
AUTONOMY AS A SOLUTION:
BJP’s oft repeated response to Kashmir is that solution could be found within the constitution. Taking that on its face value then the Autonomy does fall under that ambit. Vajpayee is believed to have been in favour of discussing autonomy but for the hawks he could not move forward. With Narendra Modi being the strong PM, and having liking for Vajpayee’s policy on Kashmir, he should not fall prey to rhetoric but should follow realism in addressing the issue.
NC also needs to come clear on the issue. At a time when it has faced poll debacle and its style of governance has no takers, NC could reenergize its efforts on something what its president Farooq Abdullah had told me on June 29, 2000 in an interview: “It does not mean separation from India but is a way the people of State can live with dignity and honour.”
The forthcoming elections to Assembly are an acid test for both NC and People’s Democratic Party as to how they would project the aspirations of people besides giving a model of governance on which they can rely more for prosperity and development.
On June 26, the resolution adopted by Jammu and Kashmir Assembly asking for greater autonomy as it existed before August 9, 1953, completed 14 years but without any substantial movement forward. The culmination of six-day-long debate on the issue in the specially convened session with this resolution was in itself a historic development in the battered political history of the state. The National Conference government passed the resolution with two-third majority in the House. But it was summarily rejected by the then National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. On July 4, the Union Cabinet rejected it as “unacceptable”.
After the cabinet rejected it the then Union Home Minister L K Advani pointed out that the State Autonomy Committee report (which the June 26 resolution recommends) questioned the very constitutionality of the post-1953 developments, including the 42 Presidential Orders passed since then in exercise of Article 370 of the Constitution of India. If the SAC report were to be accepted, these Presidential Orders would be deemed, as per Mr. Advani’s understanding, as “illegal”. So the chapter was closed there and then and there was no possibility of re-opening the case of autonomy.
The ruling NC, which was part of the NDA with Omar Abdullah as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, was in shock not just because they had lost the battle for “their people” but it was a challenge for the party to snap ties with the NDA. It took the party at least six days to come to terms and then decide to meet on July 10 that year to deliberate upon the rejection of what it called the “political bible” of the party. But the party made it clear that the meet was only to decide about whether to remain in NDA or not. I remember the nervousness with which the top brass of the party converged at the then General Secretary Sheikh Nazir’s residence to take the final call. The old guard comprising veterans like Mohiuddin Shah, Mohammad Shafi Uri and Abdur Rahim Rather were vociferous in calling it a day as far as relations with NDA were concerned. The option of recalling Omar Abdullah was the only one on table though many suggested that Farooq Abdullah and his cabinet should resign en masse to register the protest. This really sent alarm bells ringing in Delhi, as after lot of efforts which included the “services” of dreaded pro-government Ikhwan, they had managed to conduct elections in 1996 and now the Assembly was sold to the world market as the “representative body of people of Jammu and Kashmir”.
Farooq’s resignation or at least recalling Omar at that time would have given a jolt to New Delhi’s projection of “return of democracy to Kashmir” at the international level. Following the death of Farooq’s mother Begum Akbar Jehan just a day after the crucial working committee meeting had begun, it was postponed till July 14. In the meantime Vajpayee and Advani arrived in Srinagar for condolences. Vajpayee’s visit to her grave and then to Hazratbal shrine changed the course and thus rescued Farooq and his party from the most difficult test of his political career. Farooq, as I remember, was very keen to see some journalists at the shrine only to create a space for Vajpayee to say “I have invited Farooq Saheb for talks to Delhi (on the issue)”.
This is how the resolution and the report that was painstakingly prepared by his team were buried forever. Though Vajpayee maintained that it was not rejected but even during the remaining four years of his tenure it was never picked up.
“I have invited Dr. Abdullah to Delhi for further dialogue (on autonomy). Union Cabinet had not rejected the autonomy resolution outright but it was not accepted,” he told the journalists outside the shrine. But NC never followed it with seriousness. The autonomy found a routine mention in 2002 and 2008 Assembly manifestos. Till date we don’t know anything about the dialogue talked about by Vajpayee in the backdrop of the rejection and NC’s bid to part ways from the NDA.
NEW NDA:
NDA with Vajpayee as its face had rejected something that was within the ambit of Indian Constitution. This was done in spite of the fact that Vajpayee had set a different course in dealing with vexed Kashmir problem. He not only walked extra mile with Pakistan over the issue but also recognized political discontent on the ground by engaging with the separatists.
Now that a new NDA rather a Bhartiya Janta Party government is in power in Delhi, the intentions are almost clear. Though BJP has gone slow on the contentious issues it has been flagging strongly during the election campaign, its stand on Article 370 has caused fear among the people in the state.
People have a reason to be concerned about this last thread of autonomous character the state has. While in last 25 years, people have been agitating for political rights outside the Indian Constitution such as “Independence” or a section for “merger with Pakistan”, the BJP’s move to complete integration is not only to negate the aspirations of the people but also to go back on the numerous promises the leaders have made with the people since 1947. One thing is clear that people in Kashmir don’t want to live a sense of defeat and New Delhi must recognize the fact that pushing them against the wall is not the answer to the alienation on the ground, which is found more among the youth.
AUTONOMY AS A SOLUTION:
BJP’s oft repeated response to Kashmir is that solution could be found within the constitution. Taking that on its face value then the Autonomy does fall under that ambit. Vajpayee is believed to have been in favour of discussing autonomy but for the hawks he could not move forward. With Narendra Modi being the strong PM, and having liking for Vajpayee’s policy on Kashmir, he should not fall prey to rhetoric but should follow realism in addressing the issue.
NC also needs to come clear on the issue. At a time when it has faced poll debacle and its style of governance has no takers, NC could reenergize its efforts on something what its president Farooq Abdullah had told me on June 29, 2000 in an interview: “It does not mean separation from India but is a way the people of State can live with dignity and honour.”
The forthcoming elections to Assembly are an acid test for both NC and People’s Democratic Party as to how they would project the aspirations of people besides giving a model of governance on which they can rely more for prosperity and development.
J&K: FORTHCOMING ELECTIONS AND THE PEACE PROCESS
Ashok Bhan
A series of credible democratic exercises since 1996 have contributed positively to the peace process in Jammu and Kashmir. It may be recalled that the present conflict was triggered by what is often alleged to be the denial of political space to the Muslim United Front in the assembly elections in 1987. Therefore, it is not surprising that credible elections have helped in turning the clock backwards though with a caveat. Elections alone may not resolve the conflict, which has political connotations particularly related to Centre-State relations and involvement of an external player. But they have throw up alternatives and opportunities for conflict resolution.
Strengthening of democratic institutions in Jammu and Kashmir has been the most important positive political intervention post Pakistan-sponsored terrorism began in Jammu and Kashmir in the late 1980s. As soon as the security forces brought the situation under some control and the Jammu and Kashmir Police was strengthened to carry out anti-militancy operations, the Central Government and Gen KV Krishna Rao, who took over as Governor of Jammu and Kashmir in March 1993, began focusing on the resumption of the political process. Initially, it took a great deal of persuasion to rope in even the mainstream parties as terrorist violence had not abated and it was taking a heavy toll on political leaders and workers. Yet, despite the loss of precious lives, this was a decision with far-reaching consequences as the subsequent events have shown. The state had to be brought out of the vicious circle and governance restored to the elected representatives.
State Assembly elections were held in 1996 (with a voter turnout of 53.9 per cent) after a prolonged period of Governor/ President’s rule in the state. This, and following elections in 2002 and 2008 (43.1 and 61.5 per cent turnout respectively), have thrown up different possibilities, alternatives and opportunities. There is political stability in the state. The democratic institutions have provided enough opportunity to the people to raise their grievances before their elected representatives. The voter turnout in elections has seen a healthy improvement. A few separatists have joined the electoral politics and others have put up proxy candidates. The response to boycott the call to elections and routine the ‘hartal’ calls of separatists is weakening. The manifestos of regional parties for the forthcoming Assembly elections will prominently carry their prescriptions for the resolution of the ‘K’ issue. This will add to the churning process aimed at reaching a consensus.
Simultaneously, elections to the Lok Sabha were held in 1996, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2009, and more recently, in 2014. A historic election to Panchayats as part of strengthening grassroots democracy with 80 per cent voter turnout was held in 2011 after a gap of nearly 30 years.
The performance of successive Governments, their achievements and empowering of Panchayats can be the subject matter of debate but that democracy has taken roots cannot be disputed. This is a positive development in the peace process.
It may be recalled that the 1987 Assembly elections had witnessed a high voter turnout of about 75 per cent but the credibility of the polls has been widely questioned. The response of the electorate to the November 1989 Lok Sabha election held just before the conflict took a dangerous turn was a clear indicator of the events to come. Baramulla and Anantnag PCs in Kashmir valley polled a mere 5.48 and 5.07 per cent votes respectively and the Srinagar PC returned the NC candidate unopposed as no one showed a willingness to test the waters. The impact of discontent was felt even in the Udhampur PC of Jammu region by recording an unusually low poll percentage of about 40. This constituency, geographically close to south Kashmir, included areas of erstwhile Doda district which saw terrorist violence at a high pitch in later years. The National Conference won all the 3 seats from the valley getting a mere 6.8 per cent of votes polled in the state. The voters, particularly in the valley and Doda district, had shown their disenchantment with electoral politics and alienation was there for everyone to see. No elections could be held in Jammu and Kashmir due to the disturbed conditions during the May-June 1991 Lok Sabha polls.
Comparing the 1989 Lok Sabha elections with the recently concluded 2014 General Elections makes an interesting reading. The pattern of turnout is indicative of the change on the ground. The voter response in Baramulla, Srinagar and Anantnag constituencies in the valley has been 39, 26 and 29 per cent respectively. The poll percentage in the state increased from 25.6 in 1989 to 49.5 in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. There have been fluctuations in voter turnout in the valley in the intervening Lok Sabha and Assembly polls but it is gradually stabilising. People have shown faith in democratic institutions. Healthy poll percentages may not mean the end of the conflict but they do reflect the popular mood and increasing faith in democracy.
Separatists continue to hold sway in downtown Srinagar when it comes to election times. The low voter response in some areas in North and South Kashmir is due to the presence of terrorists as well as influence of separatists. There were terror-related incidents and some major operations by security forces in these low voter turnout areas in Sopore, Pulwama and Shopian districts before and after the recent Lok Sabha elections. Terrorists shot at and killed Mohd Anwar Sheikh, a village headman, in village Amlar Tral in Pulwama district on 01 April. In another incident, militants shot dead Sarpanch Ghulam Nabi Mir affiliated to Congress party and his son Firdous Ahmed Mir in the Tral area. A Sarpanch affiliated to the PDP Mohd Amin Pandit was killed in Awantipur area by terrorists on 17 April. A poll party was attacked on 24 April by militants in Pulwama district, killing a poll staff. A two-day encounter with terrorists ended in Shopian with the killing of 3 HM terrorists on 26 April. An Army Major and sepoy laid down their lives. A grenade exploded in Magam hours before the election rally of Dr Farooq Abdullah, injuring 17 persons on 27 April. These all were aimed at terrorising the voters.
The response of voters in the elections leaves telltale marks about the situation on the ground in different areas. The low voter turnout though confined to a limited area is a reminder of alienation, threat of terrorists and influence of separatists. In this election too low voter turnout in Sopore and parts of Baramulla town in Baramulla PC; certain assembly segments of downtown Srinagar in Srinagar PC and Pulwama- Shopian belt in Anantnag PC clearly delineate areas needing attention of the Government and its agencies. These areas will have to be ‘liberated’ from the influence of terrorists and separatists to allow people to exercise their democratic right to vote. The election authorities, state administration and security forces will have to create the right conditions particularly in these areas so that willing voters are able to exercise their franchise freely and fairly without harassment or intimidation during the forthcoming Assembly elections due towards the end of the year 2014.
The district wise breakup of poll percent in Baramulla PC brings home some interesting facts. Kupwara district which has witnessed the participation of separatists or their proxy candidates over the last few years has polled 63 percent votes, Bandipora district over 35 per cent and Baramulla district which includes the Sopore belt a mere 25 per cent. Mainstreaming of separatists by encouraging them to participate in the electoral process will be a positive step forward for the peace process. Having failed to capture power by the gun, some separatists are not averse to this idea. Jamaat-e-Islami is known to have allowed its supporters to vote in favor of select candidates and not to press for poll boycott in earlier elections. Can the ‘Kupwara model’ work in other areas to neutralise the effect of boycott calls, threats and violence?
Separatists, and terrorists at their behest, opposed the Panchayat elections. The elected members were threatened and killed. They were labeled as Government agents and often criticised by the separatists. The threat increased to such an extent that many Panchayat members decided to resign. It is another matter that the Government’s failure to empower Panchayats made the elections to these bodies much less meaningful. Terrorists and separatists were thus relieved of the fear of losing support at the grassroots to elected Panchayats. There is a need for a fresh look at empowering Panchayati Raj institutions including adopting the 73rd and 74th amendments of the Constitution of India and elections to local bodies.
Pakistan and their separatist supporters are averse to the strengthening of democratic institutions in the state. It is amply proved by the increase in infiltration, escalation of violence and killing of political activists during earlier elections. This time there is the additional threat that may be triggered by the drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan and apprehension in some circles of the threat posed by Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. The challenges that the Government is likely to face in the run-up to the assembly elections include keeping in check any attempts by Pakistan to send terrorists to escalate violence, dealing imaginatively with protests sponsored by separatists, and providing security to candidates, political activists and public meetings. It would be naïve to think that the role of the security grid has in any way lessened for the forthcoming Assembly election than in the last three held since 1996. An environment will have to be created particularly in low turnout areas by maintaining peace and keeping terrorists at bay so that voters can fearlessly exercise their franchise in the Assembly elections. Success in this will be another step forward in the peace process in Jammu and Kashmir.
A series of credible democratic exercises since 1996 have contributed positively to the peace process in Jammu and Kashmir. It may be recalled that the present conflict was triggered by what is often alleged to be the denial of political space to the Muslim United Front in the assembly elections in 1987. Therefore, it is not surprising that credible elections have helped in turning the clock backwards though with a caveat. Elections alone may not resolve the conflict, which has political connotations particularly related to Centre-State relations and involvement of an external player. But they have throw up alternatives and opportunities for conflict resolution.
Strengthening of democratic institutions in Jammu and Kashmir has been the most important positive political intervention post Pakistan-sponsored terrorism began in Jammu and Kashmir in the late 1980s. As soon as the security forces brought the situation under some control and the Jammu and Kashmir Police was strengthened to carry out anti-militancy operations, the Central Government and Gen KV Krishna Rao, who took over as Governor of Jammu and Kashmir in March 1993, began focusing on the resumption of the political process. Initially, it took a great deal of persuasion to rope in even the mainstream parties as terrorist violence had not abated and it was taking a heavy toll on political leaders and workers. Yet, despite the loss of precious lives, this was a decision with far-reaching consequences as the subsequent events have shown. The state had to be brought out of the vicious circle and governance restored to the elected representatives.
State Assembly elections were held in 1996 (with a voter turnout of 53.9 per cent) after a prolonged period of Governor/ President’s rule in the state. This, and following elections in 2002 and 2008 (43.1 and 61.5 per cent turnout respectively), have thrown up different possibilities, alternatives and opportunities. There is political stability in the state. The democratic institutions have provided enough opportunity to the people to raise their grievances before their elected representatives. The voter turnout in elections has seen a healthy improvement. A few separatists have joined the electoral politics and others have put up proxy candidates. The response to boycott the call to elections and routine the ‘hartal’ calls of separatists is weakening. The manifestos of regional parties for the forthcoming Assembly elections will prominently carry their prescriptions for the resolution of the ‘K’ issue. This will add to the churning process aimed at reaching a consensus.
Simultaneously, elections to the Lok Sabha were held in 1996, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2009, and more recently, in 2014. A historic election to Panchayats as part of strengthening grassroots democracy with 80 per cent voter turnout was held in 2011 after a gap of nearly 30 years.
The performance of successive Governments, their achievements and empowering of Panchayats can be the subject matter of debate but that democracy has taken roots cannot be disputed. This is a positive development in the peace process.
It may be recalled that the 1987 Assembly elections had witnessed a high voter turnout of about 75 per cent but the credibility of the polls has been widely questioned. The response of the electorate to the November 1989 Lok Sabha election held just before the conflict took a dangerous turn was a clear indicator of the events to come. Baramulla and Anantnag PCs in Kashmir valley polled a mere 5.48 and 5.07 per cent votes respectively and the Srinagar PC returned the NC candidate unopposed as no one showed a willingness to test the waters. The impact of discontent was felt even in the Udhampur PC of Jammu region by recording an unusually low poll percentage of about 40. This constituency, geographically close to south Kashmir, included areas of erstwhile Doda district which saw terrorist violence at a high pitch in later years. The National Conference won all the 3 seats from the valley getting a mere 6.8 per cent of votes polled in the state. The voters, particularly in the valley and Doda district, had shown their disenchantment with electoral politics and alienation was there for everyone to see. No elections could be held in Jammu and Kashmir due to the disturbed conditions during the May-June 1991 Lok Sabha polls.
Comparing the 1989 Lok Sabha elections with the recently concluded 2014 General Elections makes an interesting reading. The pattern of turnout is indicative of the change on the ground. The voter response in Baramulla, Srinagar and Anantnag constituencies in the valley has been 39, 26 and 29 per cent respectively. The poll percentage in the state increased from 25.6 in 1989 to 49.5 in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. There have been fluctuations in voter turnout in the valley in the intervening Lok Sabha and Assembly polls but it is gradually stabilising. People have shown faith in democratic institutions. Healthy poll percentages may not mean the end of the conflict but they do reflect the popular mood and increasing faith in democracy.
Separatists continue to hold sway in downtown Srinagar when it comes to election times. The low voter response in some areas in North and South Kashmir is due to the presence of terrorists as well as influence of separatists. There were terror-related incidents and some major operations by security forces in these low voter turnout areas in Sopore, Pulwama and Shopian districts before and after the recent Lok Sabha elections. Terrorists shot at and killed Mohd Anwar Sheikh, a village headman, in village Amlar Tral in Pulwama district on 01 April. In another incident, militants shot dead Sarpanch Ghulam Nabi Mir affiliated to Congress party and his son Firdous Ahmed Mir in the Tral area. A Sarpanch affiliated to the PDP Mohd Amin Pandit was killed in Awantipur area by terrorists on 17 April. A poll party was attacked on 24 April by militants in Pulwama district, killing a poll staff. A two-day encounter with terrorists ended in Shopian with the killing of 3 HM terrorists on 26 April. An Army Major and sepoy laid down their lives. A grenade exploded in Magam hours before the election rally of Dr Farooq Abdullah, injuring 17 persons on 27 April. These all were aimed at terrorising the voters.
The response of voters in the elections leaves telltale marks about the situation on the ground in different areas. The low voter turnout though confined to a limited area is a reminder of alienation, threat of terrorists and influence of separatists. In this election too low voter turnout in Sopore and parts of Baramulla town in Baramulla PC; certain assembly segments of downtown Srinagar in Srinagar PC and Pulwama- Shopian belt in Anantnag PC clearly delineate areas needing attention of the Government and its agencies. These areas will have to be ‘liberated’ from the influence of terrorists and separatists to allow people to exercise their democratic right to vote. The election authorities, state administration and security forces will have to create the right conditions particularly in these areas so that willing voters are able to exercise their franchise freely and fairly without harassment or intimidation during the forthcoming Assembly elections due towards the end of the year 2014.
The district wise breakup of poll percent in Baramulla PC brings home some interesting facts. Kupwara district which has witnessed the participation of separatists or their proxy candidates over the last few years has polled 63 percent votes, Bandipora district over 35 per cent and Baramulla district which includes the Sopore belt a mere 25 per cent. Mainstreaming of separatists by encouraging them to participate in the electoral process will be a positive step forward for the peace process. Having failed to capture power by the gun, some separatists are not averse to this idea. Jamaat-e-Islami is known to have allowed its supporters to vote in favor of select candidates and not to press for poll boycott in earlier elections. Can the ‘Kupwara model’ work in other areas to neutralise the effect of boycott calls, threats and violence?
Separatists, and terrorists at their behest, opposed the Panchayat elections. The elected members were threatened and killed. They were labeled as Government agents and often criticised by the separatists. The threat increased to such an extent that many Panchayat members decided to resign. It is another matter that the Government’s failure to empower Panchayats made the elections to these bodies much less meaningful. Terrorists and separatists were thus relieved of the fear of losing support at the grassroots to elected Panchayats. There is a need for a fresh look at empowering Panchayati Raj institutions including adopting the 73rd and 74th amendments of the Constitution of India and elections to local bodies.
Pakistan and their separatist supporters are averse to the strengthening of democratic institutions in the state. It is amply proved by the increase in infiltration, escalation of violence and killing of political activists during earlier elections. This time there is the additional threat that may be triggered by the drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan and apprehension in some circles of the threat posed by Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. The challenges that the Government is likely to face in the run-up to the assembly elections include keeping in check any attempts by Pakistan to send terrorists to escalate violence, dealing imaginatively with protests sponsored by separatists, and providing security to candidates, political activists and public meetings. It would be naïve to think that the role of the security grid has in any way lessened for the forthcoming Assembly election than in the last three held since 1996. An environment will have to be created particularly in low turnout areas by maintaining peace and keeping terrorists at bay so that voters can fearlessly exercise their franchise in the Assembly elections. Success in this will be another step forward in the peace process in Jammu and Kashmir.
1 Jul 2014
SUITING UP
Rich Tucker
Brazil is known for many things. Soccer, of course, and its team is keeping its end up, having advanced to the final 8 in the World Cup. Another famed thing is its casual dress code.
Visitors to beaches often find that virtually every woman is wearing a bikini, for example. “Body type seemingly had no influence on a woman’s choice of swimwear -- indeed, there were plenty of bikini-clad woman of all ages happily and unselfconsciously sporting bellies, flab, and cellulite,” traveler Michael Sommers wrote a few years ago. “Unlike North Americans, in general, Brazilians tend to be much more at ease about exposing their bodies.”
The lack of a dress code extends to the World Cup soccer stadia, as well. Fans come wearing crazy costumes, flag-themed pants and, for the less adventurous, replica team jerseys. Which just makes it all the more surprising that, when the camera pans to the team managers (which Americans would call coaches) they seem always to be clad in a shirt and tie.
This isn’t especially unusual to American sports fans, though. Coaches on the sidelines are among the final people in any arena to be spotted wearing suits. Consider college basketball, the sport in which the players earn nothing but the coaches become millionaires.
As the coach at Iowa in the mid-1980s, George Raveling was known for wearing sweat suits to games, so he could actually go out on court and shoot with his players. But his approach didn’t catch on. Raveling was replaced with a more conventionally dressed coach in 1987, and Tom Davis immediately went 30-5. Wearing a suit and tie all the way.
This past year Syracuse basketball coach Jim Boeheim became famous for his sport coat. Or at least the fact he couldn’t seem to get out of it. He flipped out while protesting a foul call at Duke and was thrown out of the game. At the end of the year, he auctioned off the blazer for $14,000 to benefit cancer research. Rest assured the fan who bought it won’t be wearing it to any games next winter.
Few fans do, of course. Scan the bench at an NCAA game and it’s suits as far as the eye can see. Every team seems to have eight coaches. But scan the stands behind them and almost nobody is dressed to impress.
But sporting events aren’t the only place where men still sport suits. It seems male meteorologists won’t make any predictions unless they’re wearing a tie.
From the National Hurricane Center to the weather wall at your local affiliate, meteorologists deliver their (usually bad) news in full dress-up mode. Even when called in on weekends to track storms, they bring the full wardrobe with them. It just wouldn’t be right, apparently, to call for three inches of snow without donning a business suit.
It was a generation ago that casual Friday swept American offices. Over time, that evolved into casual every day, with business casual on the agenda in most companies. It’s ironic that sports remains a holdout against this casual trend; coaches would no doubt be more comfortable without the ties and loafers.
Maybe some manager will doff his tie this month in Brazil and set a new fashion trend. Let’s just hope he doesn’t completely go native and show up wearing a bikini.
Brazil is known for many things. Soccer, of course, and its team is keeping its end up, having advanced to the final 8 in the World Cup. Another famed thing is its casual dress code.
Visitors to beaches often find that virtually every woman is wearing a bikini, for example. “Body type seemingly had no influence on a woman’s choice of swimwear -- indeed, there were plenty of bikini-clad woman of all ages happily and unselfconsciously sporting bellies, flab, and cellulite,” traveler Michael Sommers wrote a few years ago. “Unlike North Americans, in general, Brazilians tend to be much more at ease about exposing their bodies.”
The lack of a dress code extends to the World Cup soccer stadia, as well. Fans come wearing crazy costumes, flag-themed pants and, for the less adventurous, replica team jerseys. Which just makes it all the more surprising that, when the camera pans to the team managers (which Americans would call coaches) they seem always to be clad in a shirt and tie.
This isn’t especially unusual to American sports fans, though. Coaches on the sidelines are among the final people in any arena to be spotted wearing suits. Consider college basketball, the sport in which the players earn nothing but the coaches become millionaires.
As the coach at Iowa in the mid-1980s, George Raveling was known for wearing sweat suits to games, so he could actually go out on court and shoot with his players. But his approach didn’t catch on. Raveling was replaced with a more conventionally dressed coach in 1987, and Tom Davis immediately went 30-5. Wearing a suit and tie all the way.
This past year Syracuse basketball coach Jim Boeheim became famous for his sport coat. Or at least the fact he couldn’t seem to get out of it. He flipped out while protesting a foul call at Duke and was thrown out of the game. At the end of the year, he auctioned off the blazer for $14,000 to benefit cancer research. Rest assured the fan who bought it won’t be wearing it to any games next winter.
Few fans do, of course. Scan the bench at an NCAA game and it’s suits as far as the eye can see. Every team seems to have eight coaches. But scan the stands behind them and almost nobody is dressed to impress.
But sporting events aren’t the only place where men still sport suits. It seems male meteorologists won’t make any predictions unless they’re wearing a tie.
From the National Hurricane Center to the weather wall at your local affiliate, meteorologists deliver their (usually bad) news in full dress-up mode. Even when called in on weekends to track storms, they bring the full wardrobe with them. It just wouldn’t be right, apparently, to call for three inches of snow without donning a business suit.
It was a generation ago that casual Friday swept American offices. Over time, that evolved into casual every day, with business casual on the agenda in most companies. It’s ironic that sports remains a holdout against this casual trend; coaches would no doubt be more comfortable without the ties and loafers.
Maybe some manager will doff his tie this month in Brazil and set a new fashion trend. Let’s just hope he doesn’t completely go native and show up wearing a bikini.
VICTIM'S MENTALITY
Armstrong Williams
Has anybody ever become a success story because they felt like a victim? Has anybody ever done anything good, or become a better person, because they feel sorry for themselves? It is a pernicious temptation to pity yourself. Each one of us has innumerable gifts from Almighty God for which we should be grateful. Even the lowliest pauper in the most unenlightened of backwaters has the gift of life, of free will, and of his God-given dignity. The Left's insistence on a victim mentality is nothing less than a direct attack on the dignity of the human person; it is the cousin of the sin of despair (which the Bible declares "the sickness unto death"). The next time you feel tempted to pity yourself, bend it back: stop and count your blessings and thank God.
Victim mentality only creates helplessness. Helplessness is the most maddening, the most miserable, the most upsetting of mental states. In fact, it is commonly reported anecdotally that nothing triggers madness like a sense of helplessness. It is a cousin of paranoia, a sense that the world is out to get you, that there is some opposition between you and the world, some rivalry. This is a warped, twisted mentality that offers no benefits, and, more importantly, is manifestly false: the world is the world, and you, O man, are a speck of dust.
The Bible tells us unequivocally that there is no conflict between circumstances and any of us. God made the world and it was good. Moreover, all things work to the good for those who love God (Rom8:28). If you have faith in your heart, there are no obstacles anymore: obstacles become blessings. God is speaking to you all the time through the people and events He sends your way. He is a lover Who cannot take His eyes off of you. Even when things seem hard, He is there, and every moment He is loving you.
The victim mentality, by contrast to this supernatural outlook of the Bible, creates a very shortsighted outlook on life and circumstances. No surprise then that the "victims" look to the most convenient authority figure or big brother to rescue them. They do not look to themselves to solve their own problems, but to Authority, to totalitarian power.
Power is always the interpretive key by which to understand liberalism. The Left promotes the victim mentality because it sends them sheep they can shepherd, sends them lemmings they can lead. The more they can make people feel helpless, the more people will give them power. If we all started really believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, and in His promises, if we really started believing that God is our Father, then we wouldn't need Government to be our daddy.
Perhaps you have no faith. Then I will put it to you this way: if you don't like your circumstances, will you let them win? Will you give in to them? Wayne Gretzky famously said that you miss all the shots that you don't take. Will you miss all your shots, or at least try to make a few? Will you settle for blaming other people for your problems, or will you own your pain, own your struggles, own your weaknesses? Only if you own them will the victory be yours, the reward be yours. How can you feel successful if you think you just got lucky?
I am against welfare, against handouts, whether for those who won't work or for big corporations like Solyndra. The Bible says that he who will not work ought not to be fed (2 Thess 3:10), and that the man who will not provide for his family is worse than a heathen (1 Tim 5:8). We must not be encouraging, or creating a victim mentality. We do no one any favors, and we ignore the Bible, which is the Word of God. Instead, we need a supernatural outlook: faith, hope, and love (1 Cor 12). We need real hope, the kind of hope that drives away the victim mentality. And hope comes from faith.
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wisely said that "Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase."
Take the first step.
Has anybody ever become a success story because they felt like a victim? Has anybody ever done anything good, or become a better person, because they feel sorry for themselves? It is a pernicious temptation to pity yourself. Each one of us has innumerable gifts from Almighty God for which we should be grateful. Even the lowliest pauper in the most unenlightened of backwaters has the gift of life, of free will, and of his God-given dignity. The Left's insistence on a victim mentality is nothing less than a direct attack on the dignity of the human person; it is the cousin of the sin of despair (which the Bible declares "the sickness unto death"). The next time you feel tempted to pity yourself, bend it back: stop and count your blessings and thank God.
Victim mentality only creates helplessness. Helplessness is the most maddening, the most miserable, the most upsetting of mental states. In fact, it is commonly reported anecdotally that nothing triggers madness like a sense of helplessness. It is a cousin of paranoia, a sense that the world is out to get you, that there is some opposition between you and the world, some rivalry. This is a warped, twisted mentality that offers no benefits, and, more importantly, is manifestly false: the world is the world, and you, O man, are a speck of dust.
The Bible tells us unequivocally that there is no conflict between circumstances and any of us. God made the world and it was good. Moreover, all things work to the good for those who love God (Rom8:28). If you have faith in your heart, there are no obstacles anymore: obstacles become blessings. God is speaking to you all the time through the people and events He sends your way. He is a lover Who cannot take His eyes off of you. Even when things seem hard, He is there, and every moment He is loving you.
The victim mentality, by contrast to this supernatural outlook of the Bible, creates a very shortsighted outlook on life and circumstances. No surprise then that the "victims" look to the most convenient authority figure or big brother to rescue them. They do not look to themselves to solve their own problems, but to Authority, to totalitarian power.
Power is always the interpretive key by which to understand liberalism. The Left promotes the victim mentality because it sends them sheep they can shepherd, sends them lemmings they can lead. The more they can make people feel helpless, the more people will give them power. If we all started really believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, and in His promises, if we really started believing that God is our Father, then we wouldn't need Government to be our daddy.
Perhaps you have no faith. Then I will put it to you this way: if you don't like your circumstances, will you let them win? Will you give in to them? Wayne Gretzky famously said that you miss all the shots that you don't take. Will you miss all your shots, or at least try to make a few? Will you settle for blaming other people for your problems, or will you own your pain, own your struggles, own your weaknesses? Only if you own them will the victory be yours, the reward be yours. How can you feel successful if you think you just got lucky?
I am against welfare, against handouts, whether for those who won't work or for big corporations like Solyndra. The Bible says that he who will not work ought not to be fed (2 Thess 3:10), and that the man who will not provide for his family is worse than a heathen (1 Tim 5:8). We must not be encouraging, or creating a victim mentality. We do no one any favors, and we ignore the Bible, which is the Word of God. Instead, we need a supernatural outlook: faith, hope, and love (1 Cor 12). We need real hope, the kind of hope that drives away the victim mentality. And hope comes from faith.
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wisely said that "Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase."
Take the first step.
AMERICA'S BIRTHDAY
Thomas Sowell
Birthdays are supposed to be times for celebration and gift-giving. But America's upcoming birthday on the Fourth of July is a time when the gift most needed is an urgent warning about the dangers of losing the things that have made this country America -- and have long made "America" a ringing word of freedom, not only in this country but to people around the world.
All is not lost. But all could be lost -- especially if too many of us take freedom for granted and focus our attention on other things, like electronic gadgets and the antics of celebrities, while ignoring such dangers as nuclear weapons in the hands of suicidal fanatics, with a track record of savagery, whom we are too squeamish to call anything stronger than "militants."
Nor are all the dangers abroad. Birthdays are supposed to be times for celebration and gift-giving. But America's upcoming birthday on the Fourth of July is a time when the gift most needed is an urgent warning about the dangers of losing the things that have made this country America -- and have long made "America" a ringing word of freedom, not only in this country but to people around the world.
When a former Speaker of the House of Representatives announces that she is going down to our border to greet and welcome masses of people crossing that border illegally, you know that something is fundamentally wrong.
No one knows, or apparently cares, how many of these "children" include teenage criminal gangs to whom murder is no big deal. Worst of all, no one knows, or apparently cares, that the elected representatives of the American people were cut out of the loop when it came to making these decisions.
All that matters to people like Nancy Pelosi is the symbolism of welcoming the oppressed, especially if they represent more votes for Democrats, who will shower the taxpayers' money on them.
As if to make clear the elite's contempt for ordinary Americans' intelligence, President Obama tells us that the people crossing the border "love" America. How could he possibly know that, any more than he could know how to "invest" the taxpayers' money in "the industries of the future," which have in fact gone bankrupt?
What is involved are not just bad policy choices. What is involved are policies imposed unilaterally by the president, in defiance of Congress' authority to legislate and in contempt of the Constitution's separation of powers -- on which all our freedoms ultimately depend.
The people who wrote the Constitution of the United States understood what dangers there are to the freedom of the people -- and that freedom can be quietly eroded by degrees, rather than taken all at once.
Too many people today seem oblivious to such dangers. So what if the government used the muscle of the Internal Revenue Service to keep groups opposed to the Obama administration tied up in red tape or litigation in an election year? Enough games like that can make our elections meaningless.
This arrogant abuse of power does not end with the federal government. In Massachusetts, teenager Justina Pelletier was taken from her parents' custody and held virtually incommunicado for over a year, because her parents preferred to continue to have her treated as the physicians at a medical facility associated with Tufts University had treated her, even though shrinks at Children's Hospital in Boston said her problems were in her head, and took her off some of her medications.
This difference of opinion as to the best medical treatment for Justina Pelletier was enough to get a judge to side with headstrong bureaucrats and override her parents' rights. So a girl who was ice skating before ended up in a wheelchair under the "care" of shrinks.
Fortunately, enough media attention, especially by former governor Mike Huckabee on Fox News Channel, finally got this child freed. Perhaps we can hope that all is not lost -- yet. But if this case is a symbol of Americans fighting back, it is also a symbol of why it is desperately important to fight back.
That spirit is the best birthday present for America.
Birthdays are supposed to be times for celebration and gift-giving. But America's upcoming birthday on the Fourth of July is a time when the gift most needed is an urgent warning about the dangers of losing the things that have made this country America -- and have long made "America" a ringing word of freedom, not only in this country but to people around the world.
All is not lost. But all could be lost -- especially if too many of us take freedom for granted and focus our attention on other things, like electronic gadgets and the antics of celebrities, while ignoring such dangers as nuclear weapons in the hands of suicidal fanatics, with a track record of savagery, whom we are too squeamish to call anything stronger than "militants."
Nor are all the dangers abroad. Birthdays are supposed to be times for celebration and gift-giving. But America's upcoming birthday on the Fourth of July is a time when the gift most needed is an urgent warning about the dangers of losing the things that have made this country America -- and have long made "America" a ringing word of freedom, not only in this country but to people around the world.
When a former Speaker of the House of Representatives announces that she is going down to our border to greet and welcome masses of people crossing that border illegally, you know that something is fundamentally wrong.
No one knows, or apparently cares, how many of these "children" include teenage criminal gangs to whom murder is no big deal. Worst of all, no one knows, or apparently cares, that the elected representatives of the American people were cut out of the loop when it came to making these decisions.
All that matters to people like Nancy Pelosi is the symbolism of welcoming the oppressed, especially if they represent more votes for Democrats, who will shower the taxpayers' money on them.
As if to make clear the elite's contempt for ordinary Americans' intelligence, President Obama tells us that the people crossing the border "love" America. How could he possibly know that, any more than he could know how to "invest" the taxpayers' money in "the industries of the future," which have in fact gone bankrupt?
What is involved are not just bad policy choices. What is involved are policies imposed unilaterally by the president, in defiance of Congress' authority to legislate and in contempt of the Constitution's separation of powers -- on which all our freedoms ultimately depend.
The people who wrote the Constitution of the United States understood what dangers there are to the freedom of the people -- and that freedom can be quietly eroded by degrees, rather than taken all at once.
Too many people today seem oblivious to such dangers. So what if the government used the muscle of the Internal Revenue Service to keep groups opposed to the Obama administration tied up in red tape or litigation in an election year? Enough games like that can make our elections meaningless.
This arrogant abuse of power does not end with the federal government. In Massachusetts, teenager Justina Pelletier was taken from her parents' custody and held virtually incommunicado for over a year, because her parents preferred to continue to have her treated as the physicians at a medical facility associated with Tufts University had treated her, even though shrinks at Children's Hospital in Boston said her problems were in her head, and took her off some of her medications.
This difference of opinion as to the best medical treatment for Justina Pelletier was enough to get a judge to side with headstrong bureaucrats and override her parents' rights. So a girl who was ice skating before ended up in a wheelchair under the "care" of shrinks.
Fortunately, enough media attention, especially by former governor Mike Huckabee on Fox News Channel, finally got this child freed. Perhaps we can hope that all is not lost -- yet. But if this case is a symbol of Americans fighting back, it is also a symbol of why it is desperately important to fight back.
That spirit is the best birthday present for America.
10 RICHEST AMERICANS EVER
Today you hear all about the millennial tech billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz, but long before 20-somethings ruled the U.S. economy there were the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts and other old-money families. They were the American version of royalty and their wealth makes Zuckerberg look poor. In fact Bill Gates, considered the world’s wealthiest man, doesn’t even make the list of top 10 richest Americans anymore (although just five years ago he did, but he’s been giving away a lot of his fortune). With net worth adjusted to today’s, , here are the 10 richest Americans ever.
10. Jay Gould
If railroad executive, financier and speculator Jay Gould were alive today his adjusted wealth would be about $78.3 billion. By comparison, Mark Zuckerberg is worth an estimated $9.4 billion. Gould is considered one of U.S.’s most unscrupulous businessmen ever, accused of stealing land, issuing false stocks and bribing regulators in the mid-19th century. He had very few friends and was largely shunned by New York society for his actions, CNN Money reports. But By died very wealthy.
9. Frederick Weyerhauser
With an adjusted wealth totaling $91.2 billion, Frederick Weyerhauser made his fortune in lumber, wood and paper. Born in 1834, Weyerhauser died in 1914 and during his lifetime it was rumored that his family controlled an area of land the size of Wisconsin.
8. Alexander Turney Stewart
Born in Ireland, the textile merchant Alexander Turney Stewart would be worth $100 billion today. He lived between 1803 and 1876 and during that time built up the largest wholesale and retail dry goods businesses in the U.S. He also supplied uniforms to the Union Army during the Civil War.
7. Stephan Van Rensselaer
The last of a line of Dutch aristocrats granted vast amounts of land in New York State under Dutch colonial rule, Stephan Van Rensselaer at one time controlled more than a million acres in New York. He lived between 1764 and 1839 and is the only person on this list to inherit his entire fortune. His adjusted wealth was worth $101 billion.
6. Andrew Carnegie
Tied with Stephan Van Rennselaer, Andrew Carnegie was also worth an adjusted $101 billion when he died in 1919. He was the founder of the Carnegie Steel Company but is most famous for giving his fortune away. He established a number of philanthropic and nonprofit organizations including the Carnegie Corporation, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and nearly 3,000 public libraries.
5. Richard B. Mellon
Coming in at No. 5 with an adjusted wealth of $103 billion is the other half of the endowment that made Carnegie Mellon University possible. Richard is the richer half of a brother banking team (Andrew Mellon is the 15th richest person in America) that also dabbled in oil, steel, coal and railroads during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
4. Stephan Girard
With an adjusted wealth of $120 billion by today’s standards, the French-born Stephan Girard got his start working as a cabin boy on the Caribbean-Europe trade route in the last quarter of the 18th century. He went on to purchase a fleet of trading ships and eventually became a financier, wealthy enough to buy banks and lend money to the U.S. government during the war of 1812. When he died he left almost his entire fortune to charity. He was the fourth-richest American ever.
3.John Jacob Astor
He started as a penniless German immigrant in the late 1700s, but soon began earning income as a fur trader. He married well, and was able to invest his wife’s fortune in Manhattan real estate, which is where he made his real fortune, estimated at $138 billion today.
2. Cornelius Vanderbilt
Coming in at No. 2 on the list, Cornelius Vanderbilt accumulated a fortune worth $205 billion by today’s standards, first by sailing barges across New York Harbor and then expanding into steamships and railroads. He was born in 1794 and died in 1877.
1. John D. Rockefeller
Adjusted for inflation, John D. Rockefeller’s wealth totaled $253 billion, making him the richest American ever. He lived from 1839 to 1937 and made his fortune revolutionizing the oil industry.
10. Jay Gould
If railroad executive, financier and speculator Jay Gould were alive today his adjusted wealth would be about $78.3 billion. By comparison, Mark Zuckerberg is worth an estimated $9.4 billion. Gould is considered one of U.S.’s most unscrupulous businessmen ever, accused of stealing land, issuing false stocks and bribing regulators in the mid-19th century. He had very few friends and was largely shunned by New York society for his actions, CNN Money reports. But By died very wealthy.
9. Frederick Weyerhauser
With an adjusted wealth totaling $91.2 billion, Frederick Weyerhauser made his fortune in lumber, wood and paper. Born in 1834, Weyerhauser died in 1914 and during his lifetime it was rumored that his family controlled an area of land the size of Wisconsin.
8. Alexander Turney Stewart
Born in Ireland, the textile merchant Alexander Turney Stewart would be worth $100 billion today. He lived between 1803 and 1876 and during that time built up the largest wholesale and retail dry goods businesses in the U.S. He also supplied uniforms to the Union Army during the Civil War.
7. Stephan Van Rensselaer
The last of a line of Dutch aristocrats granted vast amounts of land in New York State under Dutch colonial rule, Stephan Van Rensselaer at one time controlled more than a million acres in New York. He lived between 1764 and 1839 and is the only person on this list to inherit his entire fortune. His adjusted wealth was worth $101 billion.
6. Andrew Carnegie
Tied with Stephan Van Rennselaer, Andrew Carnegie was also worth an adjusted $101 billion when he died in 1919. He was the founder of the Carnegie Steel Company but is most famous for giving his fortune away. He established a number of philanthropic and nonprofit organizations including the Carnegie Corporation, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and nearly 3,000 public libraries.
5. Richard B. Mellon
Coming in at No. 5 with an adjusted wealth of $103 billion is the other half of the endowment that made Carnegie Mellon University possible. Richard is the richer half of a brother banking team (Andrew Mellon is the 15th richest person in America) that also dabbled in oil, steel, coal and railroads during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
4. Stephan Girard
With an adjusted wealth of $120 billion by today’s standards, the French-born Stephan Girard got his start working as a cabin boy on the Caribbean-Europe trade route in the last quarter of the 18th century. He went on to purchase a fleet of trading ships and eventually became a financier, wealthy enough to buy banks and lend money to the U.S. government during the war of 1812. When he died he left almost his entire fortune to charity. He was the fourth-richest American ever.
3.John Jacob Astor
He started as a penniless German immigrant in the late 1700s, but soon began earning income as a fur trader. He married well, and was able to invest his wife’s fortune in Manhattan real estate, which is where he made his real fortune, estimated at $138 billion today.
2. Cornelius Vanderbilt
Coming in at No. 2 on the list, Cornelius Vanderbilt accumulated a fortune worth $205 billion by today’s standards, first by sailing barges across New York Harbor and then expanding into steamships and railroads. He was born in 1794 and died in 1877.
1. John D. Rockefeller
Adjusted for inflation, John D. Rockefeller’s wealth totaled $253 billion, making him the richest American ever. He lived from 1839 to 1937 and made his fortune revolutionizing the oil industry.
TAKING A TUMBLE AGAIN?
Jay Cost
President Barack Obama’s job approval seems to be slipping again. After a brutal couple of months following the failed launch of HealthCare.gov, the Real Clear Politics average of opinion polls found his approval at 40 percent in December. But the government claimed to have fixed HealthCare.gov, never mind the continuing problems, and the “surge” in enrollments gave him a further boost. By mid-April, he was back up to nearly 45 percent approval in the RCP average. Recently, though, his numbers have tumbled again, and today his job approval is just 42 percent.
The likely driver of this decline is the onslaught of bad news: the crisis in Ukraine, the scandal at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange, the flood of illegal crossings of the Texas border, and most recently the deteriorating situation in Iraq; the capture of Abu Khattala, a suspect in the Benghazi attacks, is a rare bright spot whose effect on the polls, if any, remains to be determined. So far, the cumulative effect of week after week of bad headlines for the administration has been rising disapproval of the president across a host of metrics. Recent polling by Bloomberg and ABC News/Washington Post has shown the president taking a slide not just in his overall job approval, but in his handling of the economy, international affairs, health care, the deficit, and immigration.
A 42 percent approval rating is terrible for any president; Obama’s is drawing comparisons to the support George W. Bush registered at a similar point in his tenure. This must scare the wits out of professional Democrats, who remember well that Bush’s political misery was their joy.
Still, it is fair to ask: Will this slide, if it persists, affect the midterm elections in November? Probably not directly. The Democratic party has not fallen below 45 percent of the two-party vote in nationwide House contests since 1928. In several instances—1972 and 1984, for example—Democrats have garnered less than 45 percent in presidential elections, but those are less reliable measures of the core Democratic electorate because personalities often loom so large.
House results are a better measure of core party support. It is possible—perhaps likely—this year that the GOP will score its largest House victory since before the Great Depression. Republicans are on track to win as many seats as they did in 2010, and because they are the incumbent party, their margins of victory are likely to be greater than they were four years ago.
Even so, if the Democrats fall below 45 percent, they probably will not fall as far as Obama’s recent job approval. The core Democratic electorate should come out to support the party, even if some Democrats now disapprove of Obama.
We have seen this dynamic before. George W. Bush’s job approval stood at just 39 percent in the Real Clear Politics average at the time of the 2006 midterms, yet House Republicans won about 46 percent of the two-party House vote. In 2008, Bush’s job approval was an abysmal 28 percent according to Real Clear Politics, but congressional Republicans still won 44 percent of the two-party House vote.
The reason is that partisan voting habits are much harder to change than perceptions of the president. Thus, a slide in presidential approval from 50 percent to 45 percent has much more electoral relevance than a fall below 45 percent. The former indicates the loss of the all-critical bloc of independents; the latter suggests your partisans are dropping away, but they will probably come back in November. The latest Gallup poll placed Obama’s job approval at 64 percent among nonwhites, 70 percent among liberals, and 78 percent among Democrats. These are dangerous numbers for a Democratic president, no doubt; still, Democrats will likely do better with these base groups on Election Day.
That said, there may be an indirect link between Obama’s slide and his party’s electoral fortunes.
Republicans need to gain six seats to take control of the Senate, and seven of their targets are in states that Mitt Romney carried in 2012. In 2013, Obama averaged just 34 percent in the Gallup poll in these states, and his standing is probably no better today. Congressional Democrats have been pinning their hopes on the idea that a critical mass of voters will not be put off by their dislike of Obama, so that Democratic candidates can run on personal traits or local issues and win.
President Barack Obama’s job approval seems to be slipping again. After a brutal couple of months following the failed launch of HealthCare.gov, the Real Clear Politics average of opinion polls found his approval at 40 percent in December. But the government claimed to have fixed HealthCare.gov, never mind the continuing problems, and the “surge” in enrollments gave him a further boost. By mid-April, he was back up to nearly 45 percent approval in the RCP average. Recently, though, his numbers have tumbled again, and today his job approval is just 42 percent.
The likely driver of this decline is the onslaught of bad news: the crisis in Ukraine, the scandal at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange, the flood of illegal crossings of the Texas border, and most recently the deteriorating situation in Iraq; the capture of Abu Khattala, a suspect in the Benghazi attacks, is a rare bright spot whose effect on the polls, if any, remains to be determined. So far, the cumulative effect of week after week of bad headlines for the administration has been rising disapproval of the president across a host of metrics. Recent polling by Bloomberg and ABC News/Washington Post has shown the president taking a slide not just in his overall job approval, but in his handling of the economy, international affairs, health care, the deficit, and immigration.
A 42 percent approval rating is terrible for any president; Obama’s is drawing comparisons to the support George W. Bush registered at a similar point in his tenure. This must scare the wits out of professional Democrats, who remember well that Bush’s political misery was their joy.
Still, it is fair to ask: Will this slide, if it persists, affect the midterm elections in November? Probably not directly. The Democratic party has not fallen below 45 percent of the two-party vote in nationwide House contests since 1928. In several instances—1972 and 1984, for example—Democrats have garnered less than 45 percent in presidential elections, but those are less reliable measures of the core Democratic electorate because personalities often loom so large.
House results are a better measure of core party support. It is possible—perhaps likely—this year that the GOP will score its largest House victory since before the Great Depression. Republicans are on track to win as many seats as they did in 2010, and because they are the incumbent party, their margins of victory are likely to be greater than they were four years ago.
Even so, if the Democrats fall below 45 percent, they probably will not fall as far as Obama’s recent job approval. The core Democratic electorate should come out to support the party, even if some Democrats now disapprove of Obama.
We have seen this dynamic before. George W. Bush’s job approval stood at just 39 percent in the Real Clear Politics average at the time of the 2006 midterms, yet House Republicans won about 46 percent of the two-party House vote. In 2008, Bush’s job approval was an abysmal 28 percent according to Real Clear Politics, but congressional Republicans still won 44 percent of the two-party House vote.
The reason is that partisan voting habits are much harder to change than perceptions of the president. Thus, a slide in presidential approval from 50 percent to 45 percent has much more electoral relevance than a fall below 45 percent. The former indicates the loss of the all-critical bloc of independents; the latter suggests your partisans are dropping away, but they will probably come back in November. The latest Gallup poll placed Obama’s job approval at 64 percent among nonwhites, 70 percent among liberals, and 78 percent among Democrats. These are dangerous numbers for a Democratic president, no doubt; still, Democrats will likely do better with these base groups on Election Day.
That said, there may be an indirect link between Obama’s slide and his party’s electoral fortunes.
Republicans need to gain six seats to take control of the Senate, and seven of their targets are in states that Mitt Romney carried in 2012. In 2013, Obama averaged just 34 percent in the Gallup poll in these states, and his standing is probably no better today. Congressional Democrats have been pinning their hopes on the idea that a critical mass of voters will not be put off by their dislike of Obama, so that Democratic candidates can run on personal traits or local issues and win.
MYANMAR: HOW FREE IS THE CONTEMPORARY MEDIA?
Aparuba Bhattacherjee
In April 2013, for the first time in Myanmar, private newspapers were displayed in the newspaper stalls along with the state-owned newspapers that had not been censored by the Junta. In August 2012, President Thein Sein had announced the removal of the official censorship of the media in Myanmar. Further, several journalists and bloggers who were arrested during the rule of the military Junta were released through political amnesty by the President. These changes have also been evident in the Free Press Index by the Reporters Without Borders: in 2010, Myanmar was ranked 174 out of 178 countries, whereas in 2013, it was ranked 151 out of 178.
What is the state of the media in contemporary Myanmar? What are the changes that the media is looking forward to?
A Difficult Path
The removal of censorship in Myanmar has opened new avenues for several private media houses. However, there are still several hurdles that the media has to overcome. Although, according to government records, there are twelve private ‘daily’ newspapers, if the weekly papers and journals in both English and Burmese are taken into account, the number is huge. This has increased the competition in both the online and print media. Most of the newspapers are not well-equipped to cope in a competitive market. They lack in reporting capacity, distribution channels, legal protections, experienced business management and the concurrent growth of advertising revenues. The situation is worse for the daily newspapers in comparison to the weeklies.
Most of the newspapers (except for Eleven Media House and Yangon Times) do not have in-house printing. Furthermore, due to the slow internet connections, all the material is delivered to the printer by hand, which only delays the process. The media houses not only have a dearth of professional trained journalists to meet the needs of daily reporting but also lack sufficient funds to sustain the expensive daily printing. Most of the media houses in Myanmar are financially dependent on either the profit from the other business of the owner or foreign sponsors. Unlike media houses in other parts of the world, those in Myanmar lack shareholders in the business. Underdeveloped infrastructure and expensive transportation have hindered the distribution channels. The distribution per day in Myanmar ranges from 10,000 to 30,000 approximately. Due to expensive printing costs and taxes, the rates for the private daily newspapers (200-500 Kyats) are higher than the state-owned ones. Apart from the state-owned newspapers, most of the readers also prefer journals as they are thicker and are therefore considered cost effective. All these issues affect the profit margin, which is nil for most of the private newspapers.
Additionally, the fact that the new government of Myanmar (after 48 years of authoritarian rule) is not well adapted to dealing with a free media presence in the country makes the struggle more difficult. The innate governmental control over the media still persists in the country. The legitimacy of the private media houses depends on licences provided by the government. The newly drafted media bill that outlines the print and publisher registrations is contradictory to media freedom. This will be similar to the 1962 law that it will replace, and will allow the government to issue or revoke licenses for any reason and prohibit a publication that is thought to endanger national security, the rule of law or community peace and tranquility. However, the criteria on which the licenses are provided by the government are not yet transparent. Although the publications are not censored officially, all editors have to install self-censorship. The government cannot be criticised negatively. Further, although the Press Security and Registration Division (PSRD) of the Junta period was disbanded, it has been replaced with the Copyrights and Registration Division that scans through all the media output.
Although several social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and the website of the opposition political parties are allowed, the restrictions still persist. Laws such as the 2004 Electronic Transaction Law, Internet Law of 2000 and others restricting the electronic media will continue to exist until new laws are formulated.
Looking Forward
There are efforts on behalf of the government to increase transparency on the drafting of the media laws. The laws are being drafted by the Interim Council of Press comprising of many editors and journalists along with the government. There are plans to install a central banking structure in Myanmar; once installed it will incentivise more shareholders and international advertising agencies to open ventures with the private media houses, thereby increasing their revenue earning. Furthermore, the government has already reduced internet installation charges from 600,000 Kyats to 50,000 Kyats, and the monthly fees have been reduced from 30,000 Kyats to 17,000 Kyats. This will enable easier and cheaper internet access to at least for some sections of society. There are several international actors, such Australia, who are working towards improving internet services in Myanmar, which would be a big relief for the media houses. Others, such as the Norwegian Telenor company, has promised to introduce a much cheaper telephone service in Myanmar; Ooredoo, a Qatar-based firm, in collaboration with Samsung, is working towards providing cheaper internet service in Myanmar. All these promises will bring about positive changes in the country and reduce the struggle that the media houses are currently facing.
In April 2013, for the first time in Myanmar, private newspapers were displayed in the newspaper stalls along with the state-owned newspapers that had not been censored by the Junta. In August 2012, President Thein Sein had announced the removal of the official censorship of the media in Myanmar. Further, several journalists and bloggers who were arrested during the rule of the military Junta were released through political amnesty by the President. These changes have also been evident in the Free Press Index by the Reporters Without Borders: in 2010, Myanmar was ranked 174 out of 178 countries, whereas in 2013, it was ranked 151 out of 178.
What is the state of the media in contemporary Myanmar? What are the changes that the media is looking forward to?
A Difficult Path
The removal of censorship in Myanmar has opened new avenues for several private media houses. However, there are still several hurdles that the media has to overcome. Although, according to government records, there are twelve private ‘daily’ newspapers, if the weekly papers and journals in both English and Burmese are taken into account, the number is huge. This has increased the competition in both the online and print media. Most of the newspapers are not well-equipped to cope in a competitive market. They lack in reporting capacity, distribution channels, legal protections, experienced business management and the concurrent growth of advertising revenues. The situation is worse for the daily newspapers in comparison to the weeklies.
Most of the newspapers (except for Eleven Media House and Yangon Times) do not have in-house printing. Furthermore, due to the slow internet connections, all the material is delivered to the printer by hand, which only delays the process. The media houses not only have a dearth of professional trained journalists to meet the needs of daily reporting but also lack sufficient funds to sustain the expensive daily printing. Most of the media houses in Myanmar are financially dependent on either the profit from the other business of the owner or foreign sponsors. Unlike media houses in other parts of the world, those in Myanmar lack shareholders in the business. Underdeveloped infrastructure and expensive transportation have hindered the distribution channels. The distribution per day in Myanmar ranges from 10,000 to 30,000 approximately. Due to expensive printing costs and taxes, the rates for the private daily newspapers (200-500 Kyats) are higher than the state-owned ones. Apart from the state-owned newspapers, most of the readers also prefer journals as they are thicker and are therefore considered cost effective. All these issues affect the profit margin, which is nil for most of the private newspapers.
Additionally, the fact that the new government of Myanmar (after 48 years of authoritarian rule) is not well adapted to dealing with a free media presence in the country makes the struggle more difficult. The innate governmental control over the media still persists in the country. The legitimacy of the private media houses depends on licences provided by the government. The newly drafted media bill that outlines the print and publisher registrations is contradictory to media freedom. This will be similar to the 1962 law that it will replace, and will allow the government to issue or revoke licenses for any reason and prohibit a publication that is thought to endanger national security, the rule of law or community peace and tranquility. However, the criteria on which the licenses are provided by the government are not yet transparent. Although the publications are not censored officially, all editors have to install self-censorship. The government cannot be criticised negatively. Further, although the Press Security and Registration Division (PSRD) of the Junta period was disbanded, it has been replaced with the Copyrights and Registration Division that scans through all the media output.
Although several social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and the website of the opposition political parties are allowed, the restrictions still persist. Laws such as the 2004 Electronic Transaction Law, Internet Law of 2000 and others restricting the electronic media will continue to exist until new laws are formulated.
Looking Forward
There are efforts on behalf of the government to increase transparency on the drafting of the media laws. The laws are being drafted by the Interim Council of Press comprising of many editors and journalists along with the government. There are plans to install a central banking structure in Myanmar; once installed it will incentivise more shareholders and international advertising agencies to open ventures with the private media houses, thereby increasing their revenue earning. Furthermore, the government has already reduced internet installation charges from 600,000 Kyats to 50,000 Kyats, and the monthly fees have been reduced from 30,000 Kyats to 17,000 Kyats. This will enable easier and cheaper internet access to at least for some sections of society. There are several international actors, such Australia, who are working towards improving internet services in Myanmar, which would be a big relief for the media houses. Others, such as the Norwegian Telenor company, has promised to introduce a much cheaper telephone service in Myanmar; Ooredoo, a Qatar-based firm, in collaboration with Samsung, is working towards providing cheaper internet service in Myanmar. All these promises will bring about positive changes in the country and reduce the struggle that the media houses are currently facing.
NEPAL AND ETHNIC FEDERALISM: THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE MAOIST MODEL
Subin Nepal
The last few years have seen a great rise in the discussion surrounding state restructuring in Nepal. At its very core has been the issue of ethnic federalism. First touted by the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M) in their agenda in the 1990s and now heavily supported by several ethnic parties as well as some major political parties, ethnic federalism has become, in a way, the talk of the town. While some political parties have shown minor resistance to the UCPN-M model of federalism, the majority of them seem to agree with the need to restructure the state at the very least.
UCPN-M-introduced federalism needs critical analysis because of their close ties with ethnic groups during the civil war and the ethnic electorates they have been attracting. The recent constituent assembly (CA) election has shown that the UCPN-M’s overall public support has plummeted. However, a report that was submitted by the State Restructuring Commission in 2012 (before the second CA election) upheld the UCPN-M model which cannot be overlooked. While there is a possibility that a majority alliance between Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal–Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) could be formed to overthrow previously agreed upon recommendations to the constitution, it might actually be a disastrous road to take. On top of that, singling out the unhappy faction (UCPN-M) does not seem to be the best policy to move forward with. Hence, there seems to be little to no possibility of simply overlooking the third largest party and its policies.
What are the flaws in the demanded model?
At a time when the rest of the world is trying to remove social divisions that hamper unity in society, Nepali Maoists seem to be embracing a rather strange policy. Their inclination towards an ethnic model of federalism is not only a backward model but also a way to create divisions in a society that has been functioning without any major ethnic clashes till date. The Maoist model proposes 13 provinces – a majority of them named after ethnic groups. The irony is that almost no ethnic group holds a population majority within the state that has been named after them. Though the idea of uplifting the minority and historically oppressed is a particularly positive agenda that the UCPN-M has stood with, there is no clear evidence that only 13 ethnicities are minorities and have been historically oppressed in Nepal. Or, that creating only 13 provinces would provide the much needed support to the rest of the minority groups as well. The Nepalese government officially recognises the existence of more than 100 ethnic groups in the country. And if Maoists were to embrace only 13 of them as their token minorities, it would create another gap within the minority movement, giving rise to several layers within the minorities. Several ignored minority groups have already threatened to raise weapons in case they do not receive equal rights as the top 13.
What could be the solution to this proposed model?
Nepal’s federalism has been discussed by several different non-profits and research organisations. However, on the ground, work seems still to be lacking. The political parties seem to be touting federalism to receive quick funding for “minority right campaigns” from human rights-based organisations. In addition, bulky research papers are being produced without a substantial geo-strategic vision. Carving out a nation is a difficult process and the Nepali political elites seem to have forgotten this reality. Before jumping into federalism based on ethnicity or even federalism itself, Nepal needs to devise an independent agency that consists of scholars from appropriate fields for state restructuring. Cheap slogans embraced for quick money and the possibility of a strong electorate should not decide how the country gets restructured. A political suggestion is acceptable but a political division based on one party’s agenda only will leave the country divided. Hence, Nepal needs to do a serious re-evaluation of its current inclination towards the UCPN-M model of federalism. And this re-evaluation needs to come from the Constituent Assembly and the same political parties who are leaning towards this model. The CA needs to create a new agency and make it independent unlike the previous one (State Restructuring Commission) which was just a wing of the CA. This agency needs to consist of scholars and needs to take at least a few years to devise strategic plans for state restructuring before Nepal makes those changes.
At the end, the question of convincing such a divided CA to create an independent agency that might make political parties sacrifice their agendas is what makes this task difficult to accomplish. And it is certain that UCPN-M would be the one to disagree with such an agency. Bipartisanship within the CA could lead to the creation of such an agency, which then could hold all the political parties accountable, including UCPN-M, and respond to their demands with real, hands-on research of possible state restructuring.
The last few years have seen a great rise in the discussion surrounding state restructuring in Nepal. At its very core has been the issue of ethnic federalism. First touted by the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M) in their agenda in the 1990s and now heavily supported by several ethnic parties as well as some major political parties, ethnic federalism has become, in a way, the talk of the town. While some political parties have shown minor resistance to the UCPN-M model of federalism, the majority of them seem to agree with the need to restructure the state at the very least.
UCPN-M-introduced federalism needs critical analysis because of their close ties with ethnic groups during the civil war and the ethnic electorates they have been attracting. The recent constituent assembly (CA) election has shown that the UCPN-M’s overall public support has plummeted. However, a report that was submitted by the State Restructuring Commission in 2012 (before the second CA election) upheld the UCPN-M model which cannot be overlooked. While there is a possibility that a majority alliance between Nepali Congress and Communist Party of Nepal–Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML) could be formed to overthrow previously agreed upon recommendations to the constitution, it might actually be a disastrous road to take. On top of that, singling out the unhappy faction (UCPN-M) does not seem to be the best policy to move forward with. Hence, there seems to be little to no possibility of simply overlooking the third largest party and its policies.
What are the flaws in the demanded model?
At a time when the rest of the world is trying to remove social divisions that hamper unity in society, Nepali Maoists seem to be embracing a rather strange policy. Their inclination towards an ethnic model of federalism is not only a backward model but also a way to create divisions in a society that has been functioning without any major ethnic clashes till date. The Maoist model proposes 13 provinces – a majority of them named after ethnic groups. The irony is that almost no ethnic group holds a population majority within the state that has been named after them. Though the idea of uplifting the minority and historically oppressed is a particularly positive agenda that the UCPN-M has stood with, there is no clear evidence that only 13 ethnicities are minorities and have been historically oppressed in Nepal. Or, that creating only 13 provinces would provide the much needed support to the rest of the minority groups as well. The Nepalese government officially recognises the existence of more than 100 ethnic groups in the country. And if Maoists were to embrace only 13 of them as their token minorities, it would create another gap within the minority movement, giving rise to several layers within the minorities. Several ignored minority groups have already threatened to raise weapons in case they do not receive equal rights as the top 13.
What could be the solution to this proposed model?
Nepal’s federalism has been discussed by several different non-profits and research organisations. However, on the ground, work seems still to be lacking. The political parties seem to be touting federalism to receive quick funding for “minority right campaigns” from human rights-based organisations. In addition, bulky research papers are being produced without a substantial geo-strategic vision. Carving out a nation is a difficult process and the Nepali political elites seem to have forgotten this reality. Before jumping into federalism based on ethnicity or even federalism itself, Nepal needs to devise an independent agency that consists of scholars from appropriate fields for state restructuring. Cheap slogans embraced for quick money and the possibility of a strong electorate should not decide how the country gets restructured. A political suggestion is acceptable but a political division based on one party’s agenda only will leave the country divided. Hence, Nepal needs to do a serious re-evaluation of its current inclination towards the UCPN-M model of federalism. And this re-evaluation needs to come from the Constituent Assembly and the same political parties who are leaning towards this model. The CA needs to create a new agency and make it independent unlike the previous one (State Restructuring Commission) which was just a wing of the CA. This agency needs to consist of scholars and needs to take at least a few years to devise strategic plans for state restructuring before Nepal makes those changes.
At the end, the question of convincing such a divided CA to create an independent agency that might make political parties sacrifice their agendas is what makes this task difficult to accomplish. And it is certain that UCPN-M would be the one to disagree with such an agency. Bipartisanship within the CA could lead to the creation of such an agency, which then could hold all the political parties accountable, including UCPN-M, and respond to their demands with real, hands-on research of possible state restructuring.
COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR AGREEMENT WITH IRAN: ONE MONTH ENDGAME
Ayesha Khanyari
Representatives from the P5+1 will meet their Iranian counterparts in Vienna on 2 July 2014 to continue talks on Tehran’s nuclear programme. Earlier, senior diplomats from both sides met in Brussels on 26 June 2014 for “an intense day of preparation” for the upcoming talks with Iran.
The stakes are high as the 20 July 2014 deadline approaches for the expiration of the interim agreement that was signed between the two sides. While the countdown begins, there are key issues that remain unresolved. At this point in time, there are major external impediments that are likely to affect the course of the negotiations in the days ahead.
Crisis in Iraq: Implications for Iran-P5+1 Negotiations
The deadline for the nuclear agreement looms against the backdrop of the worsening security situation in Iraq and Syria. Oddly enough, the US and Iran find themselves on the same side of the conflict. The US does not want to be drawn into a regional sectarian battleground against Iran.
The US faces a huge dilemma in dealing with the Iraq crisis, leaving the Obama administration with two policy options. The US can either pressurise the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to form a more representative government in order to heal the rifts which are exploited by the insurgents, or provide military assistance without waiting for these political changes to come about.
However, the outreach to Iran on a possible common security strategy for containing the Iraq crisis was not openly welcomed by Tehran. Iranian officials are sending mixed signals on cooperating with Washington on the Iraq crisis.
Complicating the picture further are the parallel talks between Iran and the P5+1. American officials insist that the two issues should be kept separate. However, they fear that Iran might use the situation to extract concessions in the upcoming negotiations on its nuclear programme.
Will Russia Exploit this Opportunity?
As tensions between the US and Russia mount over the crisis in Crimea, concerns have emerged about the potential fall-out on areas of cooperation between the two world powers. Russia might link the Crimean issue as part of its own diplomatic leverage with the US and the European Union, the precipitant being President Obama's announcement of new sanctions that were intended to provide broad authority for penalising key areas of the Russian economy, if and as the conflict over Crimea escalated. In his recent statement, Russia’s delegate to the Iran talks, Sergei A Ryabkov, the deputy foreign minister, was quoted as saying, “We wouldn’t like to use these talks as an element of the game of raising the stakes, taking into account the sentiments in some European capitals but if they force us into that, we will take retaliatory measures here as well.”
Any assessment of the recent history of both Russia and Iran highlights that anything is possible. Though retaliatory measures were not mentioned, it would not be surprising to see Russia reviving steps for the delayed oil-for-goods barter deal with the Iranians. The deal would enable Iran to sell more oil to Russia, undercutting the pressure exerted by Western sanctions. On the contrary, it is also possible that Russia would not seek to exploit the opportunity; it would rather comply with the other powers and preserve cooperation on the Iranian nuclear file.
Will Catherine Ashton’s Exit Hinder Diplomacy?
The end of the mandate for European Union’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who was the prime coordinator of the negotiations, raises doubts about the future of the nuclear talks. At the end, it will be Iran and the major powers who will determine if a deal is finalised. However, Ashton’s shepherding of the entire process since 2010 is commendable. Her upcoming departure could complicate diplomacy at a critical time exposing the talks to further risks.
Given the sensitivity of the talks, constant concerns raised, and deep fissures between the two sides, delays are possible. A further delay would mean a new EU foreign policy chief taking charge, someone with less expertise on the issue or rapport with the Iranians. While it might appear to be a small matter in an incredibly complex pool of other issues, nonetheless, personalities matter. Ashton’s departure from the scene would certainly impair the momentum of the talks.
A nuclear deal with Iran is certainly in Europe’s interest. Apart from reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation, it could enhance economic ties with Iran. The EU could also work towards engaging Tehran on regional security threats like Syria and Iraq and combating insurgent groups like al Qaeda. Therefore, in the upcoming negotiations, it is also in Europe’s interest to maintain the momentum and keep the door open to diplomacy to finalise a comprehensive deal with Iran.
Representatives from the P5+1 will meet their Iranian counterparts in Vienna on 2 July 2014 to continue talks on Tehran’s nuclear programme. Earlier, senior diplomats from both sides met in Brussels on 26 June 2014 for “an intense day of preparation” for the upcoming talks with Iran.
The stakes are high as the 20 July 2014 deadline approaches for the expiration of the interim agreement that was signed between the two sides. While the countdown begins, there are key issues that remain unresolved. At this point in time, there are major external impediments that are likely to affect the course of the negotiations in the days ahead.
Crisis in Iraq: Implications for Iran-P5+1 Negotiations
The deadline for the nuclear agreement looms against the backdrop of the worsening security situation in Iraq and Syria. Oddly enough, the US and Iran find themselves on the same side of the conflict. The US does not want to be drawn into a regional sectarian battleground against Iran.
The US faces a huge dilemma in dealing with the Iraq crisis, leaving the Obama administration with two policy options. The US can either pressurise the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to form a more representative government in order to heal the rifts which are exploited by the insurgents, or provide military assistance without waiting for these political changes to come about.
However, the outreach to Iran on a possible common security strategy for containing the Iraq crisis was not openly welcomed by Tehran. Iranian officials are sending mixed signals on cooperating with Washington on the Iraq crisis.
Complicating the picture further are the parallel talks between Iran and the P5+1. American officials insist that the two issues should be kept separate. However, they fear that Iran might use the situation to extract concessions in the upcoming negotiations on its nuclear programme.
Will Russia Exploit this Opportunity?
As tensions between the US and Russia mount over the crisis in Crimea, concerns have emerged about the potential fall-out on areas of cooperation between the two world powers. Russia might link the Crimean issue as part of its own diplomatic leverage with the US and the European Union, the precipitant being President Obama's announcement of new sanctions that were intended to provide broad authority for penalising key areas of the Russian economy, if and as the conflict over Crimea escalated. In his recent statement, Russia’s delegate to the Iran talks, Sergei A Ryabkov, the deputy foreign minister, was quoted as saying, “We wouldn’t like to use these talks as an element of the game of raising the stakes, taking into account the sentiments in some European capitals but if they force us into that, we will take retaliatory measures here as well.”
Any assessment of the recent history of both Russia and Iran highlights that anything is possible. Though retaliatory measures were not mentioned, it would not be surprising to see Russia reviving steps for the delayed oil-for-goods barter deal with the Iranians. The deal would enable Iran to sell more oil to Russia, undercutting the pressure exerted by Western sanctions. On the contrary, it is also possible that Russia would not seek to exploit the opportunity; it would rather comply with the other powers and preserve cooperation on the Iranian nuclear file.
Will Catherine Ashton’s Exit Hinder Diplomacy?
The end of the mandate for European Union’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who was the prime coordinator of the negotiations, raises doubts about the future of the nuclear talks. At the end, it will be Iran and the major powers who will determine if a deal is finalised. However, Ashton’s shepherding of the entire process since 2010 is commendable. Her upcoming departure could complicate diplomacy at a critical time exposing the talks to further risks.
Given the sensitivity of the talks, constant concerns raised, and deep fissures between the two sides, delays are possible. A further delay would mean a new EU foreign policy chief taking charge, someone with less expertise on the issue or rapport with the Iranians. While it might appear to be a small matter in an incredibly complex pool of other issues, nonetheless, personalities matter. Ashton’s departure from the scene would certainly impair the momentum of the talks.
A nuclear deal with Iran is certainly in Europe’s interest. Apart from reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation, it could enhance economic ties with Iran. The EU could also work towards engaging Tehran on regional security threats like Syria and Iraq and combating insurgent groups like al Qaeda. Therefore, in the upcoming negotiations, it is also in Europe’s interest to maintain the momentum and keep the door open to diplomacy to finalise a comprehensive deal with Iran.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)