4 Oct 2016

In Latin America, The Empire Strikes Back

 Chris Hedges


A decade ago left-wing governments, defying Washington and global corporations, took power in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Venezuela, Uruguay, Bolivia and Ecuador. It seemed as if the tide in Latin America was turning. The interference by Washington and exploitation by international corporations might finally be defeated. Latin American governments, headed by charismatic leaders such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador, won huge electoral victories. They instituted socialist reforms that benefited the poor and the working class. They refused to be puppets of the United States. They took control of their nations’ own resources and destinies. They mounted the first successful revolt against neoliberalism and corporate domination. It was a revolt many in the United States hoped to emulate here.
But the movements and governments in Latin America have fallen prey to the dark forces of U.S. imperialism and the wrath of corporate power. The tricks long practiced by Washington and its corporate allies have returned—the black propaganda; the manipulation of the media; the bribery and corruption of politicians, generals, police, labor leaders and journalists; the legislative coups d’état; the economic strangulation; the discrediting of democratically elected leaders; the criminalization of the left; and the use of death squads to silence and disappear those fighting on behalf of the poor. It is an old, dirty game.
President Correa, who earned enmity from Washington for granting political asylum to Julian Assange four years ago and for closing the United States’ Manta military air base in 2009, warned recently that a new version of Operation Condor is underway in Latin America. Operation Condor, which operated in the 1970s and ’80s, saw thousands of labor union organizers, community leaders, students, activists, politicians, diplomats, religious leaders, journalists and artists tortured, assassinated and disappeared. The intelligence chiefs from right-wing regimes in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and, later, Brazil had overseen the campaigns of terror. They received funds from the United States and logistical support and training from the Central Intelligence Agency. Press freedom, union organizing, all forms of artistic dissent and political opposition were abolished. In a coordinated effort these regimes brutally dismembered radical and leftist movements across Latin America. In Argentina alone 30,000 people disappeared.
Latin America looks set to be plunged once again into a period of dictatorial control and naked corporate exploitation. The governments of Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela, which is on the brink of collapse, have had to fight off right-wing coup attempts and are enduring economic sabotage. The Brazilian Senate impeached the democratically elected President Dilma Rousseff. Argentina’s new right-wing president, Mauricio Macri, bankrolled by U.S. hedge funds, promptly repaid his benefactors by handing $4.65 billion to four hedge funds, including Elliott Management, run by billionaire Paul Singer. The payout to hedge funds that had bought Argentine debt for pennies on the dollar meant that Singer’s firm made $2.4 billion, an amount that was 10 to 15 times the original investment. The previous Argentine government, under Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, had refused to pay the debt acquired by the hedge funds and acidly referred to them as “vulture funds.”
interviewed Guillaume Long, Ecuador’s minister of foreign affairs and human mobility, for my show “On Contact” last week. Long, who earned a doctorate from the Institute for the Study of the Americas at the University of London, called at the United Nations for the creation of a global tax regulatory agency. He said such an agency should force tax-dodging corporations, which the International Monetary Fund estimates costs developing countries more than $200 billion a year in lost revenue, to pay the countries for the natural resources they extract and for national losses stemming from often secret corporate deals. He has also demanded an abolition of overseas tax havens.
Long said the neoliberal economic policies of the 1980s and ’90s were profoundly destructive in Latin America. Already weak economic controls were abandoned in the name of free trade and deregulation. International corporations and banks were given a license to exploit. “This deregulation in an already deregulated environment” resulted in anarchy, Long said. “The powerful people had even less checks and balances on their powers,” he said.
“Neoliberalism is bad in most contexts,” Long said when we spoke in New York. “It’s been bad in Europe. It’s been bad in other parts of the world. It has dismantled the welfare state. In the context where we already have a weak state, where institutions are not consolidated, where there are strong feudal remnants, such as in Latin America, where you don’t really have a strong social contract with institutions, with modernity, neoliberalism just shatters any kind of social pact. It meant more poverty, more inequality, huge waves of instability.”
Countries saw basic services, many already inadequate, curtailed or eliminated in the name of austerity. The elites amassed fortunes while almost everyone else fell into economic misery. The political and economic landscape became unstable. Ecuador had seven presidents between 1996 and 2006, the year in which Correa was elected. It suffered a massive banking crisis in 1999. It switched the country’s currency to the U.S. dollar in desperation. The chaos in Ecuador was mirrored in countries such as Bolivia and Argentina. Argentina fell into a depression in 1998 that saw the economy shrink by 28 percent. Over 50 percent of Argentines were thrust into poverty.
“Latin America,” Long said, “hit rock bottom.”
It was out of this neoliberal morass that the left regrouped and took power.
“People came to terms with that moment of their history,” Long said. “They decided to rebuild their societies and fight foreign interventionism and I’d even say imperialism. To this day in Latin America, the main issue is inequality. Latin America is not necessarily the poorest continent in the world. But it’s certainly the most unequal continent in the world.”
“Ecuador is an oil producer,” Long said. “We produce about 530,000 barrels of oil a day. We were getting 20 percent royalties on multinationals extracting oil. Now it’s the other way around. We pay multinationals a fee for extractions. We had to renegotiate all of our oil contracts in 2008 and 2009. Some multinationals refused to abide by the new rules of the game and left the country. So our state oil company moved in and occupied the wells. But most multinationals said OK, we’ll do it, it’s still profitable. So now it’s the other way around. We pay private companies to extract the oil, but the oil is ours.”
Long admitted that there have been serious setbacks, but he insisted that the left is not broken.
“It depends on how you measure success,” he said. “If you’re going to measure it in terms of longevity, and how long these governments were in power—in our case we’re still in power, of course, and we’re going to win in February next year—then you’re looking at, more or less in Venezuela 17 years [that leftist governments have been in power], in Ecuador now 10, and in Argentina and Brazil it’s 13.”
“One of the critiques aimed at the left is they’re well-meaning, great people with good ideas but don’t let them govern because the country will go bust,” he said. “But in Ecuador we had really healthy growth rates, 5 to 10 percent a year. We had lots of good economics. We diversified our economy. We moved away from importing 80 percent of energy to [being] net exporters of electricity. We’ve had big reforms in education, in higher education. Lots of things that are economically successful. Whereas neoliberal, orthodox economics was not successful in the previous decade.”
Long conceded that his government had made powerful enemies, not only by granting political asylum to Assange in its embassy in London but by taking Chevron Texaco to court to try to make it pay for the ecological damage its massive oil spills caused in the Amazon, where the company drilled from the early 1960s until it pulled out in 1992. It left behind some 1,000 toxic waste pits. The oil spills collectively were 85 times the size of the British Petroleum spill in the Gulf of Mexico and 18 times the size of the spill from the Exxon Valdez. An Ecuadorean court ordered Chevron Texaco to pay $18.2 billion in damages, an amount later reduced to $9.5 billion. The oil giant, however, has refused to pay. Ecuador has turned to international courts in an attempt to extract the money from the company.
Long said that the different between the massive oil spills elsewhere and the Ecuadorean spills was that the latter were not accidental. “[They were done] on purpose in order to cut costs. They were in the middle of the Amazon. Normally what you’d do is extract the oil and you’d have these membranes so that it doesn’t filter through into the ground. They didn’t put in these membranes. The oil filtered into the water systems. It polluted all of the Amazon River system. It created a huge sanitary and public health issue. There were lots of cancers detected.”
Long said his government was acutely aware that Chevron Texaco has “a lot of lobbying power in the United States, in Wall Street, in Washington.”
“There are a lot of things we don’t see,” he said of the campaign to destabilize his government and other left-wing governments. “Benefits we could reap, investments we don’t get because we’ve been sovereign. In the case of [Ecuador’s closing of the U.S.] Manta air base, we’d like to think the American government understood and it was fine. But it was a bold move. We said ‘no more.’ We declared it in our constitution. We had a new constitution in 2008. It was a very vibrant moment of our history. We created new rules of the game. It’s one of the most progressive constitutions in the world. It actually declares the rights of nature. It’s the only constitution that declares the rights of nature, not just the rights of man. We made Ecuadorean territory free of foreign military bases. There was no other way. But there are consequences to your actions.”
One of those consequences was an abortive coup in September 2010 by members of the Ecuadorean National Police. It was put down by force. Long charged that many of the Western NGO’s in Ecuador and throughout the region are conduits for money to right-wing parties. Military and police officials, along with some politicians, have long been on the CIA’s payroll in Latin America. President Correa in 2008 dismissed his defense minister, army chief of intelligence, commanders of the army and air force, and the military joint chiefs, saying that Ecuador’s intelligence systems were “totally infiltrated and subjugated to the CIA.”
“There is an international conspiracy right now, certainly against progressive governments,” he said. “There’s been a few electoral setbacks in Argentina, and Venezuela is in a difficult situation. The media frames it in a certain way, but, yes, sure, Venezuela is facing serious trouble. There’s an attempt to make the most of the fall of prices of certain commodities and overthrow [governments]. We just saw a parliamentary coup in Brazil. [President Rousseff had been] elected with 54 million votes. The Labor Party in Brazil [had] been in power for 13 years. The only way they [the rightists] managed to get rid of it was through a coup. They couldn’t do it through universal suffrage.”
Long said that even with the political reverses suffered by the left it will be difficult for the rightists to reinstate strict neoliberal policies.
“You have a strong, disputed political ground between a traditional right and a radical left,” he said. “A radical left, which has proved it can reduce poverty, it can reduce inequality, it can run the economy, well, it’s got young cadres that have been [government] ministers and so on. I reckon that sooner or later it will be back in power.”
Corporate leviathans and the imperialist agencies that work on their behalf are once again reshaping Latin America into havens for corporate exploitation. It is the eternal story of the struggle by the weak against the strong, the poor against the rich, the powerless against the powerful, and those who would be free against the forces of imperialism.
“There are no boundaries in this struggle to the death,” Ernesto “Che” Guevara said. “We cannot be indifferent to what happens anywhere in the world, for a victory by any country over imperialism is our victory; just as any country’s defeat is a defeat for all of us.”

Enough Of CIA’s “Enough Project” In Africa

Thomas C. Mountain


Enough of the CIA’s “Enough Project” in Africa. With Hollywood superstar George Clooney as it’s talking head, EP, as it is known, was founded by senior US Intel “spook” Gayle Smith, former Senior Director of the National Security Council under President Obama and now head of the USAID/CIA.
Today EP is headed by Ms. Smith’s protégé John Prendergast whose history as head of EP is one of subterfuge and lies in service to Pax Americana.
EP claims it’s mission is to prevent genocide in Africa, as in the name “Enough Project”, yet has been conspicuously silent when it comes to the genocidal famine in Somalia during the Great Horn of Africa Drought in 2011-12 where 250,000 Somali children starved to death.
Recently George Clooney was enjoying 15 minutes of fame as a humanitarian claiming to have exposed massive corruption in South Sudan when he should have been warning the world of the UN’s next genocide in Somalia as in 300,000 starving children.
Soon the genocide in Somalia will hit its peak with hundreds, up to 1,000 children a day dying from hunger with only a deafening silence emanating from the CIA’s Enough Project.
EP, with support from its big brother, the Center for American Progress, only once in its history raised a real genocide, that back in 2007-8 when Gayle Smith was out to political pasture, she being a rabid democrat during the Bush Jr. years in office. Then she was part of the Democrat “opposition” to the Bush regime and oh so briefly raised the food and medical aid blockade in the Ogaden in Ethiopia, where the only instance of both the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders being expelled from a famine stricken region has been allowed.
Once Ms. Smith jumped on the Obama For President bandwagon, no further objections to the genocide in the Ogaden were heard.
Today EP is proving its loyalty to Pax Americana by playing huckster for regime change in South Sudan, as in denying China access to African oil via the invasion of “peacekeepers” in the name of Responsibility To Protect of Libyan infamy. The USA has abandoned former “rebel leader” Riek Machar in favor of direct military intervention in South Sudan by the UN and the USA’s gendarme in Africa, the AU.
The Chinese have started to expand their oil production so expect to hear louder cries of outrage from the likes of EP about various crimes and even “genocide” in South Sudan followed by demands for more foreign military intervention in the country.
With all their lies and subterfuge don’t you think that we here in Africa have had enough of the CIA’s Enough Project?

Job cuts threatened at New Caledonia nickel plant

John Braddock

Job cuts are looming in New Caledonia’s mining and processing sector following a severe drop in the global price of nickel. The small Pacific island, a French colony with a population of about 280,000, is the world’s fifth largest nickel producer.
The Koniambo plant, owned by the transnational conglomerate Glencore-Xstrata and the Northern Province’s Société mininère du Sud Pacifique, announced last month it is “reviewing” 140 positions from its workforce of 950.
Koniambo CEO Marc Boissonneault said the current low level of production was not economically viable, making it a “challenge” to cut costs. The plant had also suffered setbacks after problems with its furnaces.
The job threat came despite pledges of financial support for Koniambo by the French government. Spending on Koniambo—one of the world’s biggest new projects—exceeded $US7.2 billion at the start of its productive life in 2013.
French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said in February that Paris would also underwrite the Société Le Nickel (SLN) processing plant in the capital Noumea. SLN is a subsidiary of Eramet, a French multinational mining and metallurgy company.
Valls’ undertakings were given at a meeting held to discuss a possible referendum on independence for the territory by 2018. The SLN plant’s viability had hinged on it getting a new power plant, but that plan was placed on hold because of the company’s financial losses.
The cuts foreshadow a major assault on workers throughout the nickel industry in New Caledonia and globally. The industry is the territory’s biggest private sector employer, accounting for a quarter of all jobs and 7–10 percent of its output. With the exclusion of tourism, nickel ore and derived metallurgical products represent about 97 percent of the total value of exports and 80 percent of foreign exchange earnings.
During 2015, the price of nickel on the world market fell by more than 40 percent, ending the year at $US8,100 a tonne, compared with a high of $51,800 in 2007. The current price is below the cost of production for more than two-thirds of the world’s mines. The New Caledonia industry recorded losses of $US1 billion for 2015. According to Bloomberg, the Brazilian-owned Vale mine at Goro produced at a cost of $20,000 a tonne last year, while Koniambo spent $33,000 a tonne.
Last December, Glencore CEO Ivan Glasenberg warned: “We have no intention to continue running the asset and burning cash like some other parties in that area.” The same month, Jennifer Maki, Vale’s head of base metals, told investors in London: “We know everybody in this room’s patience is wearing, and our patience is wearing. We’re analysing our options in New Caledonia.”
Nickel is used primarily for steel production, of which there is now a massive glut in China. With China responsible for nearly half of global metals demand, the slowdown within the world’s second largest economy is expected to see metal prices decline by 14 percent in 2016. The International Monetary Fund recently warned of “continued low prices, but with rising uncertainty.”
Bloomberg cited an analyst at Standard Chartered Plc saying that “the red ink is bigger in nickel than for any other base metal.” Demands are being raised for global production cuts of up to 30 percent.
Anger among workers in New Caledonia has been building for the past year. President Philippe Germain warned last November that the closure of Australian business magnate Clive Palmer’s nickel refinery in the state of Queensland could lead to civil unrest in the Pacific territory. New Caledonia’s mines were the main suppliers of Palmer’s smelter in Townsville before it was shut down in March with debts totalling $A300 million, resulting in the loss of 800 jobs.
The refusal of Germain’s administration to grant export licences last year to local miners to sell ore to customers other than Palmer’s Queensland Nickel triggered protests and industrial blockades.
In August 2015, truck drivers, fearing for their jobs, mounted a three-week blockade of parts of Noumea, the capital, after the government rejected a bid by SLN to export one million tonnes of low-grade ore to Japan. Attempting to shore up prices, the government also restricted sales of ore to China, allowing only one company to sell 300,000 tonnes over an 18-month period.
Last November, hundreds of SLN workers went on strike and set up pickets, blocking access to the plant using burning tyres. The workers were protesting the loss of 60 jobs and a decision to delay building the new power plant for the smelter. The unions quickly shut down the strike while steering workers behind the demands of the conservative opposition Republican Party to lift export restrictions.
The Republicans accused the government of committing “economic sabotage” by blocking exports, directly or indirectly putting up to 10,000 jobs at risk. The government relented in April, following the closure of the Queensland plant, authorising the export of some low-grade nickel ore to China. The decision came after truckers again threatened to blockade Noumea.
With the sector in a deep crisis, the government has disbursed $US5.5 million of a $23 million Nickel Fund to prop up export companies and contractors. The disbursement applied only to companies with fewer than 500 employees, which excludes Koniambo, Vale and SLN. The government claimed the payment saved about 400 jobs.
The collapse in commodity prices is causing economic and political turmoil throughout the Pacific, whose fragile economies largely depend on the export of extractive raw materials. Economic growth will drop from 7.0 percent, recorded last year, to an average of 3.9 percent in 2016, according to the Asian Development Bank.
Papua New Guinea (PNG), with the largest economy of the Pacific islands, has experienced a drop of 20 percent in government revenues, forcing austerity measures similar in scope to those in Greece. These, in turn, are fuelling protests and strikes by growing sections of PNG workers and students.

Italy: Strikes and protests against the Renzi government’s “Jobs Act”

Marianne Arens

On Friday, a 24-hour national railway strike paralyzed large parts of Italy’s urban and national rail systems. A week earlier, striking flight attendants at national carrier Alitalia halted more than 200 flights, affecting 25,000 passengers. Teachers at state schools are calling for a national school strike for October 21.
In mid-September, hundreds of parcel delivery workers took strike action in Bergamo, Brescia, Piacenza, Bologna and Parma against European logistics company GLS and its subcontractors. In Perugia, on the night of September 15, an Egyptian striker was run over and killed by a scab truck driver.
Abd Elsalam Ahmed Eldanf, 53, an Egyptian and former teacher, was on the picket line at delivery firm Seam. Although he had a permanent contract, he supported the struggle of colleagues opposing their precarious employment conditions and miserable pay. He was run over by a lorry driven by a strike-breaker and was killed on the spot, leaving behind a wife and five children.
When the state attorney and the media described the death as an “accident,” and released the guilty driver, 7,000 workers took to the streets in Piazenza and the strike spread to all GLS offices in Italy and to other firms.
Another labour dispute began on August 27 in Lombardy, directed against the Swedish multinational fashion company H&M, whose warehouses in Stradella and Casalpusterlengo were hit by strikes for several days. Although the level of exploitation in Italy is not as horrendous as in the company’s textile factories in Bangladesh, where seamstresses earn less than a $100 a month, H&M uses Italian subcontractors notorious for their low wages and inhumane working conditions.
The spread of industrial action is characterized by two common features:
First, it is aimed directly or indirectly against the effects of the labour market reforms under the “Jobs Act” introduced by the Renzi government at the end of 2014. Second, it is consistently boycotted by the official union confederations (CGIL, CISL, UIL).
The union leaders, above all the CGIL’s Susanna Camusso, signed up to the Renzi government’s new labour laws and market reforms the previous year, despite over a million workers engaging in strikes and protests for weeks at the end of 2014. At the Fiat Group, whose CEO Sergio Marchionne is a particularly aggressive advocate of the Renzi reforms, the secretary of the largest metalworkers’ union FIOM, Maurizio Landini, has since agreed to a restrictive contract.
Renzi’s “Jobs Act” has weakened protections against dismissal and facilitates the introduction of precarious, fixed-term contracts, which can be extended for up to 36 months without giving reasons. Companies can also more easily access temporary labour and subcontractors. With the introduction of so-called “labour certificates” (“Buoni lavoro”), a kind of modern day labour was created: Under this system, a worker can be hired on an hourly and daily basis for just €7.50 an hour.
The “Jobs Act” significantly weakens previous labour protections and liberalises the labour market, similar to the Hartz labour market “reforms” in Germany and the El Khomri laws in France. In addition, the referendum instigated by Renzi seeks to impose stronger central government, better able to suppress popular resistance.
The CGIL, CISL and UIL trade union bureaucracy have countersigned all the “reforms,” fully sharing the view of the Renzi government that the Italian economy must be made more flexible and competitive at the expense of the workers.
It is no wonder therefore that virtually all recent industrial action has been organized without, and against, the unions. Tens of thousands of workers have already abandoned the traditional unions. In their place have come so-called rank-and-file unions, which have called for the current strike by railway workers, pilots, teachers, parcel delivery and others.
On the railways, the CAT, CUB, SGB and USB unions are opposing the “Jobs Act,” pension “reforms” and call for a reduction in working hours. At Alitalia, Anpac, Anpav and USB they are demanding fewer night flights and improved job security for flight attendants; among educators, USB and Unicobas are organising teachers to defend the right to education and against privatization in the school system.
However, the perspective of these rank-and-file unions does not fundamentally differ from that of the traditional unions. Although they act more militantly and appear to be less corrupt than the big unions, their politics do not go beyond the usual union framework of exerting more pressure on the capitalists and the national government.
The rank-and-file unions SiCobas and USB, which are leading the struggle by the parcel delivery workers, point to “their tough negotiations” with the employers. “As soon as we drop our guard, they immediately try to take back what has taken us years of struggle to win,” the provincial coordinator of SiCobas in Rome said.
This is a perspective that completely misjudges the situation today. The profound international crisis of capitalism is deepening every day. Not only the Italian banks, but also the German and international financial institutions are heading towards a new crash; the EU is falling apart and national governments are increasingly relying on military solutions.
The working class can only defend what it has won in the course of a hundred years of struggle with an international socialist perspective. This means the building of a new political party, independent of all bourgeois parties and the trade unions.
The notion of ”militant unions” is promoted by many pseudo-left groups that have emerged from the former Italian Communist Party, and serves precisely to discourage workers from engaging in such a political struggle.

Colombia votes against peace accord between the FARC and government

Andrea Lobo

Colombians voted to reject the peace accord signed by the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas in a national referendum held Sunday. The measure failed by a slim margin—50.2 percent voted “no” and 49.8 percent voted “yes,” a margin of 54,000 out of a total 13 million ballots cast. The referendum was marked by widespread abstention. Just 37 percent voted, below the usual 40 to 50 percent turnout in presidential elections.
While voter turnout was affected by the whiplash storms and floods caused by Hurricane Matthew on the Caribbean, the main factor was the general alienation from the “peace talks.” The bulk of the Colombian working class viewed the 299-page peace agreement— negotiated by the unpopular Juan Manuel Santos government and FARC with the help of the governments of the United States, Cuba and Venezuela—as incapable of solving the profound social crisis plaguing Colombian society.
The sanctimonious pleas for “peace” by the Santos government and its backers in the US and Western Europe are aimed at covering the real purpose of the referendum.
According to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Colombia’s profit rate for foreign direct investments (FDI) fell from a 12 percent average between 2010 and 2014 to 4 percent in 2015, particularly because of the fall in commodity prices. Total FDI inflows fell 26 percent last year. High inflation has led to decreasing real salaries this year. Unemployment has increased and public debt is now approaching 45% of GDP, while tax income is falling for a second year in a row.
In this context, the peace accords become a political cover for austerity, militarism and a sharp worsening of the social crisis in the country, all signs of political and economic weakness. The Santos administration was not constitutionally required to hold a referendum, but calculated that a “yes” vote would provide the government with the political legitimacy required to carry out stronger social cuts and militarization.
Currency devaluation, tax cuts for corporations and added-value tax increases that are being discussed would further undermine the living standards of the 61.7% of families that report barely making ends meet.
The financial elites and their press have expressed this frustration. New York Times journalist Julia Symmes Cob tweeted on Sunday, “So Twitter, in the year of Brexit, Trump and Colombia’s peace vote, how are we feeling about democracy?”
This comment expresses the anti-democratic outlook of the financial aristocracy and its public relations representatives at the New York Times. The violent suppression of social opposition throughout Latin America by US imperialism over the last century proves that democracy must be done away with whenever it poses an obstacle to the profit margins of the banks and multinational corporations.
The Financial Times also wrote that the bank HSBC stated, “This political defeat could also lower the chance of Congress passing the much-needed tax reform ahead of year-end… notwithstanding the government’s assurance that spending cuts in the 2017 budget (particularly on public investment) will be enough to comply with the fiscal goals.” The Financial Times reported that the country’s peso fell 3 percent before steadying at 2.1 percent lower.
An analyst for Goldman Sachs expressed concerns that the result will affect the activities of the central bank, while an analyst for Citibank stated: “The question is how easy is it now going to be for the government to pass a tax reform of such a meaningful size.”
The Santos government is politically weakened by the vote result. Most polls during recent weeks showed an overwhelming victory for the “yes” vote, even by a two-to-one margin.
Now, the Colombian government is calculating a “plan B” for the imposition of austerity.
In an attempt to show leadership amid the uncertainty on Sunday night, Santos stated: “I have given instructions to the chief negotiator of the government and the top commissioner for peace to travel tomorrow to La Havana to keep the FARC negotiators informed about the results of this political dialogue.”
The head of the FARC, Rodrigo Londoño, known as Timochenko, declared on Sunday that the result demonstrated that “our obstacles as a political movement are much greater.”
The deal was the product of a long process. Negotiators missed an initial March 23 deadline and suspended the talks as a response to the rise in paramilitary attacks on politicians, indigenous and peasant leaders, which have continued to increase since 2012 in spite of the drop in fighting against the guerrillas.
The deal was based largely on providing official state funding for the FARC through its transformation into a “democratic” political party, with a guaranteed number of spots in the legislature. The plan’s proposal to abolish the illegal drug trade with mild subsidies would in fact likely allow the expansion of large landowner haciendas and facilitate the extraction of natural resources with increased violence used against the peasantry and rural working class.
The accord also would provide impunity for FARC guerrillas, who have carried out kidnappings, extortion and murders as the backbone of its bankrupt guerrilla program. The crimes of the FARC, however, are outweighed only by those committed by the government and its right-wing paramilitary supporters who are responsible for about three-fourths of the estimated 177,000 civilian deaths throughout the decades-long civil war.
Regardless of how the “peace” process resolves in the short term, Colombia is a crucial part of the US government’s “pivot to Latin America.” US funding and direct military assistance have allowed Colombia to build the largest military force in South America with 445,000 members. Currently, the FARC report having just 5,800 fighters across the country, compared to the estimated 19,000 they had when Alvaro Uribe became president in 2002.
The US-backed militarization of Colombia gives the lie to the government’s claims to want “peace.” According to calculations made by the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA), the sum of US military and police aid and US arms sales to Colombia has had a sustained increase from less than $900 million in 1997-1999 to $2.5 billion in 2012-2014. New taxes and budget reallocation have ensured that the Colombian workers and peasants are forced to pay a greater share of the buildup of the repressive apparatus.
The Colombian Defense Minister Luis Carlos Villegas announced last month that the 2017 military budget will grow by $230 million “to accompany the post-conflict with a powerful Public Force.” Obama, on his part, requested Congress a $390 million aid package primarily for “security and counter-narcotics” as part of its “Peace Colombia” program.
Already, the US has taken advantage of the drawing down of the guerrilla conflict to integrate Colombia’s military into regional US efforts of militarization as part of the bilateral Security Cooperation Coordinating Group between both governments. More than 300 joint training exercises are expected to happen in Latin America next year.

Amid war crisis, Pakistani actors hounded out of India

Kranti Kumara

A number of popular Pakistani actors who routinely work in “Bollywood”—India’s Mumbai (Bombay)-based film industry—have been hounded out of the country after the MNS (Maharashtra Navnirman Sena), a fascistic, Hindu supremacist party, issued an ultimatum for all Pakistani actors and singers to leave the country or be “pushed out.”
The MNS issued this vile threat amid the clamour for military action to “punish Pakistan” that was whipped up by India’s political establishment following the September 18 attack on the Indian army base at Uri in disputed Kashmir.
Without so much as a cursory investigation of the attack, which killed 18 Indian soldiers, India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government declared Pakistan responsible, labeled it a “terrorist state,” and vowed a “befitting response.”
As if on cue, the corporate media, the Congress Party and other opposition parties responded with an avalanche of bellicose threats and denunciations of Pakistan.
It was in this poisonous atmosphere that the MNS issued its ultimatum. The Shiv Sena, the far-right party from which the MNS broke away and the BJP’s junior partner in the Maharashtra state government, quickly endorsed the MNS’s threats of violence against Pakistani actors. “We reiterate our stand that the Shiva Sena has always been against Pakistani actors and cricketers,” declared Manisha Kayande, a prominent Shiv Sena spokeswoman. She went on to add that the Shiv Sena will ensure two new Bollywood productions, the Hindi-language films, Ae Dil Hai Mushqil (O! Heart, It’s Difficult) and Raees(Wealthy) are not shown in India, because they feature Pakistani actors.
Not to be outdone in this foul chauvinist campaign, the general secretary of the BJP’s Maharashtra state unit said films with Pakistani actors will only be allowed to be screened if their “artistic roles are deleted.”
In a further indication of the extreme right-wing, bellicose mood that has been incited by India’s elite, the Indian Motion Picture Producers’ Association (IMPPA) unanimously passed a resolution at its annual general meeting calling on its members “not to work with any artistes, singers or technicians from Pakistan until the situation of hostilities between Pakistan and India subsides and the Government of India declares that all is well with Pakistan and India.”
The IMPPA general meeting convened on September 29, only hours after the BJP government had announced in triumph that on the night of September 28-29 Indian troops had mounted cross-border military strikes inside Pakistan-held Kashmir and inflicted “heavy casualties.”
These strikes, the first India has admitted to carrying out inside Pakistan in more than four decades, were a flagrant violation of international law and risk sparking the first-ever war between nuclear-armed states. However, the Indian media and political establishment have hailed them as a master coup that has demonstrated India’s prowess and readiness to take risks in aggressively asserting its interests, especially against its arch-rival, Pakistan.
The IMPPA has justified its ban on hiring Pakistani actors, singers and others on the ultra-reactionary grounds that they have not issued statements supporting “our troops.” That is, they have not endorsed the self-serving narrative of the BJP government and the Indian elite that Pakistan is solely responsible for the reactionary military-strategic conflict that has pitted the Indian and Pakistani ruling elites against each another since the 1947 communal partition of South Asia into an explicitly Muslim Pakistan and a mainly Hindu India, and that the unique cause of the current war crisis is Pakistani-backed terrorism.
“The meeting unanimously decided,” declared an IMPAA press release, that “the total silence of the Pakistani artistes was an insult and humiliation of our armed forces and the country at large.”
Needless to say, the IMPPA was silent about the gross human right violations—including torture, disappearances and summary executions—that India’s armed forces have committed during the past quarter century to suppress opposition to Indian rule in Jammu and Kashmir, the country’s only Muslim majority state. Nor have they denounced the BJP government for its promotion of communalism, including giving Hindu vigilante groups, working under the cover of “Gau Rakshaks” (Cow Protectors), carte blanche to attack Muslims and Dalits (the former untouchables) connected to the cow-slaughter and leather trades.
Going even further than the IMPPA motion, its president, producer T.P. Aggarwal, said. “No Pakistani will be hired by (IMPPA) members forever.”
Yesterday’s Indian Express reported film director Abhishek Jawkar has decided to drop Pakistani actress Mawra Hocane from his upcoming film Not a Prostitute. “After the Uri attack and India’s surgical attack,” said Jawkar, “I strongly feel I should support my country and the soldiers fighting for our nation.”
Several prominent Bollywood actors and filmmakers have spoken out against the ban. Salman Khan, one of India’s best-known actors, issued a statement last Friday in which he indicated support for the military raid on Pakistan, but opposed banning Pakistanis from Bollywood. “Pakistani artistes are just artistes and not terrorists,” said Kahn. “Art and terrorism should not be mixed.”
For saying this, Khan has been mercilessly vilified with both the Shiv Sena and MNS suggesting he should “migrate to Pakistan”—a communally-charged attack as Khan is a Muslim.
Bollywood movies are very popular in Pakistan and many Arab countries as well as India. Despite their often formulaic themes of family intrigues and heroes battling villains, Bollywood cinema has traditionally reflected the confluence and mixing of cultures that is part of India’s social fabric. This is especially true of songs, dances and costumes. Overall there has been an absence of explicit communal themes. Many of Bollywood’s biggest stars are Muslim and intercommunal marriages among Bollywood stars is common.
However, as with Indian society as a whole, since the 1980s, and as a result of the Congress Party’s active pandering to and encouragement of Hindu communalism, Hindutva ideology has started to make important inroads in the film industry. Several famous actors, such as Hema Malini and Shatrughan Sinha, are prominent BJP supporters.
Predictably, Pakistan’s elite has responded to the chauvinist campaign against Pakistani actors and musicians in kind. To show “solidarity with the armed forces of Pakistan,” movie houses across the country have again stopped showing Indian films. Bollywood productions were officially banned in Pakistan from 1965 to 2008, although once the technology became available they circulated widely via video cassette.
“We were left with no option but to reciprocate [the] IMPPA” ban, claimed Mandviwala Entertainment Chief Executive Nadeem Mandviwala.
Pakistan’s government has also told cable companies they must cease broadcasting Indian TV channels after October 15, adding that “strict action would be taken according to the law after October 15 if TV channels and distribution networks fail to follow the directions of the regulatory body.”

Future of the TPP and the US' Pivot to Asia

Sandip Kumar Mishra



In the first round of the presidential debates in the US, it became certain that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is still far from being realised. While the Republican candidate, Donald Trump reiterated his opposition to the TPP, even the Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton stated that she is not in favour of it in its present form. This stance is understandable for Trump, who has been a supporter of protectionist policies, but more salient is the shift in Clinton’s approach, who worked for the conclusion of the TPP when she was the Secretary of State. In fact, current US President Barak Obama has still been trying to get the deal ratified by the US Congress. 

Hillary Clinton’s shift is posited in a domestic environment of growing unrest in the US over the TPP. It is alleged that the TPP is going to be less beneficial for US’ small and medium businesses and for the employment scenario and it has become politically difficult for any candidate to support the TPP as it would have adverse implications on their electoral success. 

TPP is a trade agreement among twelve countries of the Pacific Rim, which, after numerous rounds of discussions, was finally signed in February 2016 in New Zealand. Its ratification is still in process, post which it would come into force. The TPP was incorporated in US policy in 2008 to reengage with the Asia Pacific by excluding China. Later on it was considered to be an important component of the US pivot to Asia. The TPP was supposed to conclude in 2012 but it got prolonged because of both political and technical reasons. After a topsy-turvy journey, in February 2016, it appeared that the TPP would finally become a reality but the recent mood in the US seems to point to the fact that the process is far from over. 

The change in the public disposition appears to be an important reason for the US presidential candidates to distance themselves from it. If the deal is not ratified by the US, it means that the US’ influence and connections in setting up the economic rules of Asia Pacific is going to be seriously reduced. In July 2016, the US Trade Representative admitted, “a failure to ratify TPP would give China the opportunity to boost its exports and set labor and environment standards in the fast-growing Asia Pacific regions through the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)”. Even the US President Barak Obama said “if we don’t pass this agreement – if America doesn’t write those rules – then countries like China will”. 

Many US allies in Asia-Pacific, such as Japan, Singapore and Australia, look forward to a greater role of the US in the regional economic architecture and they would be deeply disappointed by the current political atmosphere in the US. If the TPP does not materialise, the ties with the US would not hold much value for them, except for empty words and past performance, at least in the economic domain. Singaporean PM Lee Hsien Loong’s statement to Obama sums up the general sentiment of the American allies in the region, “your partners, your friends who have come to the table, who have negotiated, each one of them has overcome some domestic political objection, some sensitivity, some political cost to come to the table and make this deal. And if, at the end, waiting at the altar, the bride doesn't arrive, I think there are people who are going to be very hurt, not just emotionally but really damaged for a long time to come”.

Contrary to the US, China has improved its economic clout in the region very decisively. China, which is the number one trading partner of more than 112 countries in the world, certainly has taken the task of being the economic pivot of Asia-Pacific. China’s initiatives such as One Belt One Road (OBOR) and Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) appear to be future frameworks along with the RCEPs that would shape the rules, norms and institutions of economic exchanges among the countries of the region. 

Even though there are significant concerns about the China’s political and military assertion in the region, US’ allies had no option but to somehow, reluctantly, deal with the attractive economic propositions by the Chinese and wait for the TPP to conclude. Japan is going to take up the TPP ratification issue in its ongoing 66-day extraordinary session of the parliament. Shinzo Abe tried to convince Hillary Clinton about the TPP in his recent visit to the US. Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull, in his September 2016 visit to the US, also urged the US congress to ratify the TPP as soon as possible “as it goes beyond economics”.

Here it is important to underline that though the US government is aware of the significance of the TPP and is willing to get it ratified however it is the current domestic disposition that hampers the process by not allowing any presidential candidate to support the deal. It indicates the existing reality, that even though the US government is interested in a pivot towards Asia, it’s capacity to do so is increasingly getting reduced. It may prove to be an advantage for China but Beijing also needs to be aware about spoilers such as its own political and military stances and the picture is still not clear. 

Mining in Afghanistan: Scale Down to Reap More

Roshan Iyer



The mining industry in Afghanistan holds the potential to completely revolutionise the country’s domestic economy. Afghanistan has around 1400 deposit sites of minerals worth between USD 1 and 3 trillion – according to the 2010 US Geological Survey, confirming previous Soviet reports which discovered that Afghanistan holds some of the largest reserves of iron, copper, cobalt, lapis lazuli and lithium. These resources provide a ready opportunity to set up an industry that can be licensed and taxed, and can provide significant revenue to the Afghan government. Today the mining industry is the most promising driver of growth and industrialisation in Afghanistan.
 
Despite initial enthusiasm after the announcements of the development of the Mes Aynak deposits by China in 2008 and the Hajigak deposits by India in 2011, both projects failed to take off amidst security concerns and the discovery of ancient Buddhist monuments at Mes Aynak. The episode also brought into focus the lack of transparency and corruption in government, in the mining rights allocation process and in the overall economy - factors that discourage high-value, long-term investments by foreign investors. Afghanistan’s unique situation of an economy failing to attract investment despite the vast quantity of existing opportunities requires a unique solution.
 
Mining in Afghanistan is a high-risk and capital-intensive industry. Kabul has repeatedly invited large government-backed consortia that promise billions of dollars purchasing the rights to mine fields while also promising to set up power plants and highway projects. Although this style of mega-projects promises to bring in the much-needed funds to a cash-starved Afghan government, the security threats in the country make investors jittery. Instead, the government should focus on attracting private mid-level investors looking to invest millions rather than billions for medium terms. Interestingly, small to mid-level sized mining operations have been undertaken in Afghanistan by the Taliban, who mined rubies and emeralds, and earned around USD 120 million in 2015.
 
The case of mining in Laos, for instance, shows how mid-level investments can be used to develop a mining industry where none existed. Sepon, a medium-sized copper mine was developed by an Australian company, Oxiana Limited. It produced USD 100 million worth of copper a year with an initial capital investment of USD 240 million. The mine also generated USD 15 million in taxes and created 2800 jobs. By 2008, there were roughly 127 mining companies established in Laos.
 
Locally-owned coal mines in Afghanistan routinely under-produce primarily because of a poor resource extraction technology and lack of safety equipment. To become profitable enterprises, these small-scale projects would actually require minimal investment. If these coal-mines were to be the first sites auctioned to foreign investors, they would profit from better technology and in turn give a fillip to Afghanistan’s mining sector.
 
Currently, the Afghan government does not have adequate funds to invest in mining; the smaller funds could instead be invested in its transmission lines, road networks and power plants needed to support the mining industry. Medium-scale mining projects require lower-capacity support infrastructure, lowering the burden on the Afghan government to provide for them. However, over time, as the mining sector grows in Afghanistan, market forces should bring larger-scale investment in energy, transport, construction, and other support infrastructure.
 
Investments from a multitude of smaller companies could generate revenue for Afghanistan’s economy. However, a strong institutional framework is needed to generate investor confidence.  For this, tax rates would have to be set and frozen through agreements between the government and investors. 
 
The security situation in Afghanistan needs to be addressed to bridge the confidence gap. This will have to be a two-pronged approach of providing physical security as well as a contingency plan in the event of an attack on the investment is needed. A cash-strapped government would find it unfeasible to provide direct insurance. Instead, the contingency model can allocate a percentage (in accordance with commodity prices) of each mine's output to the government. In the event of an attack, this stock can either be sold to raise quick capital (which can then be transferred to the company’s accounts) or physically returned to the mining firm to cushion the effect of any disruption on the company's sales process.
 
A combination of scaling down the mining projects in Afghanistan along with added government protection might also have the additional benefit of escaping the demands of protection payments by the Taliban.
 
When it comes to the allocation process, Afghanistan could take lessons from the privatisation of the Antamina Mine by Peru. While auctioning the mine, the government used a unique bidding process, where an option was provided to the winner of the bid. The mining consortium of Rio Algom, Noranda Inc., and Teck Corp was allowed to carry out site specific exploration for a period of two years and then had the option of investing into the site or walking away. The time factor and the ability to explore the resources before committing to the investment created sufficient confidence in the investor and the mine was successfully sold.
 
Scaling down in the short-run might just be the solution to building Afghanistan’s mining industry into a global giant in the long-run.

Contextualising Iran: The Nixon and Obama Doctrines

Kimberley Anne Nazareth



Presidents are infamous for their doctrines, a tactic used in an effort to elevate the status of their policies making them sound prophetic and strategic than they actually are. Presidential doctrines are tools used to clarify their agendas as well as a blueprint for carrying them out. Sometimes these doctrines have arm-twisted presidents to follow their predecessors; for instance, the Truman Doctrine committed the US and all future presidents in the fight against communism.
Given that the Obama doctrine's great success story has been Iran, it is interesting to contrast this with how the Nixon doctrine played with Iran. Why Nixon? Because there are similar trends in both that are not so obvious and yet display policy continuation or a policy dramatisation. The other is because these doctrines have and will alter the course of not only relations with Iran but the region.

The Nixon doctrine marked a major shift in US policy towards the region; from balancing to primacy. The doctrine was directed towards Asia more specifically Vietnam and the Persian Gulf. The Nixon doctrine also known as the Iran primacy doctrine signalled not so much a change in policy as an extension of US policy in the region focused on making Iran the regional bulwark. The policy rested on Iran for obvious reasons including the fact that it was not an Arab country - at a time when Arab nationalism was a continuous security problem for the US. As the sole Shia country it was seen as balancing any possible Sunni arc that arose in the region from Arab nationalism. Previous attempts at alternate bulwarks had failed and finally the Shah was resolutely anti-Soviet. In its implementation the doctrine premised on the absolute regional supremacy of imperial Iran through massive arms sales. The shah for his part shrewdly played the ‘communist card’ and misguided and exaggerated the external threat in an attempt to divert attention from internal failure and repression, thus receiving the blanket support that made it a formidable force in the region.

The Obama doctrine, however, instead of placing all eggs in one basket seems to have moved towards micro-balancing. The Iran deal seems to be part of a dual strategy. The first part prevents Iran from getting nuclear weapons but the second part sees Iran playing an important role as a regional stabiliser especially with the emergence of the Islamic State (IS) and other crises in the region. This second part hinges on the US getting countries to bear the consequences of their actions. For example in Libya, the US forced the UK and France to take the lead, in Syria it called France's bluff to act in the wake of the Ghouta chemical attacks, and in Yemen the US has stayed out completely. In Iraq the US has allowed Iran a great deal of leeway and they are effectively fighting on the same side against the IS. In effect the US is building alliances of convenience as and when required and avoiding getting railroaded into serving the interests of others. 
The Nixon and Obama doctrines have a number of convergences and divergences. For both doctrines the main converging thread is regional security and stability. Both Nixon and Obama’s policies deal with the reducing direct US involvement in the region, especially coming on the heels of Vietnam and Iraq. However neither of these policies have succeeded in full measure requiring the two presidents to recalibrate and change the rhetoric to fit with ground realities. The divergence can be seen through the tools used to achieve their policies. Nixon used Iran directly as a tool of US policy in the region. For Obama, the task is trickier, using Iran indirectly, both containing it and simultaneously propelling it as a regional force.
For the Iranians the Nixon doctrine had both positive and negative side effects. In becoming a regional superpower, it became a higher priority target to the Soviet Union as well as the target of regional balancing by Arab powers. On the other hand it did produce a rapid modernisation and massive increases in the standards of living and influence abroad. The Obama doctrine on the other hand, by refusing to give anyone primacy and refusing to let anyone take the US for granted, dampens both positive and negative extremes.
In the final analysis however it remains to be seen if the actual results match the intent behind them or careen uncontrollably off course. As Jean Baptiste Alphonse Karr once said, “the more things that change the more they stay the same.”

Mapping the Dhaka Gulshan Attack: Who was Tamim Chowdhary?

Angshuman Choudhury



On 27 August 2016, Tamim Ahmed Chowdhary alias Abu Shaykh Al-Hanif - the mastermind of the recent Gulshan attack in Dhaka - was killed in a raid by Bangladeshi security forces in Narayanganj.

Chowdhary's identification, and the statements made by Dhaka thereafter, strengthen the arguments presented in Parts I and II of this series; and corroborate the conclusion that the Gulshan attack reflects some degree of Islamic State (IS) penetration into Bangladesh.

This analysis looks deeper into Chowdhary's role in the Gulshan attack, the nature of the new terror modules, and the significance of his killing. It outlines the contours of the new form of 'hybridised' terror in Bangladesh - a fusion global and localised terror modules - and identify the potential paths ahead.

Tamim Chowdhary and 'New JMB'
Tamim Ahmed Chowdhary was a Canadian-Bangladeshi from Windsor who is purported to have been radicalised sometime between 2009 and 2012. He is said to have subsequently travelled to Syria in 2012/2013 to join the IS, and then return to Bangladesh as the organisation's 'coordinator' in the country. It is understood, from an interview published in the April 2016 issue of the IS's propaganda magazine, Dabiq, that his operational agenda was to execute a series of terror attacks in Bangladesh and link them to the IS. This must be viewed in the context of statements made by Bangladesh's police chief after the raid, which linked Chowdhary to not only the Dhaka and Sholakia attacks but also all the previous attacks in northern Bangladesh (Pabna, Kushtia, Tangail, etc).

Chowdhary's well-timed presence in Bangladesh had a galvanising effect on existing local extremist networks, and particularly on the Jamat ul-Mujahideen (JMB). The fact that he was an expat returnee trained by the IS-central in Syria might have lent some degree of credence to his role as a terror mobiliser. However, it would be misleading to believe that Chowdhary single-handedly created an actionable terror network in Bangladesh.

By the time he was back in Bangladesh (2013), the older JMB cells had already undergone a phase of renewed recruitment and mobilisation. Chowdhary's entry, and the corresponding influence of IS's 'Caliphate' brand, only crystallised this process. The regrouping culminated in the creation of 'New JMB' - a rearranged offshoot of the original JMB that might have eventually absorbed other local groups, including but not limited to al Qaeda affiliated Ansar al Islam. Although the latter has claimed several of the hacking attacks separately, the recruitment might have been carried out under Chowdhary's management.

Thus, it is certain that Chowdhary did not act alone. Nevertheless, multiple sources have identified him as the key planner of the Gulshan attack, and also the personal overseer for arms procurement, recruitment, and financial mobilisation. In this, he was assisted by four local JMB operatives - Nurul Islam Marjan (reconnaissance), Jahangir Alam Murad (militant trainer), Sohel Mahfuz (explosives supplier), and Mawlana Abul Kashem (remobiliser of old recruits). Murad was killed by the police on 02 September and the others are on the run.

Furthermore, evidence points towards the usage of transnational networks of mobilisation. Not only did Chowdhary obtain the arms (including the AK-22) through the porous West Bengal-India border, but a significant part of the planning took place in the Indian state of West Bengal. A suspected IS-affiliate, former JMB member, and Indian national called Mohammad Masiuddin alias Abu Musa served as the local accomplice in West Bengal. He is currently in custody of Indian officials.

What After Tamim Chowdhary?
Chowdhary's death is bound to have a disruptive effect on IS operations/plans in Bangladesh. However, it would be a mistake to believe that Chowdhary cannot be replaced by another returnee or local leader. On 10 September, an individual later identified as Tanvir Qaderi killed himself following a raid by security forces at his compound in Azimpur. He is suspected to have been the designated successor to Chowdhary. Additionally, on 29 August, two other JMB operatives, Khalid Hasan alias Badar Mama, and Ripon, were neutralised. Both were alleged to have been involved with hacking attacks in the past.

Some sources hint at the formation of a new IS franchisee outfit in Bangladesh called Jund al-Tawheed wal Khilafah (JTK), believed to be the prime recruiter of fighters for IS-central in Syria/Iraq. The New JMB too remains largely operational as a supergroup. Hence, capacities for terror mobilisation and recruitment remain strong.

Therefore, the post-Chowdhary interregnum is a valuable window for Bangladesh, which must focus on degrading the capacities of local cells. Additionally, keeping Marjan, Mahfuz, and Kashem on the run or apprehended will prevent the transmission of organisational knowledge and prolong the period of instability within IS in Bangladesh. The ongoing tracking of emigrants and immigrants with IS proclivities or links must be intensified and made systematic unlike the ad hocism currently in play.

Finally, plugging the West Bengal-India border - along the western districts of Chapainawabganj, Naogaon, Rajshahi, and Kushtia - remains vital. Notably, on 27 September, the Kolkata Police Special Task Force (STF) arrested six JMB operatives, including the purported chiefs of the outfit's Bengal and Northeast India units, from various places in West Bengal and Assam. This directly reflects the fluid territoriality of JMB's operational agenda.

Chowdhary's killing is a short term success for Bangladesh. The recent neutralisation and apprehension of several key leaders and mid-rank operatives has already had a calming effect on the country's terror landscape, resulting in a stark decline in localised attacks. However, the government still needs to pursue the suspects on the run, as their continued operation ensures a continuity of the vicious 'new JMB' module.

In Context: Recent Amendments to India's Tax Treaties

Prerana Priyadarshi



After signing a protocol to amend the Mauritius Tax Treaty on 10 May 2016, India is now renegotiating its tax treaty with Singapore. Additionally, on 24 August 2016, the Indian Union Cabinet approved the signing of a revised India-Cyprus tax treaty. Can these amendments be seen as India’s attempt to plug tax evasion and black money? Will it bring Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) to India under stress?

The Treaties: A Brief Overview
As a common practice, countries enter into tax treaties to avoid or mitigate double taxation. India has comprehensive Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) with 88 countries.

Under the 1982 India-Mauritius DTAA, New Delhi did not have the right to tax capital gains (profit from the sale of property or an investment) arising to a Mauritius-based tax resident on the sale of shares of Indian companies. This, coupled with the fact that Mauritius does not levy a capital gains tax, made Mauritius a favourable jurisdiction for investing into India. On 27 May 1994, India and Singapore signed a DTAA with a provision that the India-Singapore treaty will be co-terminus with India-Mauritius treaty.

Trigger for Amendment
As India opened the doors of its economy for foreign investments in 1991, it triggered the round-tripping of funds wherein money from India was exiting through unofficial channels and being invested back into the country from outside via the Mauritius route to avail tax benefits under the DTAA. Also, Indian tax officers did not appreciate the prospect of shell companies in Mauritius claiming tax exemptions and sending tax bills to them and thus alleged misuse of treaty. But in 2000, India, concerned about the implications of actions of the tax officers on the FDIs, issued a circular to halt tax officers’ actions and justified the practice of treaty shopping. Consequently, the golden tap kept flowing, with Mauritius and Singapore accounting for USD 17 billion of the total USD 29.4 billion FDIs in India during April-December 2015 alone.

After toiling for almost a decade to redraw the tax treaty with Mauritius, India - on the basis of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) and the G20 countries’ action plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting in 2016 - finally renegotiated with Mauritius with an aim to exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules.

AmendmentsThe key features of the Protocol signed by the Mauritius are as under:

1. With this Protocol, India gets taxation rights on capital gains arising from alienation of shares in a company resident in India acquired on or after 01 April 2017 and grandfathering (protection) of investments made prior to 01 April 2017. The tax rate during the transition period from 01 April 2017 to 31 March 2019 will be limited to 50 per cent of India's domestic tax rate, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions in the Limitation of Benefits (LOB) Article specified in the protocol. Taxation in India at full domestic tax rate will take place from financial year 2019-20.

2. Interest arising in India to Mauritian resident banks will be subject to withholding tax in India at the rate of 7.5 per cent with respect to debt claims or loans made after 31 March 2017.
 
3. The protocol also provides for update of Exchange of Information (EOI - tool for prevention of fraud or evasion of taxes) article as per international standard. A provision for assistance in collection of taxes, source-based taxation of other income, is a part of the protocol.

The revisions in the Cyprus treaty signed in 1994 are on the lines of the recent changes notified in the India-Mauritius tax treaty. However, unlike the treaty with Mauritius, the 50 per cent capital gains tax exemption for two years from 01 April 2017 to 31 March 2019 is absent in the revised treaty with Cyprus. By defaulting on the EOI, Cyprus was notified as Non Jurisdictional Area (NJA) on of 01 November 2013; and India will consider the removal of Cyprus from the NJA with retrospective effect.

Benefits 
Complementing the government’s efforts to plug tax evasion and tax avoidance and its fight against black money, the amendment will help curb revenue loss emerging due to round tripping of funds and treaty abuse; prevent double non-taxation; streamline the flow of investment; and stimulate the flow of exchange of information. It will also improve transparency in tax matters.

Impact on Foreign Investments
Since the implementation of the amendment is on a prospective basis, the economy will soak in short term tremors in the foreign investor community looking at India. Considering the certainty attached to the amended tax regime, India will continue to receive good FDI inflows despite the amendment. The Indian economy is now strong enough to depend on any tax-incentivised route and in the medium-long term, will contribute to attract acting foreign investments. Stable environments will auger well for the Indian rupee, which would make the tax cost look insignificant.

Lastly, although the amendments may have closed few windows for tax exemptions and black money, impish investors will sooner or later find new routes to counter these steps undertaken by the government. Policymakers therefore need to also assess the competitiveness of India’s taxation system vis-à-vis other economies.