Police in Britain illegally arrest thousands of children

Thomas Scripps

The office of London Mayor Boris Johnson has been forced to reveal that young people aged 17 and under had been held in police cells over 3,000 times in London toward the first half of last year.

Between November 2014 and May 2015, Scotland Yard recorded 3,005 such cases and 483 children were held over an entire weekend. This is in flagrant violation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which states that children under 18 in custody should be transferred to the care of the local authority and placed in temporary accommodation.

Outside of London, Warwickshire and West Mercia were found by the Inspectorate of Prisons and Constabulary to have held 36 children in cells overnight between May 2014 and May 2015. One 14-year-old who had attempted self-harm prior to his arrest had been placed under insufficient observation and injured himself while in police custody. In Nottingham in 2015, a 16-year-old girl detained under the Mental Health Act was held in a cell for 44 hours without food or water, according to HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC).

The illegal detainment of children is well known to the authorities. In 2013, the Howard League for Penal Reform reported that across the country over 40,000 children were detained in police cells overnight in 2011, or 800 young people per week.

Labour Party London Assembly member Andrew Dismore, who obtained the detainment figures, said, “The police tell me that a combination of budget cuts and housing shortages are having a devastating impact on councils’ ability to place young people and prevent them spending the night in a police cell.”

Dismore failed to mention that the Labour Party holds majorities in many of the councils carrying out socially destructive spending cuts. Or that, at the national level, the Labour Party has repeatedly committed itself to the austerity program driving the cuts. Labour’s Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell stated in the Guardian, “Labour under Jeremy Corbyn is committed to eliminating the deficit and creating an economy in which we live within our means.”

The above findings are all the more concerning in light of the recent scandal involving the private security form G4S and the mistreatment of child prisoners. A BBC Panorama investigation found G4S guards at Medway secure training centre (STC) in Kent had regularly falsified reports to cover up violent incidents that would have required the company to pay a fine. Seven members of staff have since been suspended on charges of unnecessary force, including allegations of slapping and punching children.

The Youth Justice Board has temporarily stopped placing children at the offending centre. G4S currently runs Britain’s three STCs at Medway, Oakhill in Milton Keynes and Rainsbrook in Northamptonshire, though Rainsbrook is due to pass over to MTCNovo in May this year.

The company has been involved in a series of incidents over the past few years, in which criminally inadequate levels of care have been revealed. In 2014, 14 children were found to have been assaulted by G4S and Serco guards between 2004 and 2008. 2004 was the year in which Gareth Myatt and Adam Rickwood, aged 15 and 14, died after being unlawfully restrained in Rainsbrook STC.

Responding to the Panorama investigation, Andy Burnham, Labour’s shadow home secretary, called for G4S to be stripped of its contracts. For Burnham, the problem is simply a case of unfortunate managerial oversight on the part of a single company. He takes no issue with putting vulnerable young people and their rehabilitation into the care of the private businesses.

Burnham does not even match the rhetorical stance of former Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw, a right-wing Blairite who, in 1997, declared the introduction of the private sector into the running of prisons “morally repugnant.” This was shortly before Labour’s term in office under Blair, during which the practise of building private prisons was extended under Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes and on Straw’s watch.

Prisons run by the British state are not free of serious abuses against children. Cases of violence and neglect have been brought to public attention several times in recent years. In the same year that saw the deaths of Myatt and Rickwood, the World Socialist Web Site reported accusations levelled by the Howard League for Penal Reform against Stoke Heath Young Offenders Institution, stating their belief that the youth prison (which held 690 inmates at the time) had been abusing the human rights of young offenders by placing them in isolation cells for days at a time.

Guards at the largest youth prison in Britain, Hindley Young Offenders Institution, were found to have broken bones while restraining inmates on five separate occasions between 2009 and 2011. In 2012, it was revealed, officers at Feltham YOI drew batons over 100 times and used them 25 times.

The use of offensive weapons against children has only become more serious in recent years, with Tasers being drawn on children 431 times in 2013--a 38 percent increase over the previous year--and fired 37 times. These numbers are taken from official Home Office figures. The youngest person to receive a 50,000 volt shock was 14 years old; the youngest threatened was 11. Responding to criticisms, Commander Neil Basu of the Association of Chief Police Officers said, “We have to remember that children can commit violent crime too. The police are paid to intervene in those situations and Taser can be an appropriate use of force.”

While money can be found for the supply of several thousand potentially lethal weapons, the government says there is none to spare to fund youth services that help keep children out of crime. A Freedom of Information Request submitted to the Department for Education in 2014 found that money spent on services for teenagers in England had fallen 36 percent in the previous two years (2011 to 2013). The biggest cuts came in the London boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea and Tower Hamlets, which cut their spending by 78 percent and 65 percent, respectively. Funding again dropped by 10 percent across the country the following year.

In place of care, education and employment--the resources for which have instead been directed towards big business and war--British capitalism has nothing to offer the youth except violence and repression.

German chancellor announces massive expansion of military budget

Johannes Stern

The Bild newspaper reported on Thursday that the German government intends to massively increase the military budget. Chancellor Angela Merkel made the announcement at a sitting of the parliamentary defence committee on Wednesday. Already at the end of last year, Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble spoke out in Bild am Sonntag in favour of “more deployments, more money for the army and more soldiers”.

The newspaper’s report gives a sense of the amounts of money being readied behind the backs of the population. “The US has repeatedly demanded in the past that all NATO members should spend 2 percent of their economic output on defence,” Bild wrote, adding, “To achieve this, Germany would have to spend €25 billion more this year alone.”

Germany has thus far planned to spend €34 billion on the military in 2016. This is more than 10 percent of the federal budget, but only 1.2 percent of the projected GDP.

The media, which has been beating the drums for war and rearmament for months, praised Merkel’s change of course and the pronounced militarist policy of the grand coalition.

In a comment in the same edition of Bild headlined “Security does not come for free,” a certain Hanno Kautz enthused, “We need more: more police, more surveillance—and also more Bundeswehr [German armed forces]. The government has now apparently recognised that.” It was “a good thing” that the chancellor had finally announced “an increase in the budget for the troops”, because whoever “wants to take on more responsibility, combat terrorism throughout the world, has to draw the [financial] consequences”.

But this also means, “Whoever spends more money on combatting terrorism has to cut spending elsewhere. Everyone should remember that when the next budget negotiations take place.”

These statements make clear what workers and young people will face in coming months. The ruling elite intends to make the working class pay in several ways for the return of an aggressive German foreign policy: as cannon fodder for wars “throughout the world” and through massive social cuts to finance rearmament. At the same time, the repressive powers of the state are to be intensified so as to impose the drive to war against the opposition of broad masses of the population.

If one studies the commentaries in the bourgeois press, there can be no doubt that the German ruling elite views war as a key policy option.

In a comment in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Stefan Kornelius proclaimed, “[T]he actual source of war, terrorism and persecution” is in Syria, only then to lament that the Western military intervention is not being led decisively enough. Although “after the attacks in Paris” the “global desire” grew to “eliminate IS and assist Syria to establish a new order”, only a few weeks later, “weak-spiritedness is again widespread.”

Kornelius provocatively asked, “What has to happen to establish a coalition of the powers? A bomb exploding in Moscow’s Red Square? Dead tourists in Times Square in New York?” He answered in the same tone, “After five years of civil war, and numerous attacks and gruesome executions by the terrorist militia, after poison gas attacks and starvation, the answer should be obvious when terrorism is attacking the civilisation of the orient and occident.”

Kornelius’ propaganda is transparent. Having in the past enthusiastically supported the US-led wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, this member of several transatlantic think tanks and foundations is now demanding that the entire political establishment aim at a massive escalation of the war in Syria, in which Germany is already a participant with six Tornado aircraft, two warships and 1,200 soldiers.

Significantly, Kornelius also used the events in “Cologne city centre” on New Year’s Eve to justify the expansion of the war. Last weekend, theSüddeutsche Zeitung published a cartoon of a white woman being grabbed in the crotch by a black hand. The World Socialist Web Site stated at the time, “The racist agitation against refugees and immigrants is aimed at preparing the ground for an expansion of the war in the Middle East.”

This prediction has been confirmed. Kornelius is not the only one in the editorial offices of the Süddeutsche Zeitung who intends to win the German population over to major and permanent wars. Just last weekend, his colleague Stefan Braun wrote in reference to the foreign policy shift by the German government, “Gauck’s intervention came not a moment too soon.”

It was “real relations which are demanding a greater and more dangerous intervention.” The new world is compelling Germany to launch more international interventions.

“The Germans” must now “decide for themselves under totally new conditions, what their convictions are worth”. This applies above all to the “new military interventions” in northern Iraq, Mali and Syria. “All three examples” were “not straightforward military interventions”, but would contribute to “a change in Germany’s consciousness. Military interventions are no longer the exception, they are becoming the norm in this new period of crisis.”

The constant propaganda that Germany is being overwhelmed by crises and is thus compelled to permanently wage war recalls the fatal argumentation of the German ruling elite on the eve of World War I. After the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, the government and the media also declared that Germany was threatened and surrounded by enemies, making “attack the best mode of defence”.

However, the German ruling elite apparently underestimates one thing in its renewed old craze. After two horrific world wars with millions of deaths and unspeakable crimes, the great majority of the population will not be prepared once again to fight for the geostrategic and economic interests of German imperialism, in spite of all the filthy propaganda.

Wal-Mart to close 269 stores worldwide

Nick Barrickman

On Friday, retail giant Wal-Mart announced that it was preparing to close up to 269 outlets globally, including 154 stores in the United States. The decision to close several hundred stores would affect nearly 16,000 employees. The big box retailer cited the costs of competing with online retailers as well as the impact of marginal wage increases given to its workforce as the cause for the closures.

The announcement comes amid a string of shutdowns and layoffs that have highlighted increasing levels of economic uncertainty facing businesses worldwide. In addition to the US outlets, Wal-Mart also stated that it would seek to close 115 stores abroad, with a majority of the closures being “money-losing” stores in Brazil.

The company has seen its stock prices decline by nearly 30 percent over the past year. “Closing stores is never an easy decision, but it is necessary to keep the company strong and positioned for the future,” said Wal-Mart president and CEO Doug McMillon in a press release. The Wal-Mart head sought to reassure company stockholders that the planned layoffs amounted to less than 1 percent of the retailer’s total workforce and that the company was aiming to open 300 new stores in the coming year.

The company also announced plans to close all of its smaller-scale “express” stores, stating it would seek to refocus its efforts toward building its presence in online shopping, “supercenters” and neighborhood grocery outlets.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is the world’s largest company based upon revenue. In addition, the firm operates over 11,600 outlets across the globe and employs an estimated 2.2 million people, making it the world’s largest private employer.

In addition to Wal-Mart’s closures, clothing retailer Macy’s announced last week that it would close 36 stores, for a loss of over 4,800 positions. At least a dozen of those stores would be located inside of shopping malls that would also be forced to close with the loss of the department store giant. “How difficult is it to replace Macy’s? It’s almost impossible,” said Howard Davidowitz of retail consulting and investment firm Davidowitz & Associates in an interview with CNN .

Similarly, retail operator Kmart announced last week that it would close more than two dozen stores. J.C. Penney said on Wednesday that it would close seven locations, trying to play up the fact that the shuttering of seven stores was significantly smaller than its closure of 41 stores in 2015.

The closures of hundreds of retail outlets throughout the globe come amid mounting losses in the energy sector. The mining sector alone has lost nearly 130,000 jobs in the past year.

In contrast to the job losses in the retail sectors, the profits of Wall Street financial institutions have soared. On Thursday, JPMorgan Chase reported fourth quarter earnings of $5.4 billion for last year, bringing its total profit for the year to $24.4 billion. According to the New York Times, this “relatively sluggish” quarter for the banking industry has “been driven mostly by cost cuts rather than business growth,” i.e., layoffs, closures and other means of minimizing expenses.

Global stocks plunge amid fears of a new financial crisis

Barry Grey

Stock markets in the US and around the world ended the week with massive selloffs, rocked by fears that the slowdown in China and plunging oil and commodity prices will trigger a new financial crisis on the order of the 2007-2008 disaster.

Another sharp fall on Chinese markets, with the Shanghai Composite Index dropping 3.55 percent, followed by a 6 percent fall in oil prices to $29 a barrel, set off a wave of panic selling. The mood was summed up by the chief strategist at Federated Investors, who said, “Investors are scared to death, and the fact that it’s happening at the beginning of the year has some historical significance.”

A major factor in the Chinese selloff was concern that Beijing will report its weakest full-year growth figure in 25 years on Tuesday.

On Friday, Walmart announced that it will close 269 stores, 154 of them in the US, and eliminate 16,000 jobs. The Walmart statement, coming on the heels of multi-store closure announcements by Macy’s and Sears-Kmart, highlighted the worsening slowdown in the real economy globally and in the US that underlies the turbulence on stock and bond markets. It also reflected the reality of falling wages and mounting income insecurity affecting broad layers of the US population.

Also this week, BP announced 4,000 layoffs, pointing to the increasingly depressed state of the energy sector.

Friday’s selloff, with the EURO STOXX/50 index down 2.37 percent and all of the major US indexes lower by well over 2 percent, caps off the worst-ever yearly opening for Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which lost 391 points on Friday to crash through the 16,000-point level, has fallen by 8.24 percent so far this year. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index has fallen by more than 8 percent and the Nasdaq has lost more than 10 percent.

All three US indexes are officially in correction, having lost more than 10 percent from their recent highs. The Chinese stock indexes are officially in bear market territory, having shed more than 20 percent of their value. In just the first two weeks of the new year, global stock markets have lost $5.7 trillion in value.

The price of oil, a barometer of global economic activity, is down 20 percent so far this year. The first two weeks of 2016 have seen the steepest two-week decline for oil since the 2008 financial crisis.

Going into a three-day weekend, with the markets closed Monday for Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, there will be intensive behind-the-scenes discussions between Treasury and Federal Reserve officials and the major Wall Street banks and hedge funds over the spiraling crisis. The White House on Friday took the unusual step of commenting on market movements in an attempt to reassure investors. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said officials were closely watching market movements and their potential impact on the economy.

Since the financial crash of 2008, the world capitalist economy has been propped up by rapid growth in China and a number of emerging market countries and a huge run-up in stock prices, all of which has been engineered on the basis of an immense growth of debt. The Federal Reserve and the central banks of Europe and Asia have pumped trillions of dollars into the financial markets, fueling a further increase in financial parasitism and speculation. This, combined with ruthless austerity against the working class, has formed the basis for an unprecedented enrichment of the world’s rich and super-rich and a further transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top.

But in the US and the other older industrialized countries, there has been a sharp decline in business investment in the productive forces. Instead, the vast profits of banks and corporations have gone largely to parasitic activities such as stock buybacks, dividend increases and mergers and acquisitions.

Earlier this week, Albert Edwards, a strategist at Societe Generale, told an investment conference in London that global economic developments would “push the US back into recession.” Predicting that there will be a new financial crisis “every bit as bad as 2008-2009,” he noted, “We have seen massive credit expansion in the US. This is not for real economic activity; it is borrowing to finance share buybacks.”

Now, with China slowing rapidly, Brazil and Russia in deep recessions, and the other emerging market economies sinking under the impact of falling commodity prices and rising debt, the inherently unstable financial house of cards is beginning to collapse.

A measure of the growth of speculation is the fact that since 2009, the US junk bond market has increased by some 80 percent, to $1.3 trillion. The market for energy junk bonds has increased even faster, up 180 percent to more than $200 billion. In recent weeks, as oil and other commodities have continued to fall and China has continued to slow, the junk bond market has shown signs of imploding, with prices dropping sharply and a number of energy junk bond mutual funds collapsing.

Larry Fink, the CEO of Blackrock, the world’s biggest private investment fund, told the US cable channel CNBC Friday that the market crisis was likely to worsen. “I actually believe there’s not enough blood in the streets,” he said, adding that “you’re going to start seeing more layoffs in the middle part of the first quarter, definitely the second quarter…”

A battery of economic data released Friday indicated that the US economy is sharply decelerating. The Federal Reserve reported that industrial production fell 0.4 percent in December, primarily as a result of cutbacks in utilities and mining output, after declining 0.9 percent in November. Industrial production fell at an annual rate of 3.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2015.

Last week, the Institute for Supply Management released its manufacturing index, showing a decline to 48.2 in December, the lowest reading since December 2009. Any number below 50 signals a contraction.

The New York Fed this week released its Empire State Manufacturing Survey index, showing a decline to minus 19.37 in January from minus 6.21 in December. “Business activity declined for New York manufacturing firms more sharply than at any time since the 2007-2009 recession, according to the January 2016 survey,” the New York Fed said.

These reports confirm the existence of an industrial recession in the US. And this week, Michael Ward, chief executive of the CSX railway, said in a television interview that the country was in the grips of a “freight recession,” with coal and other commodity shipments falling precipitously.

The Commerce Department reported on Friday that US retail sales fell 0.1 percent in December from the previous month. For all of 2015, retail sales rose just 2.1 percent, the weakest reading since 2009, after advancing 3.9 percent in 2014. The National Retail Federation separately estimated that holiday sales rose just 3 percent from the previous year, far below its projection of 3.7 percent growth.

The Commerce Department also reported that business inventories fell 0.2 percent in November, the biggest drop since September 2011.

The Labor Department released its Producer Price Index, showing a decline of 0.2 percent last month. Pointing to deflationary forces in the US economy, producer prices fell 1.0 percent in 2015, the weakest figure since the series began in 2010.

As a result of the weak data on the US economy, JPMorgan Chase cut its fourth quarter 2015 estimate for growth of the gross domestic product from a 1.0 percent annual rate to a mere 0.1 percent pace. Barclays trimmed its forecast by four-tenths of a percentage point to a 0.3 percent rate.

The sharp intensification of the economic crisis will further inflame geopolitical tensions and the drive of the US and other imperialist powers to war. At the same time, it will stoke internal social tensions that are already driving the working class into struggle in the US and internationally against austerity and social inequality.

The emergence of a major economic crisis takes place against the backdrop of a critical presidential election in the US, which has already revealed the growing alienation of the working population from the entire political system and the further lurch of the two big-business parties to the right.

Forecast 2016: Indian Ocean Politics and Security

Vijay Sakhuja


Continuity and change’, ‘continuity and no change’ and ‘new challenges and opportunities’ are important formulations for any geopolitical and geostrategic forecasting. These help analysts to understand events to develop trend lines. In the Indian Ocean, at least four issues would merit attention during 2016.

First, the primacy of the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) in the regional political, economic and security discourse will continue. Indonesia took over the chairmanship from Australia in 2015 and South Africa would assume charge in 2017. The Bengaluru Declaration (2011), the Gurgaon Communique (2012) and the Perth Communiques (2013 and 2014) noted with concern the maritime security environment in the Indian Ocean, and called upon regional countries to cooperate.

The other important multilateral forum, i.e. the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS), addressed the regional security agenda by proactively engaging in discussions on piracy in the Gulf of Aden. These multilateral organisations will continue to lead and drive the regional maritime security agenda of the region.

The rise in piracy in the Gulf of Aden led to the promulgation of High Risk Area (HRA) stretching from the Somali coast to as far as 1,400 nautical miles towards Maldives, including the west coast of India. Several affected countries argued that since piracy in the Gulf of Aden had declined from sixteen incidents in 2012 to two incidents in 2014, the HRA label be withdrawn. It was only in 2015 that the area covered by the HRA was reduced but the issue still remains. 

Another significant development in the Indian Ocean is that of Seychelles taking over the Chairmanship of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS) on 1 January 2016 with a near clean piracy ‘slate’. Seychelles is expected to focus its attention on Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing by foreign vessels in the Indian Ocean. It will also provide Seychelles a unique opportunity to invest its politico-diplomatic capital to highlight the issue in Somali waters, given that this was the very reason that prompted the Somali fishermen to stand up to fight foreign fishing vessels and turn into pirates. Also, IUU can potentially undermine the durability of what has been achieved in the Gulf of Aden by the international community over the last five years.

The Indian Ocean also witnessed the growth of Private Maritime Security Companies (PMSC), which emerged as a response to the rising graph of piracy in the Gulf of Aden. These quickly turned into an attractive counter-measure option and triggered a huge demand. As of 2013, nearly 140 security firms reportedly operated in the Northern Indian Ocean. PMSC vessels carried weapons and ammunition but soon came under scrutiny and suspicion after two harrowing incidents in India. In the case of Enrica Lexie, the Italian marines embarked onboard to provide security and opened fire on an Indian vessel off the coast of Kerala, killing two fishermen, which led to a severe diplomatic exchange including the case being brought before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). In the second case, 'Seaman Guard Ohio', a ship owned by a US-based private company was intercepted while carrying weapons in India's contiguous waters and the crew has been convicted. This too may result in a diplomatic standoff between the US and India.

Second, Blue Economy will continue to be high on the agenda of several Indian Ocean countries individually or collectively to harness the seas in a sustainable manner. Significantly, several political leaders of IORA countries have endorsed the concept and states are keen to harness the potential and engage in sustainable development of living and non-living resources of the seas to advance economic growth and enhance human security.

Given that the Indian Ocean is a large sea space with a number of seas and bays, a pan-Indian Ocean approach to address collectively the importance of Blue Economy will be on the agenda of the IORA. This issue is expected to percolate into other groupings and sub-groupings such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and African Union (AU). Several countries of the above groupings and sub-groupings have already endorsed and internalised Blue Economy in policy, bilateral relations and international transactions.

A number of typologies for the development of Blue Economy are plausible. These are ‘India-Maldives-Sri Lanka-Seychelles-Mauritius’, ‘India-Pakistan-Oman-Iran’, ‘India-Bangladesh-Myanmar’, ‘India-Sri Lanka-Indonesia’ as also among the IORA-SAARC-BIMSTEC, ASEAN and AU. This would have to be led by the IORA.

Third, the Indian Ocean is witnessing a silent yet aggressive naval build-up, which features modern and sophisticated naval hardware - aircraft carriers, submarines, expeditionary platforms, destroyers and frigates and missile-capable craft to conduct complex operations. The Indian Navy is a formidable force and nearly 48 warships are under construction, which include one aircraft carrier, one nuclear and six conventional submarines, and a variety of destroyers, frigates and corvettes.

These trends are indicative of the extended strategic reach of the Indian Navy from the littorals deep into the high seas.

The Pakistani Navy will continue to be a ‘lean and mean’ force focused on sea denial capability. The Iranian Navy is the most powerful in the Gulf region and would enjoy numerical and firepower superiority over its neighbours. The South African Navy has identified itself as the ‘Guardian of the Cape Sea Route’, and would focus on low-end maritime threats and challenges and disaster response at sea. Australia’s interests span the Pacific and the Indian Ocean and the government has plans to plans to spend nearly US$89 billion over the next 20 years to acquire new ships and submarines. Likewise, the Indonesian Navy plans to have three operational fleets comprising of a strike force, a patrol force, a Marine Corps component and other supporting elements. As far as the smaller countries are concerned, their naval acquisitions would be limited to coastal security.

The security dynamics in the Indian Ocean also feature naval nuclear capability involving India and Pakistan. The Indian Navy operates one nuclear-propelled submarine (INS Chakra on lease from Russia) and another indigenously built nuclear-propelled submarine (INS Arihant) would be ready for operations in 2016. 

There are plans to build two more nuclear submarines fitted with submarine-launched ballistic missiles and fit short-range ballistic missiles on warships. In the case of Pakistan, it has chosen to convert conventional submarines and warships and fit these with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, which will help it to obtain notional parity to overcome conventional naval asymmetry as also a sense of assurance against the large Indian Navy.

Fourth, the presence of China in the Indian Ocean has received mixed political, economic and security reactions; while some see China as an opportunity, for others it is a challenge. As far as opportunities are concerned, the 21st century Maritime Silk Road (MSR) initiative would help these countries develop maritime infrastructure that is critical for economic growth. On the other hand, these projects are seen as dual-use facilities and part of the Chinese naval strategy for the Indian Ocean wherein these facilities are meant to support PLA Navy’s future operations in the Indian Ocean. In that context, China has successfully obtained access to the port of Djibouti at the mouth of the Red Sea. This would help China to forward deploy its forces in the Indian Ocean. 

Further, the Djibouti base will also serve Chinese naval engagements in the Mediterranean Sea in support of the MSR, safety of shipping, and countering piracy. Interestingly, China, through this base, can support its strategic engagements with Russia. It will be useful to recall that the Chinese and the Russian navies held joint naval exercises -  ‘Mediterranean Sea Cooperation-2015’ - in the Mediterranean Sea to enhance naval interoperability and “jointly deal with maritime security threats” but assured that the exercises were not targeted against any country.

Chinese warships are now a common sight in the Indian Ocean for a number of tasks i.e. counter-piracy operations and non-combatant evacuation operations such as those in Yemen and Libya. It is fair to argue that the 2015 Defence White Paper and the 21st century MSR provide the necessary political and strategic rationale for the PLA Navy to be deployed in the Indian Ocean. In fact the White paper is a carte blanche for the Chinese naval planners to conceptualise expansive strategic geography in which the PLA Navy is expected to operate in the future in support of national interests.

Finally, the Indian Ocean security environment is expected to remain complex and acquisition by regional countries would continue unabated. Chinese naval interests and activities in the Indian Ocean will expand through infrastructure development, military sales, naval operations and formal access to other facilities other than at Djibouti. The sighting and presence of Chinese submarines should not come as a surprise as was the case in 2014 and 2015. At the multilateral level, in 2016, the relevance of IORA and IONS will witness ‘continuity & no change’.

Forecast 2016: On China-Pakistan Relations

Ghulam Ali

It appears that the recently announced China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) will remain at the centre of Sino-Pakistan ties during 2016, and even beyond. The CPEC, signed in 2013, got a boost in April 2015 during Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Pakistan visit, where he announced the allocation of US$46 billion for its completion. This is the largest investment China has committed to another country, and the largest Pakistan has ever received.

According to some informed quarters, China may add to this volume if the implementation of the CPEC moves forward smoothly on the Pakistani side. The corridor intends to connect China’s western region with Pakistan's Gwadar Port via a network of roads, rail and fiber optics.

The CPEC is a part of Xi’s grand strategic concept of “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) to connect with over 60 countries and regions. Under OBOR, besides CPEC, China has initiated other projects such as the Bangladesh, China, India, and Myanmar (BCIM) Corridor; Silk Route in Central Asia; and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Route. But the CPEC is regarded as the 'flagship' project among them due to various reasons.

It is the only corridor that involves just one other country, Pakistan, and with whom China has a 'trust'-based relationship. Other corridors consist of different countries with varying degrees of relations with China. Moreover, the CPEC can provide China an access to the Indian Ocean by reducing both time and distance. This route is not only shorter in distance but avoids the Malacca Strait and the vast Indian Ocean dominated by rival Indian and US navies.

For Pakistan, the CPEC can bring large-scale investments in the energy sector, infrastructure building, and industry, giving a boost to its moribund economy. Once Pakistan is prepared, China may also move some of its industry and bring Pakistan into its chain of production. Above all, the CPEC will increase China’s stakes in Pakistan which will leverage Islamabad in regional affairs. It is this backdrop that demonstrates the centrality of the CPEC in future Sino-Pak relations.

From the construction point of view, the corridor has been divided into short, mid and long-term projects. In 2016, progress or completion of some projects for infrastructure development and energy are expected. Actually, it is the top priority of the incumbent government to finish some projects at the earliest to show its performance to the public.

According to the understanding that exists between the two countries, Chinese state companies will build several CPEC-related projects. 2016 will thus witness a number of Chinese engineers, technicians and workers coming to Pakistan. There are already over 120 companies and 1,20,00 technicians engaged in different projects in Pakistan. This increased number of Chinese nationals in Pakistan will add to two-way exchanges. At the same time, however, it will also raise the question of their safety and security. Pakistan has established a special force of 1,20,00 men under the army to provide security to Chinese expatriates and guard their construction work. But given the law and order situation in the country, these measures appear insufficient. Lack of sufficient security may restrict the free moment of Chinese workers and tourists.

While negotiating the CPEC, China and Pakistan have taken into consideration the issue of low trade and economic ties and limited people-to-people contact. Both sides have realised that one of the main reasons for Pakistan’s bad economic and industrial performance in recent years is its severe energy shortage. Due to this, China has allocated a bulk of its funds (roughly US$33 billion out of the total US$6 billion) for the energy sector. In 2016, some energy projects built with China’s assistance are likely to start production. This will create a positive impact on the overall economic development of Pakistan.

Similarly, both countries have taken steps to promote two-way exchanges. China has increased the number of scholarships for Pakistani students and sponsored visits of people from different walks of life. Pakistan in return has promoted Chinese language in quite a short period of time. As result, Chinese visitors and businessmen can be seen in large numbers in the major cities. This trend can also be measured from the fact that two-way direct flights have risen from four to eight per week and are likely to increase. It can thus be inferred that bilateral trade and people-to-people contact will further increase in 2016.

Importantly, there is no significant defence-related deal in the CPEC. However, this does not mean that the CPEC has no strategic importance. Undoubtedly, infrastructure and the port developed for economic purposes could be equally useful for strategic goals if and when required. China seems to have more confidence in the Pakistani army’s ability to complete projects: Frontier Works Organisation (FWO), a branch of the Pakistan army involved in construction work, has been assigned to build roads, highways and bridges of strategic importance.

The two countries have recently signed a US$4-5 billion deal under which China will provide eight submarines to Pakistan, four to be built in China and the remaining in Pakistan. Another expected defence-related outcome of the year is the commercialisation of the Sino-Pak jointly built JF-17 thunder aircraft. According to Pakistani military sources, Malaysia and Sri Lanka have shown interest in its purchase. If finalised, the deal will pay huge dividends and will give a new boost to defence cooperation especially by encouraging more joint ventures. China could also showcase its joint production with Pakistan to other third world countries as a model.

Besides these mega defence projects, an increase in the number of high profile military visits, training programmes and joint military exercises are expected.

China will continue to meet Pakistan’s defence needs by providing large-scale conventional weapons. Taking these developments into account, it is expected that defence relations will not only remain solid but will deepen further.

Like in the past, during 2016 as well, Pakistan and China will continue the tradition of coordinating their policies on regional and international issues. Key areas of such coordination could be, but not limited to, terrorism, especially in Xinjiang and Afghanistan, security issues in West Asia, and India-Pakistan relations. However, parallel to this, it appears that China will also develop its policies in these areas independently of Pakistan - a trend that has started recently and will gain momentum through the year.

It is also likely that China, without effecting its 'special' relationship status with Pakistan, will continue its relative neutrality on the Kashmir dispute, putting emphasis on India and Pakistan settleling it through peaceful means. Apparently, under this status quo policy, China disregarded Indian concerns on the CEPC passing through this 'disputed' territory.

The chief irritant in Sino-Pak relations in the recent past has been sanctuaries to Uyghur separatists in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and some Pakistan-based militant groups' support to them. This issue is likely to become less stressful in the current year. Pakistan’s military operation against militants in tribal areas has reduced the menace of terrorism while Beijing seems satisfied with Islamabad’s measures.

China however is dismayed at the controversy in Pakistan over the route of the CPEC. Some smaller political parties from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan insist upon the western route that will pass through their provinces. On the other hand, the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (N) seems determined to build the eastern route which mainly passes through Punjab - its political constituency. Both sides have not shown any flexibility in their approaches. It is well over two years now since the announcement of the CPEC but no consensus has been reached. Some analysts term it this a much bigger challenge than security issues. There are fewer chances of a comprehensive settlement of the issue, which will affect the pace of the development work during 2016.

These above mentioned trends could be affected by certain factors. For example, an early consensus on the route controversy of the CPEC, an improved law and order situation in Pakistan, improved relations with Afghanistan and India  could all have a positive impact on the CPEC, and through it, on the Sino-Pak relationship.

Despite the irritants, the relationship between China and Pakistan will not only remain steadfast but will further deepen in 2016 and will be centered on the CPEC.

Forecast 2016: Difficult Days Ahead for Washington

Chintamani Mahapatra


The Obama administration faced many thorny challenges in 2015, and none of those are likely to fade away in 2016. While foreign policy challenges encountered by the US are global, the most critical of those come from a region that is very much part of India’s strategic environment.

To start with, the decision of the Obama administration to fully implement its goal to end its military operations in Afghanistan witnessed a turnaround in the absence of a credible peace process involving the Taliban. The current efforts towards the same will almost certainly fail, unless some miraculous developments take place.

The dynamic Indo-Pak hostility, rising divergences between the Afghan government and the Pakistani establishment, resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, and spread of IS influence into the Af-Pak region will continue to obstruct the US aspiration to make a quiet exit from Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, US military involvement in Afghanistan will progressively thin down, enlarging the political abyss between the US and Pakistan. While the White House and the US State Department will struggle to maintain cordial ties with Pakistan as long as the US troops remain in Afghanistan, the executive-legislative tug of war will increase and the massive US assistance to Pakistan will keep dwindling in the coming months. As Pakistan's chances of severing ties with terrorist organisations appear dodgy and the possibility of China enhancing its economic footprint in Pakistan seems plausible, the trust deficit between Washington and Islamabad is bound to mount. The steady growth of Indo-US strategic cooperation with regular military exercises and advanced arms trade will also impact the state of US-Pakistan ties.

Significantly, the US, China, Pakistan and Afghanistan have begun their quadrilateral cooperation to address the Afghan situation. India is out of this loop. This, precisely, is going to weigh down the US effort of peace-making in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s nightmare is a stronger Indian influence in Afghanistan, and it vetoes an Indian role in peace-making. After so much investment in nation-building activities in Afghanistan, can India afford to allow Pakistan to re-design its strategic depth in that country? Can India really trust the above-mentioned quadrilateral and buy the outcome of their deliberations, even while remaining a bystander to a peace process in its immediate neighbourhood?

The bigger challenge to US engagement beyond South Asia comes from the knotty precariousness in the West Asian strategic scene. The Obama administration withdrew all US troops from Iraq and left a power vacuum that was filled by the IS. While President Obama stopped using the term “global war on terror,” promised to engage with the Islamic world with constructive cooperation, and terminated military operations in Iraq, the end result turned out to be more perilous. The IS declared a caliphate, ran civil administration, sold oil in the international market, beheaded its opponents, and in a way, provoked the US to return to the battle fields of the region. President Obama did practically that, while repeatedly promising not to put boots on the grounds. He bombarded IS facilities from the sky, sent some troops to train Iraqi soldiers, and now, US Special Forces are also selectively engaging in combat.

The expectation that the entry of the Russians and the Iranians to wage war against the IS would be of great benefit were belied in 2015. The Russians are more interested in protecting the Assad regime than combating IS. In the meantime, the US began to complain that Russian planes were also hitting anti-Assad, pro-Western rebels. While Iran is deeply involved in Iraq and is reportedly training, aiding and equipping the private Iraqi militias to take on the IS, Tehran does not coordinate its operations with the US forces. The US backing of Saudi military intervention in Yemen and killings of Tehran-supported Houthi rebels have contributed to more US-Iranian hostility.

In the meantime, the signature achievement of the Obama administration - the Iran nuclear deal - is under stress. It has annoyed the Saudis and angered the Israelis. The other GCC countries have paid lip service to the deal, but privately appear quite unhappy. Besides the Shia-Sunni divide currently engulfing the West Asian region, the Persian-Arab cultural conflict is also aggressively surfacing. Arab countries are increasingly using the term 'Arabian Gulf' instead of 'Persian Gulf' and Iranians think that it is an affront to their ancient history.

All these developments have contributed to the plight of the US Middle East policy, although critics partially blame US policy for the current crisis in the region. The US has lost its grip over the developments in the region, even as the civil wars in Syria, Yemen and Libya are ravaging on.  Anti-Americanism is at its height among the Shias and Sunnis, Arabs and the Persians, and the most trusted ally, Israel, also appears to have lost faith in the Obama administration for its handling of the Iran nuclear deal. The constant depreciation of energy prices has negatively affected shale gas producers in the US as well. It is very unlikely that the economic crisis, social instability and the political upheavals or even terrorism in West Asia would be satisfactorily handled in this region. American hegemony in West Asia, already facing trouble, will have no respite in 2016.

Developments in the Asia Pacific are no less exigent to US power.

North Korean nuclear obstinacy and Chinese muscle-flexing in the South China Sea raise questions of US credibility among its allies. The competition between the US-led TPP and the Chinese-led RCEP, Chinese defiance of US calls for multilateral dispute resolution in the South China Sea, Chinese resistance to the movement of US ships or surveillance planes close to islands reclaimed by China, the single-minded construction of potential military facilities by Beijing in the disputed islands of this sea and several other similar developments indicate that Obama’s strategy of a “pivot to Asia” is little more than gesturing.

In 2016, US' Asian allies such as the Philippines, Australia, Japan and South Korea will expect it to behave more robustly vis-à-vis China. Deployment of ships, flying of bombers, more frequent surveillance, selling military equipment and reiterating US commitment to the security of its allies will not be considered enough. All these actions by the US have hardly altered Chinese policy or behaviour. Nor have threats and sanctions brought North Korea to its knees. As the EAS, ARF and APEC have proven powerless to manage an assertive China and adamant North Korea, the US may look for alternative methods to deal with provocations in this region in 2016.

The US preoccupation with the unprecedented chaos in the Middle East/West Asia, domestic political polarisation, persistent economic recession in the world and the election year in the US will constrain the Obama administration from taking tough measures abroad. As such, President Obama has tasted the bitterness of some of his liberal approaches. First, he drew a red line for the Assad regime on the issue of use of chemical weapons and fell short of carrying out the promised response.

Second, he wanted to reset relations with Russia and found that US-Russia relations have deteriorated further. Third, the Budapest Pact promised Ukraine territorial integrity in exchange for its surrender of nuclear weapons. But the US could do precious little when Russia annexed Crimea. 

Fourth, critics hold President Obama responsible for continuing violence in Libya, mishandling the Arab Spring, and the inability to overthrow the Assad regime. Fifth, two key US allies - Israel and Saudi Arabia - feel estranged in the wake of the Iran nuclear deal, and yet there are still there no signs of Iran refraining from missile tests, or supporting  alleged terrorists, or providing muscular support to the Assad regime. 

Is there any possibility of President Obama taking appropriate measures to answer his critics? Can he stabilise Libya? Can he bring an end to the Yemeni and Syrian civil wars? Can he get Iran to abide by the nuclear agreement it negotiated with the P5+1? Can he stop the Saudi-Iranian regional Cold War? Can he improve the image of the US in this region? Can he persuade or pressurise China to vacate the occupied islands in the South China Sea? Can he coerce China to withdraw its declaration of an Air Defense Identification Zone? Can he end the US military presence in Afghanistan even after seeing the consequences of total US withdrawal from Iraq?

There is hardly any time for Obama to do so much. Nevertheless Obama has not done everything wrong. In the complex strategic landscape of the post-9/11 era, we have all witnessed the empowerment of non-state-actors. Modern technology has proven to be both a boon and curse. No superpower can flex its muscles and use all its abilities to control, direct and shape global events. Even then President Obama’s diplomatic success in the Paris Climate Change Conference, in roping in Russia and China to strike a nuclear deal with Iran, in opening a new chapter in US relations with India in the post-Devyani Khobragade episode, are no mean achievements. In the last year of his office, President Obama will certainly try to build on his successes.

Messi is an Extraterrestrial

Ceasar Chelala

By winning for a fifth time FIFA’s 2015 Ballon d’Or Messi has confirmed what is now widely known: he is, without any doubt, the best soccer player in the world.

What explains Messi’s unique abilities and that he became the world’s best player in the world? And that he continues to break records and win awards? Jose Delbo, a 72 year-old Argentinean fan of Messi who follows every game from his home in Florida, told me recently, “I have never before been so moved seeing a player’s game as I am so now with Messi. After some of his beautiful plays I almost feel like crying.”

Many claim that Messi is the result of Pep Guardiola’s teachings in Barcelona. They seem to forget that as a child, in Argentina, Messi was already a brilliant player. Ernesto Vecchio, a coach from his youth, said, “As a player, he is very similar now to how he was as a youngster.” He added, “He decides in milliseconds what he is going to do with the ball at his feet.”

His exceptional qualities as a player made him the object even of medical studies, trying to find clues to his unique talent. Because of his spectacular speed and brilliance in making decisions, how Messi’s brain works is now being studied by a Dutch physician, Pieter Medendorp, of Radboud University in Nijmegen. Dr. Medendorp hopes to learn “how people make split-second decisions and know how to prioritize.”

Dr. Medendorp is fascinated by how people make quick decisions, particularly when moving. It is Messi’s ability to concentrate opponents in front of him and then almost effortlessly weave through them that particularly interests Dr. Medendorp. “In the field,” Dr. Medendorp noted, “Messi knows where to find the [other players] and then decide not only how to escape from a marking or where to go but also what to do with the ball.”

The retired Brazilian soccer player Pelé said, “I would love to play with Lionel Messi. But Messi is an incomplete player because he cannot use his head.” That criticism opinion is not shared by Argentinean Maradona, who said that Messi “is at a select level, being the best in the world and a star in Barcelona.”

The best explanation, however, may be an article written by the Argentine journalist Hernán Casciari, published in his blog and ironically titled “Messi is a dog.”

Casciari -who doesn’t hide his admiration for Messi- tells how, after watching several of Messi’s goals on YouTube he realized that Messi plays as if in a trance, hypnotized.

His only wish is to see the ball in the opposing team’s goal. He writes, “We must look well into his eyes to understand this: he looks cross-eyed at the ball, as if reading an out-of-focus subtitle; he focuses on it and does not lose sight of it even if they knife him.

“Where had I seen that look before? In whom? I knew that gesture of supreme introspection. I pressed the pause key in the video. I zoomed in Messi’s eyes. And then I remembered it: those were the eyes of ‘Totín’ when he became crazy for the sponge.

“I had a dog in childhood, which was called ‘Totín’. Nothing moved him. He wasn’t a smart dog. Thieves came in and he just watched them carry the TV. The buzzer sounded and he didn’t hear it. However, when someone [my mother, my sister, myself] grabbed a sponge—a particular yellow sponge for washing dishes—Totín became mad. He wanted this sponge more than anything in the world; he wished with all his heart to take this yellow rectangle to the doghouse”, Casciari wrote.

“I showed it to him holding it in my right hand and he focused on it. I moved the sponge from one side to the other and he never stopped looking at it. He couldn’t stop looking at it. No matter how fast I moved the sponge, Totín’s neck moved with equal speed through the air. His eyes had the searching look of Sherlock Holmes. I discovered this afternoon, watching that video, that Messi is a dog. Or a man-dog. That’s my theory. I regret your having read up to here with better expectations. Messi is the first dog ever who plays soccer,” concludes Casciari.

President Buhari and the Anxious Expectations of Nigerians

Taju Tijani

The passing away of 2015 did not go away quietly. At the tail end of that year, Nigerians were entertained with a sad comedy of Abuja profligate monoculture of graft and corruption in high places. We read through confessions of how Nigeria’s petrol wealth was squandered to indulge the appetite of few avaricious and greed-driven elite and their systemic stripping of this nation’s money among themselves. The repulsive evil of corruption was exposed and its fall out of class collaboration and collusion astounded our sense of moral indignation and national pride. It was the first time Nigerians will see a sitting president who took on the fight against corruption, not as a lip service, but as an obsessive cause worth dying for.

The mantra of CHANGE which has remained the slogan for the redemption of Nigeria acquired more force, and along its tortuous journey, nationwide support of Nigerians for the evolving vision of President Mohammadu Buhari. However, the overwhelming support for President Buhari from most Western nations, to Ms Christine Lagarde, the IMF Managing Director, to the man in the streets is not without its own condition: get Nigeria out of trouble and calm the anxious expectations of Nigerians with the fierce urgency it requires.

In 2016, Nigerians expect President Buhari to redirect the cause of our nation’s history by reinforcing the fight against corruption; freeing Nigeria from the narrow and selfish agenda of tiny elites, rebuilding our moribund institutions, bring back the abducted Chibok girls, and the total rejuvenation of our social, economic and political paralysis. Nigerians are becoming impatient and the old appetite for theatrical democratic interventions from our politicians are becoming obsolete.

The first task before President Mohammadu Buhari is the deepening of our democracy through the recalibration of the virtues of open, integrity-driven, transparent, honest and good governance as the best hope for the future of our democratic survival. These should be the new ideas that must drive leadership in this country. The president has to understand that retreating into the old essentialism of autocracy, secrecy, superficiality and lies will no longer wash with Nigerians especially in the face of the aftermath of the political tension generated by the arrest and re-arrest of former National Security Adviser, Col. Sambo Dasuki and the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), and Radio Biafra Director, Mr Nnamdi Kanu.

The government should experiment with progressive innovations in tackling the socio, economic and political problems challenging Nigeria. President Mohammadu Buhari must tackle our large scale infrastructural deficit head on. In any nation, the provision of infrastructure facilitates the happiness of the greatest majority. This nation faces huge infrastructural deficit and this parlous state of play is negatively affecting businesses and more importantly, the humanity of all Nigerians.

The 2016 budget voted N1.8 trillion for capital expenditure, representing 30 per cent of the total budget of N6.08 trillion. Last year, the capital vote was 557 billion. In fact, a total of N11 billion was budgeted for the Ministry of Works. Giving breakdown of the 2016 capital vote, Mr. Buhari said, “This increased capital expenditure commits significant resources to critical sectors such as Works, Power and Housing – N443.4 billion; Transport – N202.0 billion; Special Intervention Programs – N200.0 billion; Defence – 134.6 billion; and Interior N53.1 billion. He continued, “These investments in infrastructure and security are meant to support our reforms in the Agriculture, Solid Minerals and other core job creating sectors of our economy.” “This is a fulfilment of our promise to align expenditure to our long-term objectives, and a sign of government’s commitment to sustainable development,” he added.

Nigerians applaud the deployment of N1.8trillion for capital expenditure in the 2016 national budget. The first capital project for this administration is the urgent repairs of the sorry state of our roads. Statistics indicate that 18% of the 197,000 km of our road networks are in good shape and the situation is worse in state and local governments thereby hampering agricultural and social developments. Secondly, Nigerians must see visible increase in power generation and distribution which currently stands between 3,500 -3,700 kilowatts. Not forgetting the provision of clean, drinkable water which has not been able to meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of 75% coverage for safe and drinkable water. Thirdly, our primary health care system needs to be overhaul with the provision of free health care for all Nigerians.

Fourthly, our economic condition is in the intensive unit. Nigeria became the highest economy in Africa and the 26th in the world but with no visible impact on the common man. Standard of living and cost of living are the twin challenges of majority of Nigerians from all work of life except probably those who stole government money. As I write, global oil prices have plummeted and the consequences of such free fall should give us a sober reflection to diversify from our dependence on oil as the chief mainstay of our economy.

Fifthly, by some divine intervention, Nigeria had one the freest and fairest elections in the history of our democratic evolution. We had our epiphanic moment where the sitting president was ousted by the opposition. However, the inexperience of the ruling party nearly caused chaos in parliament and the consequence of such political hiccup is the permanent loss of patriotism to narrow, selfish party agenda. Above all, Nigerians are demanding for a proactive, effective, intelligent gathering and the deployment of highly trained and motivated Army to engage Boko Haram and bring an end to the cyclone of disasters that have blighted the North East.