Foreign Policy Blogs

The outlook for the U.S. economy in the next 12 months is a picture of low but steady growth, at least according to U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The Treasury Secretary says his department is predicting that it will take the American economy two years to reach an annual growth rate of 3%(of full year growth). This would fit with the post-financial crash pattern for the American economy, which has not grown faster than 3% in any year since the end of the last recession in mid-2009, almost a decade ago.

But storm clouds are gathering on the horizon for the U.S. growth in the first quarter of the Trump presidency has been disappointing, with the first three months of 2017 seeing the weakest first-quarter growth in America in three years. But analysts blamed a mild winter and higher than usual inflation for depressing consumer spending rather than administration policy. But Mnuchin argues that a combination of planned regulation relief measures, tax cuts and a renegotiation of international trade deals which the Trump presidency has planned will see full year growth rise to 3% by 2019.

Opinion is certainly divided over how effective the administration’s plans will be. Critics generally believe they are not ‘revenue-neutral’ and will fail in their objective to get U.S. multinationals to repatriate their profits back to America. If this is the case then the U.S. budget deficit will again start to yawn alarmingly open as Trump struggles to combine implementing his campaign promises on increased infrastructure spending, a higher U.S. defense budget and his famous wall on the Mexican border with his plans to cut federal revenues.

Meanwhile experts worry that the controversial nature of the Trump administration has politicized analysis of the U.S. economic outlook for 2017 and sharply reduced the changes of bi-partisan cooperation on reform. Political opposition to Trump from Congressional Republicans on increased government spending and from progressives on his ‘tax cuts for the rich’ may mean that the White House struggles to pass its agenda. Gridlock in Washington will increase uncertainty about U.S. economic intentions and therefore depress growth in the final three quarters of 2017. All of which means efforts to boost the U.S. economy to 3% annual growth by 2019 could still flounder.

One ominous sign that all is not well in America is the news that Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello announced on Wednesday May 3 that he was requesting a Title III proceeding from the U.S. territory’s federal financial oversight board. Title III is an an in-court debt restructuring process akin to a U.S. Bankruptcy; the governor’s request comes a day after several large creditors started legal action against the territory’s government for defaulting on $70 billion worth of debts.

The post Outlook for the U.S. Economy is Shaky in the Trump Era appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The outlook for the U.S. economy in the next 12 months is a picture of low but steady growth, at least according to U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. The Treasury Secretary says his department is predicting that it will take the American economy two years to reach an annual growth rate of 3%(of full year growth). This would fit with the post-financial crash pattern for the American economy, which has not grown faster than 3% in any year since the end of the last recession in mid-2009, almost a decade ago.

But storm clouds are gathering on the horizon for the U.S. growth in the first quarter of the Trump presidency has been disappointing, with the first three months of 2017 seeing the weakest first-quarter growth in America in three years. But analysts blamed a mild winter and higher than usual inflation for depressing consumer spending rather than administration policy. But Mnuchin argues that a combination of planned regulation relief measures, tax cuts and a renegotiation of international trade deals which the Trump presidency has planned will see full year growth rise to 3% by 2019.

Opinion is certainly divided over how effective the administration’s plans will be. Critics generally believe they are not ‘revenue-neutral’ and will fail in their objective to get U.S. multinationals to repatriate their profits back to America. If this is the case then the U.S. budget deficit will again start to yawn alarmingly open as Trump struggles to combine implementing his campaign promises on increased infrastructure spending, a higher U.S. defense budget and his famous wall on the Mexican border with his plans to cut federal revenues.

Meanwhile experts worry that the controversial nature of the Trump administration has politicized analysis of the U.S. economic outlook for 2017 and sharply reduced the changes of bi-partisan cooperation on reform. Political opposition to Trump from Congressional Republicans on increased government spending and from progressives on his ‘tax cuts for the rich’ may mean that the White House struggles to pass its agenda. Gridlock in Washington will increase uncertainty about U.S. economic intentions and therefore depress growth in the final three quarters of 2017. All of which means efforts to boost the U.S. economy to 3% annual growth by 2019 could still flounder.

One ominous sign that all is not well in America is the news that Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rossello announced on Wednesday May 3 that he was requesting a Title III proceeding from the U.S. territory’s federal financial oversight board. Title III is an an in-court debt restructuring process akin to a U.S. Bankruptcy; the governor’s request comes a day after several large creditors started legal action against the territory’s government for defaulting on $70 billion worth of debts.

The post Outlook for the U.S. Economy is Shaky in the Trump Era appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In the latest display of Beijing’s growing naval prowess, Chinese officials last month celebrated the launch of the country’s first home-built aircraft carrier. While the ship will not enter active service until 2020, the lavish ceremony surrounding the launch sent a clear message to the world that China’s burgeoning naval defense industry is becoming increasingly sophisticated.

Once fitted out with the latest seafaring technology and maritime weaponry, the ship will join a repurposed Soviet-era carrier China bought second hand from Ukraine and launched in 2012.

Together, these vessels will help Beijing boost its presence on the increasingly overcrowded waters in and around the South China Sea, where neighboring countries continue to squabble over natural resources, islands and shipping routes.

While the two carriers will be no match for those operated globally by the U.S. once they are both in active service, they will provide China with a distinct advantage over regional rivals. No other littoral country involved in the South China Sea territorial disputes is able to project a similar degree of force.

The U.S. still outweighs China’s navy with its 10 aircraft carriers currently in operation, but analysts have suggested the two vessels will allow Beijing to go toe-to-toe with the American navy in the Asia-Pacific region, owing to the fact that the U.S. has military responsibilities elsewhere in the world that consistently tie-up its resources. Lessons learned from the construction of its first aircraft carrier will likely help China build others, making the process of bringing future vessels to combat readiness in a shorter space of time much easier.

In a move that further augmented Beijing’s power projection capability, China also recently completed work on three major military bases on artificial islands in the South China Sea, allowing Chinese military aircraft to operate over all of its waters. However, for Chinese military experts these efforts are not nearly enough.

According to local media, the military is calling for at least six aircraft carriers and 10 bases across the globe to cement China’s foothold in other regions of the world and execute missions in tune with becoming a naval superpower. These bases would be located in regions were the Chinese have “concentrated interests”, such as Pakistan.

Yet thus far, Beijing has found only one country willing to allow the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to use its land for this purpose. China built its first military base abroad in the small African state of Djibouti, securing access to the Indian Ocean, and allowing the Chinese military to better protect the growing investments Beijing continues to make in a number of African nations.

The base represents the PLA’s move away from homeland defense to the protection of Chinese interests overseas, and is very much a symbol of things to come. When the base was confirmed, China’s regional rivals were quick to voice concerns that the development looked more like an aggressive military build-up, rather than the construction of a “logistics and fast evacuation base,” as claimed by Beijing.

Far from being a strategic outpost with little geopolitical significance, the building of China’s Djibouti base has pitched Beijing directly against the U.S, which has its own naval facility in the small African state.

Djibouti’s autocratic ruler Ismael Guelleh welcomed the building of the Chinese base after the Chinese government invested billions of dollars into his country, which helped him pay legal bills from pursuing a political rival abroad. Beijing also committed to pay $20 million annually for use of the site, while Guelleh forced the US to leave one of its naval facilities.

Unsurprisingly, U.S. officials are worried the close proximity of China’s base to its own Camp Lemonnier facility will allow Beijing to monitor U.S. counterterrorism operations in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.

For its part, Beijing insists the PLA’s expansionist behavior is merely defensive, and that the building out of its military capability and search for naval outposts serves the protection of China’s national sovereignty and interests overseas.

Despite this, developments within the military speak another language. It is becoming increasingly clear that China’s military is broadening its mission as China is no longer downplaying the role of its Djibouti camp as logistical and anti-piracy base, but hinting at roles beyond anti-piracy.

Simultaneously, the PLA is boosting its rapid deployment marine corps from 20,000 to 100,000 as part of a push to increase its military presence in the Indian Ocean. The move is one aspect of a wider plan to refocus the PLA’s resources away from land forces to specialized units able to respond to a range of security threats.

While it will likely be decades before China fulfills its ambition of rounding out its aircraft carrier fleet to at least six vessels and creating more overseas naval bases, the scale of its plans indicate that Beijing is behaving more and more like a confident great power.

By expanding its land reclamation activities in the contested waters of the South China Sea and rapidly improving the PLA’s global clout, China is reinforcing its claim to the title as the most powerful and influential nation in the Asia-Pacific. Make no mistake: this is but a prelude of things to come.

The post With Its Second Aircraft Carrier, China Extends its Global Reach appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In the latest display of Beijing’s growing naval prowess, Chinese officials last month celebrated the launch of the country’s first home-built aircraft carrier. While the ship will not enter active service until 2020, the lavish ceremony surrounding the launch sent a clear message to the world that China’s burgeoning naval defense industry is becoming increasingly sophisticated.

Once fitted out with the latest seafaring technology and maritime weaponry, the ship will join a repurposed Soviet-era carrier China bought second hand from Ukraine and launched in 2012.

Together, these vessels will help Beijing boost its presence on the increasingly overcrowded waters in and around the South China Sea, where neighboring countries continue to squabble over natural resources, islands and shipping routes.

While the two carriers will be no match for those operated globally by the U.S. once they are both in active service, they will provide China with a distinct advantage over regional rivals. No other littoral country involved in the South China Sea territorial disputes is able to project a similar degree of force.

The U.S. still outweighs China’s navy with its 10 aircraft carriers currently in operation, but analysts have suggested the two vessels will allow Beijing to go toe-to-toe with the American navy in the Asia-Pacific region, owing to the fact that the U.S. has military responsibilities elsewhere in the world that consistently tie-up its resources. Lessons learned from the construction of its first aircraft carrier will likely help China build others, making the process of bringing future vessels to combat readiness in a shorter space of time much easier.

In a move that further augmented Beijing’s power projection capability, China also recently completed work on three major military bases on artificial islands in the South China Sea, allowing Chinese military aircraft to operate over all of its waters. However, for Chinese military experts these efforts are not nearly enough.

According to local media, the military is calling for at least six aircraft carriers and 10 bases across the globe to cement China’s foothold in other regions of the world and execute missions in tune with becoming a naval superpower. These bases would be located in regions were the Chinese have “concentrated interests”, such as Pakistan.

Yet thus far, Beijing has found only one country willing to allow the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to use its land for this purpose. China built its first military base abroad in the small African state of Djibouti, securing access to the Indian Ocean, and allowing the Chinese military to better protect the growing investments Beijing continues to make in a number of African nations.

The base represents the PLA’s move away from homeland defense to the protection of Chinese interests overseas, and is very much a symbol of things to come. When the base was confirmed, China’s regional rivals were quick to voice concerns that the development looked more like an aggressive military build-up, rather than the construction of a “logistics and fast evacuation base,” as claimed by Beijing.

Far from being a strategic outpost with little geopolitical significance, the building of China’s Djibouti base has pitched Beijing directly against the U.S, which has its own naval facility in the small African state.

Djibouti’s autocratic ruler Ismael Guelleh welcomed the building of the Chinese base after the Chinese government invested billions of dollars into his country, which helped him pay legal bills from pursuing a political rival abroad. Beijing also committed to pay $20 million annually for use of the site, while Guelleh forced the US to leave one of its naval facilities.

Unsurprisingly, U.S. officials are worried the close proximity of China’s base to its own Camp Lemonnier facility will allow Beijing to monitor U.S. counterterrorism operations in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.

For its part, Beijing insists the PLA’s expansionist behavior is merely defensive, and that the building out of its military capability and search for naval outposts serves the protection of China’s national sovereignty and interests overseas.

Despite this, developments within the military speak another language. It is becoming increasingly clear that China’s military is broadening its mission as China is no longer downplaying the role of its Djibouti camp as logistical and anti-piracy base, but hinting at roles beyond anti-piracy.

Simultaneously, the PLA is boosting its rapid deployment marine corps from 20,000 to 100,000 as part of a push to increase its military presence in the Indian Ocean. The move is one aspect of a wider plan to refocus the PLA’s resources away from land forces to specialized units able to respond to a range of security threats.

While it will likely be decades before China fulfills its ambition of rounding out its aircraft carrier fleet to at least six vessels and creating more overseas naval bases, the scale of its plans indicate that Beijing is behaving more and more like a confident great power.

By expanding its land reclamation activities in the contested waters of the South China Sea and rapidly improving the PLA’s global clout, China is reinforcing its claim to the title as the most powerful and influential nation in the Asia-Pacific. Make no mistake: this is but a prelude of things to come.

The post With Its Second Aircraft Carrier, China Extends its Global Reach appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In Da Nang, a coastal city in the center of Vietnam, locals and tourists alike flock every night to Be Anh, one of the city’s most popular seafood restaurants. Many diners are oblivious to the toxic waste spill last April which killed over 100 tons of fish along a 200-kilometer coastline just north of the city.

The release of chemicals, including cyanide, phenols and iron hydroxide was eventually blamed on a steel mill waste pipeline in Hà Tĩnh owned by Taiwan’s Formosa Plastics Group. The steel mill was later cited for more than 50 violations, with the company promising to pay $500 million in compensation.

Vietnam’s environmental ministry has stated it will take at least a decade for the region to recover from the spill.

Others diners are mindful of the effects, but insist the pollution does not extend into Da Nang’s waters and the seafood they eat, as tourists flocked to the beaches over the holiday celebrating Vietnam’s Reunification Day (April 30) and International Workers’ Day (May 1). Still others have not forgotten, and continue the protests which rocked major cities throughout Vietnam in April and May of last year.

Marking the first anniversary of the spill, protesters in the town of Kỳ Anh blocked the country’s main highway the first week of April. Some 100 Vietnamese used fishing nets, bricks and heavy rocks to block the highway, reportedly delaying thousands of vehicles. Vietnam’s government promised to identify and prosecute protesters for “causing public disorder”. In Ho Chi Minh City, the streets were quiet that same week with few security personnel on guard.

While Vietnamese government officials promise to prosecute instigators of protests, such as Nguyễn Văn Hóa, a 22-year-old resident of Kỳ Anh (arrested for using a flycam to record and publish protests), they also punished four high-ranking government officials for their lack of supervision over environmental safety.

Nguyễn Minh Quang, the former environmental minister, was rebuked and two of his deputies were fired.  Võ Kim Cự, the 60-year old party chief secretary of Hà Tĩnh province, was also fired and has offered his resignation as a delegate of the lawmaking National Assembly, citing “health reasons.”

While the threat of punishment may help deter future environmental disasters and increase oversight, Vietnamese officials are also responding to citizens’ concerns over future pollution. Starting in April, officials in Ho Chi Minh City are installing a network of 53 outdoor LED boards throughout the city which will allow residents to monitor air and water quality in real time. The LED boards will display levels of nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, as well as the water quality of rivers and canals, and levels of noise pollution.

The U.S. Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City already publishes air quality readings from its own monitor on this website, as Vietnam experiences worsening air pollution, resulting in a rising number of Vietnamese being hospitalized for respiratory illnesses.

The city’s efforts to improve citizens’ access to information regarding their quality of living is laudable, but more effort needs to be done in other cities and poorer provinces to ensure local officials at the provincial level pay heed to environmental laws. Vietnam is growing quickly, drawing in manufacturing from many countries, including China, and will need strict vigilance to assure its residents that this developing country will not repeat the mistakes of its neighbor in the north.

The post One Year On From Vietnam’s Worst Environmental Disaster appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In Da Nang, a coastal city in the center of Vietnam, locals and tourists alike flock every night to Be Anh, one of the city’s most popular seafood restaurants. Many diners are oblivious to the toxic waste spill last April which killed over 100 tons of fish along a 200-kilometer coastline just north of the city.

The release of chemicals, including cyanide, phenols and iron hydroxide was eventually blamed on a steel mill waste pipeline in Hà Tĩnh owned by Taiwan’s Formosa Plastics Group. The steel mill was later cited for more than 50 violations, with the company promising to pay $500 million in compensation.

Vietnam’s environmental ministry has stated it will take at least a decade for the region to recover from the spill.

Others diners are mindful of the effects, but insist the pollution does not extend into Da Nang’s waters and the seafood they eat, as tourists flocked to the beaches over the holiday celebrating Vietnam’s Reunification Day (April 30) and International Workers’ Day (May 1). Still others have not forgotten, and continue the protests which rocked major cities throughout Vietnam in April and May of last year.

Marking the first anniversary of the spill, protesters in the town of Kỳ Anh blocked the country’s main highway the first week of April. Some 100 Vietnamese used fishing nets, bricks and heavy rocks to block the highway, reportedly delaying thousands of vehicles. Vietnam’s government promised to identify and prosecute protesters for “causing public disorder”. In Ho Chi Minh City, the streets were quiet that same week with few security personnel on guard.

While Vietnamese government officials promise to prosecute instigators of protests, such as Nguyễn Văn Hóa, a 22-year-old resident of Kỳ Anh (arrested for using a flycam to record and publish protests), they also punished four high-ranking government officials for their lack of supervision over environmental safety.

Nguyễn Minh Quang, the former environmental minister, was rebuked and two of his deputies were fired.  Võ Kim Cự, the 60-year old party chief secretary of Hà Tĩnh province, was also fired and has offered his resignation as a delegate of the lawmaking National Assembly, citing “health reasons.”

While the threat of punishment may help deter future environmental disasters and increase oversight, Vietnamese officials are also responding to citizens’ concerns over future pollution. Starting in April, officials in Ho Chi Minh City are installing a network of 53 outdoor LED boards throughout the city which will allow residents to monitor air and water quality in real time. The LED boards will display levels of nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, as well as the water quality of rivers and canals, and levels of noise pollution.

The U.S. Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City already publishes air quality readings from its own monitor on this website, as Vietnam experiences worsening air pollution, resulting in a rising number of Vietnamese being hospitalized for respiratory illnesses.

The city’s efforts to improve citizens’ access to information regarding their quality of living is laudable, but more effort needs to be done in other cities and poorer provinces to ensure local officials at the provincial level pay heed to environmental laws. Vietnam is growing quickly, drawing in manufacturing from many countries, including China, and will need strict vigilance to assure its residents that this developing country will not repeat the mistakes of its neighbor in the north.

The post One Year On From Vietnam’s Worst Environmental Disaster appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Venezuelans block a street in the capital Caracas in protest of President Nicolas Maduro and his increasingly autocratic rule. Protesters are demanding that open elections be held soon, although the regime is resisting this. (Marco Bello/Reuters)

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro continues to crack down on opposition and protests to his increasingly authoritarian government. As pressure mounts both inside and outside the country amid widespread protests and violent outbreaks, citizens continue to suffer as Maduro clings to power. The government also continues to try to delay holding elections, likely out of concern (and it is valid concern) that they might actually lose.

I wrote about the origins of the present unrest on April 13th. The country’s Supreme Court tried to assume powers of the National Assembly, and the regime declared a major opposition figure–Henrique Capriles, considered a front-runner in the next presidential election–ineligible to run for office. In the time since, marches and protests have become ever-present. Maduro regularly dismisses them as baseless efforts to foment violence and topple his government. Marchers are typically cut off by government-backed security forces. Also, Maduro has directed the Caracas subway system to be closed when protests are planned in order to make it more difficult for participants to gather.

The overwhelming majority of international response has been in support of the opposition. On April 19th, 11 Latin American countries issued a joint statement urging the Venezuelan government to set a timeframe for holding elections in order to “allow for a quick solution to the crisis that Venezuela is living through.”

Antagonism with the U.S. grew further on April 20th when General Motors announced it would be ceasing all operations in Venezuela. The move resulted from government authorities seizing control of GM’s auto manufacturing plant in the city of Valencia, along with bank accounts and other assets. This high-profile rebuke of a major American business is likely to have repercussions in both countries. GM employs almost 4,000 people in Venezuela, mostly at car and truck dealerships. On the same day, protests raged in Caracas and were met by tear gas and rubber bullets.

Shows of discontent against the Maduro regime continued on April 24th, when thousands of protestors in Caracas and other cities gathered on highways and other main streets, sitting down in the middle of roads and refusing to move, bringing traffic to a standstill. Violent encounters with security forces continued, bringing the total of Venezuelans killed since this wave of protests began to 23. The protests and ensuing violence have only increased in intensity in the month since the Supreme Court attempted its takeover.

By April 28th, the death toll rose to 29, as protests shifted in a different direction. On that day hundreds marched to the jail holding Leopoldo Lopez, a highly regarded opposition leader who was arrested in 2014 for instigating violence. Of course Lopez’s supporters maintain he is a political prisoner convicted on bogus charges. While state police blocked access to the prison, those supporting Lopez held a rally outside, shouting “Leopoldo” and holding signs saying “No to Dictatorship.”

***

While the violence perpetrated by government forces is deplorable and debilitating, it does like the opposition is gaining momentum. Protests show no sign of slowing down, and international support is largely on the side of the resistance. Plus according to Reuters, the opposition coalition in the National Assembly now has “majority support.”

Yet many challenges remain. Maduro seems unwilliing relinquish any power, and has done everything he can to prevent Capriles from running against him in the next election. Change will not be easy.

But it seems Venezuelans think change is worth fighting for. A presidential election must be held within a reasonable time, with support of independent monitors to ensure fairness. If the present is allowed to continue, it is hard to see how Venezuelans’ life will be able to improve.

The post Venezuela: Tensions High as Showdown Looms appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Venezuelans block a street in the capital Caracas in protest of President Nicolas Maduro and his increasingly autocratic rule. Protesters are demanding that open elections be held soon, although the regime is resisting this. (Marco Bello/Reuters)

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro continues to crack down on opposition and protests to his increasingly authoritarian government. As pressure mounts both inside and outside the country amid widespread protests and violent outbreaks, citizens continue to suffer as Maduro clings to power. The government also continues to try to delay holding elections, likely out of concern (and it is valid concern) that they might actually lose.

I wrote about the origins of the present unrest on April 13th. The country’s Supreme Court tried to assume powers of the National Assembly, and the regime declared a major opposition figure–Henrique Capriles, considered a front-runner in the next presidential election–ineligible to run for office. In the time since, marches and protests have become ever-present. Maduro regularly dismisses them as baseless efforts to foment violence and topple his government. Marchers are typically cut off by government-backed security forces. Also, Maduro has directed the Caracas subway system to be closed when protests are planned in order to make it more difficult for participants to gather.

The overwhelming majority of international response has been in support of the opposition. On April 19th, 11 Latin American countries issued a joint statement urging the Venezuelan government to set a timeframe for holding elections in order to “allow for a quick solution to the crisis that Venezuela is living through.”

Antagonism with the U.S. grew further on April 20th when General Motors announced it would be ceasing all operations in Venezuela. The move resulted from government authorities seizing control of GM’s auto manufacturing plant in the city of Valencia, along with bank accounts and other assets. This high-profile rebuke of a major American business is likely to have repercussions in both countries. GM employs almost 4,000 people in Venezuela, mostly at car and truck dealerships. On the same day, protests raged in Caracas and were met by tear gas and rubber bullets.

Shows of discontent against the Maduro regime continued on April 24th, when thousands of protestors in Caracas and other cities gathered on highways and other main streets, sitting down in the middle of roads and refusing to move, bringing traffic to a standstill. Violent encounters with security forces continued, bringing the total of Venezuelans killed since this wave of protests began to 23. The protests and ensuing violence have only increased in intensity in the month since the Supreme Court attempted its takeover.

By April 28th, the death toll rose to 29, as protests shifted in a different direction. On that day hundreds marched to the jail holding Leopoldo Lopez, a highly regarded opposition leader who was arrested in 2014 for instigating violence. Of course Lopez’s supporters maintain he is a political prisoner convicted on bogus charges. While state police blocked access to the prison, those supporting Lopez held a rally outside, shouting “Leopoldo” and holding signs saying “No to Dictatorship.”

***

While the violence perpetrated by government forces is deplorable and debilitating, it does like the opposition is gaining momentum. Protests show no sign of slowing down, and international support is largely on the side of the resistance. Plus according to Reuters, the opposition coalition in the National Assembly now has “majority support.”

Yet many challenges remain. Maduro seems unwilliing relinquish any power, and has done everything he can to prevent Capriles from running against him in the next election. Change will not be easy.

But it seems Venezuelans think change is worth fighting for. A presidential election must be held within a reasonable time, with support of independent monitors to ensure fairness. If the present is allowed to continue, it is hard to see how Venezuelans’ life will be able to improve.

The post Venezuela: Tensions High as Showdown Looms appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“On World Press Freedom Day, I call for an end to all crackdowns against journalists – because a free press advances peace and justice for all.” — António Guterres, United Nations Secretary-General(Flickr)

May 3th is World Press Freedom Day. The UN has been celebrating this international day annually since the 1993 proclamation that commemorated the 1991 Declaration of Windhoek. The Declaration of Windhoek is a statement of free press principles, a manifesto written by a group of African journalists. It was an outcome of a UNESCO seminar held in Windhoek, Namibia, calling for the promotion of independent and pluralistic journalism in post-Cold War Africa.

From May 1st to 4th, UNESCO and the Indonesian government will co-organize the main and side events of World Press Freedom Day in Jakarta. This year’s themes, titled Critical Minds for Critical Times will explore the ‘Media’s role in advancing peaceful, just and inclusive societies’. Unlike Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the 16th goal of the UN’s post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) recognizes the importance of the role of a free press in promoting inclusive and democratic governance. Reflecting this highlighted function of the free press in actualizing an agenda, the themes will focus on the three essential preconditions that shape the free press as a catalyst for the promotion of peace around the globe.

First, that a legal framework protecting investigative journalism must be built and secured. According to the UNESCO Director-General’s 2016 Report on the Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity, 827 journalists lost their lives while on duty over the last decade, and 8% of these cases remain unresolved. An institutional safety net protecting journalists’ welfare is, thus, in urgent demand. Likewise, as instances of hate speech and violent extremism are increasingly prevalent these days, the implementation of regulatory measures to pre-empt such harmful incidents are more pressing than ever.

Second, journalists must always comply with high ethical standards. They should always impartially convey the reality of conflict situations, free from the political influence of involved parties.

Lastly, tools that enable participatory democracy through Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) should be further strengthened. Online platforms not only provide low-cost access to information, but they also give the opportunity to exercise freedom of expression for netizens, thereby fostering transnational and intercultural democratization.

The fact that the free press’ current situation could be considered grave on a global scale, make it worth following up on the activities of this year’s World Press Freedom Day. According to the recently released 2017 World Press Freedom Index, an annual publication by Reporters without Borders, the global landscape of journalism has entered into a transitional phase in the post-2016 political climate, reaching a dangerous tipping point for the status of the free press.

Instances of state-sanctioned terror against the free press have soared 14% over the past five years, and nearly two out of three countries showed signs of deterioration in the quality of the free press compared to last year’s index. Remarkably, the index shows that the advent of so-called ‘post-truth politics’, fake news and ‘strongman’ leadership have greatly reduced the free press status of established democracies.

The post May 3rd: World Press Freedom Day appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“On World Press Freedom Day, I call for an end to all crackdowns against journalists – because a free press advances peace and justice for all.” — António Guterres, United Nations Secretary-General(Flickr)

May 3th is World Press Freedom Day. The UN has been celebrating this international day annually since the 1993 proclamation that commemorated the 1991 Declaration of Windhoek. The Declaration of Windhoek is a statement of free press principles, a manifesto written by a group of African journalists. It was an outcome of a UNESCO seminar held in Windhoek, Namibia, calling for the promotion of independent and pluralistic journalism in post-Cold War Africa.

From May 1st to 4th, UNESCO and the Indonesian government will co-organize the main and side events of World Press Freedom Day in Jakarta. This year’s themes, titled Critical Minds for Critical Times will explore the ‘Media’s role in advancing peaceful, just and inclusive societies’. Unlike Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the 16th goal of the UN’s post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) recognizes the importance of the role of a free press in promoting inclusive and democratic governance. Reflecting this highlighted function of the free press in actualizing an agenda, the themes will focus on the three essential preconditions that shape the free press as a catalyst for the promotion of peace around the globe.

First, that a legal framework protecting investigative journalism must be built and secured. According to the UNESCO Director-General’s 2016 Report on the Safety of Journalists and the Danger of Impunity, 827 journalists lost their lives while on duty over the last decade, and 8% of these cases remain unresolved. An institutional safety net protecting journalists’ welfare is, thus, in urgent demand. Likewise, as instances of hate speech and violent extremism are increasingly prevalent these days, the implementation of regulatory measures to pre-empt such harmful incidents are more pressing than ever.

Second, journalists must always comply with high ethical standards. They should always impartially convey the reality of conflict situations, free from the political influence of involved parties.

Lastly, tools that enable participatory democracy through Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) should be further strengthened. Online platforms not only provide low-cost access to information, but they also give the opportunity to exercise freedom of expression for netizens, thereby fostering transnational and intercultural democratization.

The fact that the free press’ current situation could be considered grave on a global scale, make it worth following up on the activities of this year’s World Press Freedom Day. According to the recently released 2017 World Press Freedom Index, an annual publication by Reporters without Borders, the global landscape of journalism has entered into a transitional phase in the post-2016 political climate, reaching a dangerous tipping point for the status of the free press.

Instances of state-sanctioned terror against the free press have soared 14% over the past five years, and nearly two out of three countries showed signs of deterioration in the quality of the free press compared to last year’s index. Remarkably, the index shows that the advent of so-called ‘post-truth politics’, fake news and ‘strongman’ leadership have greatly reduced the free press status of established democracies.

The post May 3rd: World Press Freedom Day appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

North Korean military parade celebrating the 105th birthday anniversary of Kim Il Sung

The U.S. has recently attempted to leverage China in order to help it solve the North Korean situation. The thinking is that China is the only state with significant economic clout to affect North Korea’s policy-making process. Additionally, an improved trade treaty with China has been offered by the U.S. as an incentive. While the individual merits of this approach may be debatable, it doesn’t acknowledge the possibility of additionally utilizing Russia to help resolve the crisis.

Russia’s Place In Asian Security

Because of the current downturn in U.S.-Russia relations post-Crimea, Russia’s role in the Six-Party Talks process has been minimally acknowledged by the U.S., if it all. Certainly, while Russia doesn’t possess the economic heft of the Chinese in potentially dealing with North Korea, it does possess similar security concerns as China.

Russia has an implicit agreement with China not to interfere in one another’s respective spheres of influence, such as Chinese apparent deference to Russian security interests in Central Asia. However, it’s critical to remember that Russia has Asia-Pacific interests as well. Like the Chinese, one of these is eventual de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Succinctly, further nuclearization and militarization of the Korean Peninsula has the potential to start a cascade effect in the overall Northeast Asian security decision-making process. Japan has already started a review of its defense posture in the region in order to respond to China’s rise. What additional steps may it take if the North Korean Crisis continues on its current trajectory?

More fundamentally, Russia shares China’s concern that further North Korean provocations will only bring U.S. military forces closer to their borders. This is neither in Russia nor China’s ultimate interest. Lastly, Russia shares China’s concerns that any military conflict with North Korea has the potential to cause instability and increased migrant flows across their shared border.

A rough analogy can be made between Belarus in Europe and North Korea in the Asia-Pacific in terms of how both serve overall Russian strategic interests. As during the Cold War, both Belarus and North Korea currently serve as buffer zones between Russia and the West. This North Korean utility is the latest chapter in the book of Russian security interests in Asia going back 400 years to the initial era of Russian expansion into Siberia.

How, Then, To Approach Russia?

As with China, there may be an opportunity for the U.S. to leverage Russian unease with the proximity of U.S. forces on its Asian border in order to elicit its help in resolving the crisis. Russia is already uncomfortable with NATO forces massing on the border of its Kaliningrad enclave in Europe. However, the U.S. would have to make it clear to Russia how their mutual interests would be solved by working together. Any U.S. dialogue with Russia focusing only on how the North Korean situation affects the U.S., Japan, and South Korea would be a non-starter.

The economic component of this possible avenue must not be overlooked as well. The U.S. has apparently convinced China of the necessity of strengthening economic sanctions against North Korea. An example of this new approach is China’s recent refusal to accept North Korean coal exports, vital to China’s own economic stance.

However, with respect to Russia, any U.S. talk of strengthening sanctions against North Korea when Russia itself is still facing Western sanctions over Crimea would be an additional deal-breaker. Economic duress caused by continuing Russian sanctions has had ramifications all across Europe, surely impacting the current French Presidential elections, as an example. Russia definitely does not need any further sources of instability right now, politically or economically.

Japan As A Possible Middleman

Additionally, Japan may not share the U.S.’ current approach to confrontation with North Korea. Of course, North Korean nuclear ambitions are a concern to Japan. However, China’s rise outranks even this concern. In order to deal more effectively with China, Japan has realized that it needs to improve relations with Russia. Likewise, Russia realizes that cooperation with Japan would improve its overall Asia-Pacific security portfolio with respect to China’s ascendancy.

Because of this, there may be an opportunity for the U.S. to utilize Japan as a middleman of sorts in negotiations with Russia to attempt to resolve the North Korean dilemma. Certainly, the U.S. still has limited direct negotiations with Russia, such as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s recent visit to Moscow over the Syrian Crisis. However, while there still are disputes between Russia and Japan, such as the Kuril Islands, Russo-Japanese relations remain better than current U.S.-Russia relations overall.

It has been speculated that Russia inserted itself as a major player, both diplomatically and militarily, into the Syrian Crisis in order to gain concessions from the U.S., such as sanctions relief over Ukraine. If this is true, then from the U.S. perspective, there is a risk that Russia might try the same approach with the now-defunct Six-Party Talks to gain additional leverage with the U.S. (and Japan).

However, not seeking Russian help in resolving the Ukraine Crisis, Syrian Crisis, and now North Korean Crisis may ultimately prove unsustainable for the U.S.. A choice is going to have to made by the U.S. as to which of these various crises really threaten U.S. interests in the long-term. With the apparent answer being the North Korean Crisis, Russian assistance in resolving it will be even more indispensable.

The post North Korea Offers an Opportunity for U.S.-Russia Collaboration appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

(Shanghai Century Publishing Group meets with Shanghai Communist Youth League)

In a bid to raise student math scores while ingratiating itself ever more deeply with China, Britain will now import translated Chinese math textbooks and Chinese teaching methods for schools throughout the country. The wholesale adoption of Chinese teaching methods for math is the brainchild of Britain’s China-happy schools minister Nick Gibb; and emphasizes a “collective approach,” uniformity, and Chinese-style rote learning over individualized Western methods. Textbooks will be imported through a deal between HarperCollins Publishers and a publisher in Shanghai. The deal was lauded in Shanghai as a “delightful” soft-power boost for China.

What HarperCollins and the UK education department haven’t told the British public about “The Shanghai Maths Project” is that these textbooks come straight from a Chinese state-run publisher that operates under the direct authority of the Chinese Communist Party’s propaganda and censorship apparatus. The publisher in question is Shanghai Century Publishing Group (上海世纪出版 [集团] 有限公司 or 上海世纪出版集团, SHCPG). As the SHCPG website clearly states in Chinese, the group was established in 1999 under the authority of the Communist Party’s Central Propaganda Department (中共中央宣传部), the Shanghai Municipal Communist Party Committee (中共上海市委), and the State Council’s Press and Publication Administration (新闻出版总署).

SHCPG’s subordinate relationship to these agencies is widely noted in Chinese media reports on SHCPG and its agreement with HarperCollins. SHCPG’s president, Gao Yunfei (高韵斐), is also the organization’s Communist Party secretary. As the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China observes, the Press and Publication Administration that oversees SHCPG is one of the primary agencies responsible for censorship in China.

SHCPG also works closely with the Communist Youth League (中国共产主义青年团 or 中国共青团), the party agency responsible for indoctrinating Chinese youth from primary school through university. The SHCPG website includes a section dedicated entirely to “Youth League Activities.”

In Shanghai in August 2016, SHCPG prominently took part in a state-run book fair to “promote the core values of Chinese socialism” and to commemorate the 95th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. Among the titles SHCPG promoted at the fair was: To Be Turned Into Iron, The Metal Itself Must Be Strong: How to Be a Member of the Communist Party (打铁还需自身硬: 今天如何做一名合格的共产党员). In 2015, SHCPG marked the 94th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party with awards for “outstanding party workers and party-building projects” within the organization.

Now SHCPG will be supplying textbooks to students in British schools. As China Global Television Network notes, “These textbooks, created for students in China, will be translated exactly with no editing to adjust them to the UK’s local curriculum.” Britain is simply importing Chinese government curriculum lock, stock, and barrel, with translated textbooks from a state-run Chinese Communist Party publisher.

Not everyone in Britain is as happy about this arrangement as Nick Gibb and HarperCollins are. “Why are we blindly following the Chinese approach to teaching maths?” asks British educational scholar Ruth Merttens, “A one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to improve children’s learning. Worse still, it undermines more important features of our culture and heritage, where we punch above our weight in creativity and celebrate originality and difference rather than uniformity.”

Merttens called the education department’s mandatory application of Chinese teaching methods “profoundly undemocratic.” No wonder, since China and the Chinese educational system that Britain so wishes to emulate are also profoundly undemocratic.

The Shanghai textbook deal follows a “disastrous experiment” in bringing math teachers from Shanghai to instruct British students according to Chinese methods. “I’m used to speaking my mind in class, being bold, giving ideas, often working in groups to advance my skills and improve my knowledge,” said one student, “But a lot of the time in the experiment, the only thing I felt I was learning was how to copy notes really fast and listen to the teacher lecture us.”

Beyond the issue of Chinese school textbooks and teaching methods, the British government has been broadly criticized for its starry-eyed approach to Sino-British relations and its apparent love affair with any and all things Chinese. Current prime minister Theresa May and former prime minister David Cameron have both been accused of  “grovelling,” “kowtowing,” and “sucking up” to China in pursuit of trade deals with the one-party state. Among Brexit fears is the concern that Britain will become only more dependent on China after leaving the European Union.

Math textbooks are of course unlikely to contain a great deal of overtly political content. But if it’s math textbooks today, one might reasonably ask, then what will it be tomorrow? Chinese language and culture programs at educational institutions throughout the UK are already run by the Chinese government’s Confucius Institutes, a noted part of Beijing’s “overseas propaganda” apparatus whose presence on Western campuses has been described as “academic malware” and as an educational “Trojan horse” due to their censorship practices and overtly propagandist character. Is it wise to give the Chinese government an even greater footprint in British education?

One might reasonably also question the moral acceptability of a publishing deal that directly profits and legitimizes a party-state apparatus recognized as one of the worst human rights violators in the world. To purchase textbooks from a Chinese Communist Party publisher is to enrich and validate the same party-state agencies that suppress freedom of expression, freedom of information, and academic freedom in China. “The Shanghai Maths Project” is one that educational stakeholders in Britain may wish to think twice about.

The post Britain to Import School Textbooks from Chinese Communist Party Publisher appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

When the Kremlin decided to meddle in the U.S. election in favor of Trump, it nurtured the hope of a reset in bilateral ties with Western Europe and the United States. The idea of a U.S. President as the leader of the populist movements rising in the West was seen as an advantageous scenario for Moscow.

As disillusionment over Trump’s alleged pro-Russian view is growing at home, Putin might return to the  “besieged fortress” narrative domestically in order to secure his upcoming reelection.

In Russia, the wave of populism throughout Europe and the United States was considered as a victory over the West.  Brexit, the rise of right-wing parties across the EU and Trump—all seem to be proof that the conservative ideology originated in the Kremlin to take on “false” liberal democratic values is partly shared with Western countries. As liberal values in the West were defeated, rise of populism was depicted as people’s rebellion against own corrupt governments thanks to Russia’s efforts.

The strike on al-Shayrat air base and Washington’s sudden interventionist approach to Syria caught the Kremlin’s strategists off guard. It seemed that Trump had distanced himself from his “America First” isolationism and for many in Russia it appeared as if Trump had reneged on his campaign promises.

Trump’s decision to get tough on Russia would be the ultimate failure of the Kremlin’s foreign policies goals and a personal defeat for Vladimir Putin. This is particularly worrisome considering next year’s presidential elections next year and the growing protests with already brought people on the streets last March.

Nevertheless, Trump’s policy towards Syria might bring both nations together, for a cause of a good war against ISIS, the scenario of a proxy conflict now seems more plausible. Many in Russia actually fearing that Syria might turn into another Vietnam when the Soviets fought along the Viet Cong against the Americans. With more American strikes possibly following, and presence of US ground troops expanding – the Kremlin grows cautious of avoiding a quagmire that will not go well domestically.

For the past year, Russian state-media consistently depicted Trump as a friend and one of “ours”, while its recent statements and actions put it into hot water. Regardless speculations that Trump decided to strike Syria because of its collapsing ratings domestically and sweeping accusations of his assistants’ connections to the Russian government – the new image of Trump is taking over the country’s media landscape.

State-media now draws Trump as incompetent in handling Russia and other global issues; while genuinely unfit to serve as a president. He is likewise presented as a victim of the neoconservatives such as Steve Bannon, or falling under the influence of America’s “deep state” or his democratic-leaning daughter – Ivanka.

During the recent evening with Vladimir Solovyev, Russia’s major and state-controlled political talk show, some of the participants even expressed feeling of missing Obama’s days while describing Trump.

Switching depiction of Trump goes along with new messages resurrecting for the Putin 2018 presidential campaign. As most of the media agenda is heavily regulated by the state, it is vital to stop presenting Trump as “one of ours” but rather as an incompetent president who might trigger the world war three, as also betraying Russia’s sincere hopes and benign efforts for better bilateral relations.

For the Russian state-media there are few options left now but to return to the “besieged fortress” imagery. In fact, the choice is a blessing in disguise for Putin.

Image of being a victorious leader could have secured an easy reelection but likewise made Russians to stop rallying around the flag and instead scrutinizing other troubling issues such as rampant corruption. Recently, Alexey Navalny’s, Russia’s major opposition figure, disclosed a massive corruption scheme of the Prime-Minister Dmitriy Medvedev by posting findings on YouTube. The public response was massive and caused a heated wave of protests countrywide that rattled the Kremlin.

If the West is finally defeated, it is going to be harder to deter attention from domestic problems. In contrast, resumed hostility augments opportunities for self-victimization and emergence of a public narrative of being under attack. Expressing the unquestionable support for the experienced commander-in-chief remains the sole option for withstanding enemies while fighting corruption could be postponed.

The post Trump’s Foreign Policy Helps Putin’s Reelection Plan appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana tours the Philippine-claimed Thitu Island during his visit to the Spratlys Group of islands off the disputed South China Sea in western Philippines Friday, April 21, 2017. (AP/Bullit Marquez)

After bowing to Beijing’s request to retract his threat to plant a flag on Pag-asa (Thitu) Island over Philippine Independence Day on June 12, the mercurial Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte has likely angered the Chinese again.

Immediately after his retraction, his military announced on April 16 its plans to hold ten days of joint military exercises with U.S. troops in May. Duterte then sent his defense secretary, Delfin Lorenzana, his military chief of staff General Eduardo Ano and about 40 journalists, to tour Thitu Island on April 21 in an apparent show of sovereignty over the disputed island.

Before landing, the Philippine C-130 military aircraft received a warning from Chinese forces to leave the airspace. In conjunction with the visit, plans were announced to invest $32 million in upgrading the island’s military infrastructure, including the upgrading of its runway. Filipino troops have been stationed on Thitu since the 1960s.

The move to again engage the Americans comes after months of heated anti-U.S. rhetoric from Duterte since he assumed office last summer. Duterte has long mistrusted the U.S., recently lambasted the presence of American troops, called for the end of joint military exercises, and even called for a “separation” from the U.S. while courting billions of aid and investment from Beijing last October. “I announce my separation from the United States both in the military… not social, but economics also,” he told the Chinese in Beijing, “so I will be dependent on you for a long time.”

The military exercises, known as Balikatan (Shoulder-to-Shoulder), are held every year, but this year will not involve any live-fire exercises or simulations of protecting territory, such as the disputed islands with China (China seized Mischief Reef from Manila beginning in 1994 and took Scarborough Shoal in early 2012). Rather, the exercises among some 5,000 American and Filipino soldiers will be limited to disaster and humanitarian responses and counter-terrorism efforts.

The toning down of the military exercises (and his promise not to plant a flag) are likely appeasements to Beijing, where Duterte intends to meet Chinese president Xi Jinping in May. But Beijing cannot be happy about the military cooperation with the U.S. and the defense secretary’s visit to Thitu island. For now, Filipino fishing boats, Chinese military vessels and Chinese industrial fishing boats are all operating in the Scarborough Shoal peacefully. But there are recent reports that Filipino fishermen were harassed and driven away by the Chinese Coast Guard from Union Bank in the Spratly archipelago of the South China Sea.

Any slight skirmish there (or elsewhere) could spark a military clash and draw in the U.S. military – which is bound by the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty of 1951 to protect its ally’s islands.

The post Manila Asserts Claims Over South China Sea Island appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

By Robert Elway Study the US economy and its relationship to other countries and you will see two effects of the Federal Reserve’s accommodative monetary policy: higher gold and lower US dollar purchasing power. From January 2003 to March 2017, the Effective Federal Funds Rate (EFFR) dropped by 36% while gold rose 169%, and dollar purchasing power reflects this low-rate environment. One 2017 dollar equals only seventy-five cents in 2003 dollars. The US dollar has remained at 75% purchasing power since 2014, making the nominal prices of goods and services more expensive in the United States than they were fourteen years ago. The Fed’s Impact on International Trade From the perspective of the US, the trade balance increased in 2009 and has remained above 2004-2008 averages since then. Our trade gap with China has gotten larger since 2012, mainly by rises in imports of consumer goods. At least for a time of mass appeal among American consumers, platform-based products like the iPhone can create more production in goods and services than the sum of their parts. In addition to the suppliers of the physical goods used in manufacturing the phone, there is also the platform it creates for an increasingly services-oriented environment indirectly fueled by easy money from central banks around the world. Especially in a low interest rate environment as the US has been experiencing since 2009, importing some goods can create growth in domestic industries like technology-based services. The Fed’s accommodative policies have led to a paucity of traditional returns from US government bonds, which tends to make venture capital and other, often riskier, forms of investing more attractive to the traditionally risk-averse. This leads to pension funds investing in venture capital firms which fund startups that support New Economy jobs. We’ve heard news stories about these jobs, especially with Uber and other apps-turned-employers in the United States–all created, or in the very least facilitated, by a platform that takes advantage of the Chinese-manufactured iPhone and an ever-larger amount of capital looking for above-average return. Rosland Capital’s chart below was compiled using this information on how a lower dollar purchasing power affects precious metals and gold IRAs as well as other dollar-denominated assets. The flat periods show times when the dollar was affected by Ben Bernanke’s monetary policy just before the 2009 recession, along with the Fed’s post-QE policy after 2014. Both resulted in a temporarily stagnating dollar purchasing power. Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) controls for nominal price disparities that result in nations having a different cost of living, allowing for economists to compare multiple countries’ output, usually expressed in terms of International Dollars. This is a unit of currency based on the US dollar’s purchasing power during a specific year that is kept consistent throughout the comparison with other countries. For the example below, purchasing power parity can be derived from GDP or by equating the Consumer Price Indices of individual countries. The PPP exchange rate determines how many US dollars, Chinese yuan, Japanese yen, or euros consumers in their home countries would need to convert to International Dollars in order to equal the same purchasing power as consumers in other countries for a given year.

Using 2017 as a reference year for per capita PPP produces Charts 1 and 2 below.

Chart 1: Higher PPP Chart 2: Lower PPP Growth Back in 2006 and 2007, Chart 2 shows that total PPP per capita for the US, Germany, Japan and China was growing over 30%. In 2009, China, Germany and the US all had decelerating growth while purchasing power parity still grew in Japan. However, Japan’s shrinkage in growth from 2010-2015 had the greatest impact on the overall total. While the pre-financial collapse years saw over-15% growth just from the US and Japan alone, all four countries’ PPP growth barely amounted to this same benchmark by 2015. Robert Elway is a financial analyst at Rosland Capital, a precious metals company that tracks gold pricing, monetary policy and other financial news.

The post The Fed, Trade, and Dollar Purchasing Power appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Paul Manafort meets with Yan Jiehe, March 5 (China Pacific Construction Group; archive).

Former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, currently under investigation for his pro-Russian ties and Russian money laundering, will now be advising Chinese billionaire Yan Jiehe (严介和) on gaining access to lucrative infrastructure projects in the United States according to the Financial Times. Yan is the founder of China Pacific Construction Group (CPCG, 中国太平洋建设集团) and one of the wealthiest men in China (See also Fortune, Huffington Post, Salon, The Week).

Manafort met with Yan in Shanghai on April 11, according to the Financial Times, and was described by Yan as “Trump’s special envoy.” During his visit Manafort was treated to a Huangpu riverboat tour of Shanghai, and indicated that he “would be returning to China within a month for further talks.” Yan clearly indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss access to U.S. infrastructure projects to be funded by the Trump administration to the tune of a trillion dollars.

“I will not seek out Trump,” said Yan confidently, “He will seek me out. In the entire world, I am definitely the most ideal privately owned unit to invest in construction. In the whole world, there’s not another company equal to Pacific Construction.” Despite such bravado, Yan’s meeting with Manafort suggests that he is indeed seeking out Trump (and seeking out U.S. public funds that American taxpayers might rather see go to an American construction company).

Manafort’s spokesman, Jason Maloni, initially denied that Manafort was in China on business; then denied that his business in China involved “any current or future infrastructure projects or contracts in the United States.” Maloni’s denials seem to conflict with Yan’s own statements at this meeting, however, and with the details of previous contacts between Manafort and Yan.

According to the CPCG website (March 8; archive), Manafort met previously with Yan in Beijing on March 5-7. Manafort and Yan are pictured above at this meeting and below with unspecified others in attendance. The meeting is reported in detail also by Jingsun Group (京商集团, March 15; archive), an infrastructure company associated with Yan that hosted the event. This previous meeting is not included in the Financial Times report, and until now seems to have escaped U.S. media attention.

Paul Manafort in Beijing, March 7 (China Pacific Construction Group; archive).

In Beijing, as in Shanghai, Manafort was described as a “special envoy of President Trump” (He was also curiously described as the “godfather of Ivanka Trump.”). Manafort is praised in these reports for his work on behalf of such figures as former dictators Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, Mohamed Siad Barre of Somalia, and Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine. Manafort’s history with these and other autocrats around the world appears to have been taken as a prime qualification for work on behalf of China’s interests.

Yan has a reputation as something of a maverick and claims to keep a distance from the Chinese Communist Party. He is a former local government official, however, and frequently appears alongside current party officials on Chinese government and state-run media websites. No one does business in China as successfully as Yan without having a cozy relationship with the Communist Party.

Yan Jiehe with Paul Manafort, Beijing, March 6 (Jingsun Group; archive).

Present also with Yan and Manafort at the March event in Beijing were Jiang Zedong (姜泽栋), chairman and Communist Party secretary of the Northern Design and Research Institute (北方设计研究院), a part of China’s state-owned defense industry; Chen Shiping (陈诗平), general manager of state-owned China Railway International Group (中铁国际集团有限公司), a major player in China’s “going out” strategy with operations throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America; a Moldovan entrepreneur named Ruslan Birladeanu (Руслан Бырлэдяну); and other “Chinese and foreign political and business circles.”

In comments to Fortune, Yan said that a total of three meetings with Manafort in China have taken place.

The post Paul Manafort Advising Chinese Billionaire on U.S. Infrastructure Projects appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged last week the creation of an international facility that aims to raise billions of dollars in funding for children’s education in poor and conflict-stricken countries.

Brown, who led the United Kingdom from 2007 to 2010, spoke at an event organized by the Foreign Policy Association and hosted at the United Nations, where he serves as special envoy for global education.

In support of the UN-sponsored education commission he is leading, Brown said the international community must create an innovative financing scheme to raise additional funding for the estimated 260 million children who are not in primary or secondary school today. The International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunities has proposed a facility that will raise money from donor countries, the private sector and multilateral development banks to provide schooling for 800 million young people predicted to lack necessary workforce skills by 2030.

“Half the children of the world denied their future, half our future that we have not properly invested in,” Brown said. “It is time that we think innovatively about how we can do something to end the education crisis that we face.”

The International Finance Facility for Education (IFFEd) Brown proposed draws inspiration from a fundraising program launched in 2006 to raise money for Gavi, an organization providing vaccinations in the world’s poorest regions. Over a 10-year period, the International Finance Facility for Immunisation has raised over $5.7 billion.

The Education Commission has set a goal to mobilize $13 billion annually by 2020.

Brown said the IFFEd will help fund the Global Partnership for Education and Education Cannot Wait, a program providing school resources to countries hosting refugees. The facility will work by incentivizing lower-middle-income countries to take out interest-free loans from The World Bank and regional development banks, which can then be turned into grants. Public and private donations would be used to secure “buy-downs of non-concessional loans” from development banks.

According to a report The Education Commission published, estimates show that $2 billion in guarantees and $2.5 billion in buy-downs would leverage around $10 billion in additional concessional financing per year.

“Don’t tell me this cannot be done, because we did it when we created the IFF facility for vaccination,” Brown said. “We’ve done it before when we had to make major changes to the way we deliver aid.”

Countries prioritizing education investment should be first in line for IFFEd loan and grant funding, Brown explained. He said The Education Commission has recommended low-and-middle-income countries increase education spending from the average today of 4 percent to 5.8 percent in return for increased international funding.

Since 2002, the share of overseas education development aid has fallen from 13 percent to 10 percent, leading to what Brown said is a failure to live up to the UN’s sustainable development goal of providing universal quality education. There is enough aid money today for $8 per child out of school, he said.

“All we can muster with all of the aid money we put together is not enough to pay for a textbook, certainly not enough to pay for a teacher, not enough to pay for the building and for the maintenance of schools,” Brown explained.

Girls in low-income countries and children in conflict zones are most likely to be deprived education, he continued, saying those displaced by war are most vulnerable to becoming child laborers, forced into marriage or sold as sex slaves.

Brown said the “civil rights struggle of our time” is to end discrimination against girls by increasing their access to education and ending sexual exploitation. He called it a “vicious cycle” that uneducated mothers in Africa have an average of five children, compared to two children for mothers who attended school, that “starts with a failure to educate girls.”

Quoting Nelson Mandela, Brown said that “promises made to children are sacred,” and a promise made by the international community to provide young people a chance at a better life is not being met.

“What destroys hope amongst children is their inability to plan and prepare for any future,” Brown said, “ because they are denied the very basic human right that is so important, and that is a right to education.”
***

Are you interested in attending the Foreign Policy Association’s next lecture?

What: Foreign influence operations and counterintelligence
Who: William Evanina, Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center and Charles McGonigal, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Counterintelligence Division for the New York Field Office
When: Tuesday, May 9, 6pm to 8pm
Where: Baruch College
William and Anita Newman Conference Center, Room 750 Baruch College Library
151 E 25th Street
New York, NY

Please click here for more information.

The post Former British PM Brown Urges Creation of Education Finance Facility appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

At this year’s Foreign Policy Association Lecture on Conflict Prevention Richard G. Lugar, former Republican senator from Indiana, discussed the issues revolving around the United States’ global leadership. Could Donald Trump’s “America First” isolationism, professed during his electoral campaign, decrease the U.S.’ role in the world, and ultimately its security?

Since World War II the United States has been an essential factor in preventing conflict in different parts of the world. In Europe, U.S. security guarantees and its commitment to the NATO alliance has offered stability to the continent for over 70 years.

Consequences of Trump’s foreign policy

America’s leadership has been for decades an issue that support by both Democrats and Republicans. The Trump administration seems intended on reducing U.S. footprint globally, at the risk of lessening Washington’s ability to prevent conflicts.

Indeed, Senator Lugar argued that: “The people of the United States and most countries of the world will become poorer and will have to endure more frequent conflict. Solutions to threats that impact us all, including climate change, extreme poverty and hunger, communicable diseases, nuclear proliferation, cyberwarfare, and terrorism will be almost impossible to solve.”

Trump’s foreign policy goals, at times simplistic or reactive, do little to increase the welfare of U.S. citizens. The current administration has conducted a series of ad hoc policy decisions and failed to promote existing alliances and America’s leadership within international institutions.

The use of military power characterized by the recent missile strikes in Syria not only went against Trump campaign platform but also demonstrated the administration’s preference for the use of force over diplomatic action. Senator Lugar acknowledged the necessity of a military as a deterrent against aggression but also pointed out its weaknesses: “we cannot bomb our way to security”.

Trade

On trade, Trump has been declaring that America has been taken advantage of by other countries. The loss of jobs, particularly in manufacturing, has been mostly caused by innovation in mechanization and information technology.

After accepting that industry jobs are not likely to return anytime soon, the main challenge remains to deal with these economic dislocations. Senator Lugar stresses the importance of helping retrain workers and connect them to new jobs rather than attempting to isolate a nation from international trade competition.

Immigration

On immigration, Trump’s administration policies “have been designed for ostentatious symbolism rather than for maximizing U.S. security… wasting both American resources and international good will” contended Senator Lugar.

Senator Lugar offered an example of the adverse effects of recent policies decision. Discussing the ban on entrants to the U.S. from Muslim countries, Lugar judged the policy “the most obvious recruitment tool against the United States since Abu Ghraib.” The senator went on to say that: “The ban has been a steep net loss to U.S. national security.”

Alliances network, stability and development

Trump has created ambiguity about America’s commitment to its European NATO allies. Although it is fair and important to demand greater contributions from some Allied countries, the U.S. should assert its commitment to NATO Article V if the event of a conflict with any of the NATO countries.

This pledge to defend any country member of the alliance has been the main deterrent against the breakout of another major war in Western Europe. In addition, The US navy has ensured freedom of navigation and the respect of international waters around the world.

Senator Lugar concluded by noting some of the positive effects of U.S. involvement had in global stability and development:

“We have helped to rehabilitate enemies like Germany and Japan, and we initiated co-operative threat reduction to help the former Soviet Union protect and destroy the very nuclear arsenal that was once pointed at us. We have helped countries such as South Korea move from extreme poverty to impressive prosperity through our assistance and protection.”

Full transcript of lecture: Andrew Carnegie Distinguished Lecture on Conflict Prevention with Senator Richard G. Lugar

Are you interested in attending the Foreign Policy Association’s next lecture?

What: Foreign influence operations and counterintelligence
Who: William Evanina, Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center and Charles McGonigal, FBI Special Agent in Charge of the Counterintelligence Division for the New York Field Office
When: Tuesday, May 9, 6pm to 8pm
Where: Baruch College
William and Anita Newman Conference Center, Room 750 Baruch College Library
151 E 25th Street
New York, NY

Please click here for more information.

The post Isolationism and its Consequences for Conflict Prevention appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

By Shehab Al-Makahleh

This week, the Turks cast their votes in a historic constitutional referendum which appears to have granted controversial President Recep Tayyip Erdogan a significant expansion of executive power. Notably, a “yes” vote would eliminate the post of the Prime Minister, which formerly served as a balance to presidential authority. As official votes are counted, exit polls indicate that Erdogan’s “yes” campaign leads at 51.3%, with approximately 600,000 votes still to be tallied. But with such a slim victory, Turkey faces a complicated cluster of problems likely to reignite fissures between the Turkish government and several domestic parties which oppose Erdogan’s plans. Although the media is quickly hailing the referendum as a victory for the “yes” campaign, the final votes hold the potential to tip the scales back towards a “no”.

The “Yes” vote would essentially transform Turkey’s parliamentary system into an executive presidential system. Many of the campaign’s opponents, overwhelmingly including residents of Turkey’s three largest cities – Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir – fear that concentrating too much power in the hands of a man already disparaged by many in the West as an autocrat, an unreliable partner, and a man with pretensions to acting as a neo-Ottoman sultan bodes poorly for Turkish stability.

While most have focused on the outcomes of a ‘yes’ victory, few analysts have looked at the effects on Erdogan’s future – and that of the Turkish state – if the final votes tip the polls towards the ‘No’ option. So, let us consider both outcomes in turn.

The ‘Yes’ vote would lead to the concentration of power into the hand of one man via the removal of the Prime Minister. The campaign was led by the president himself ― who effectively rules the country through a deliberate misreading of the nation’s constitution ― and claimed that the proposed changes would bring stability to the country. Although stability is desperately needed in Turkey, many fear that the changes would only ensure that the current president can rule indefinitely. For those who fight for Western-style democracy, this would be a nail in the coffin for the hope that Erdogan’s slide towards authoritarian rule could be reversed.

Moreover, a ‘yes’ vote would have serious geostrategic implications for Turkey and the region. Situated on the crossroads between Europe and Asia, Turkey shares land borders with several Arab states and Iran as well as a maritime border with Russia at the strategically important Black Sea. Most analysts are concerned that the “Yes” vote will push Turkey further away from the West, Russia, and longstanding regional allies, inevitably leading to problems for Erdogan himself.

Since the Arab Spring, Turkey’s relationship with its Arab neighbors has been precarious at best. Culminating with the overt and covert support for various ‘rebels’, Turkey has been found to have supported terrorist groups in Syria including the Islamic State. While Turkey’s meddling was formerly only felt in the Syrian north, where it remains locked in conflict with Kurdish forces, Erdogan’s expansionist ambitions grew to include the Persian Gulf and even Africa with establishment of new Turkish military bases in Qatar and Somalia. Such military adventurism quickly raised the alert in some Gulf Arab states; the UAE, for example, saw such move as direct competition to its own regional power and influence, and has strongly opposed Turkey’s ambitious expansion. Given the referendum’s result, this trend shows no sign of slowing.

With the celebrated EU-Turkey agreement on refugees in 2016, diplomatic relations with Europe temporarily appeared to be on the upswing. However, after a year of internal dissent and terrorist attacks involving immigrants, the EU changed its tune toward Turkey and Erdogan has returned the favor. Just days before the referendum, the Turkish President stated that relations with the EU were at an all-time low. Internally, rabid anti-EU rhetoric became an effective tool for collecting popular support ahead of referendum.

While a notable cooling began during the Obama administration, US–Turkish relations also took a nosedive following the attempted coup d’etat in Turkey last July. Erdogan openly accused the United States of orchestrating the attempt, while Russia reaped the credited for warning the President – and potentially saving his hide. To this day, the Turkish government continues to insist that America extradite Erdogan’s main opponent, the Pennsylvania-based Fethullah Gulen, whom he considers the coup mastermind. Inside Turkey the counter-coup purge from the military, civil service, and universities continues unabated and runs in parallel with the crackdown on Kurds, journalists, dissidents and other opposition figures. Erdogan’s grab for power would create further complications in an already shaky relationship.

Although Russian-Turkish ties have warmed significantly since the 2015 Turkish downing of a Russian fighter jet, as evidenced by Russia’s role in warning Erdogan of the coup attempt against him in July, their support for opposing sides in the Syrian civil war create a minefield of challenges for a closer diplomatic relationship. Since the coup attempt, a landslide of internal troubles has plagued Erdogan, including a series of terrorist attacks hitting the country’s two major cities, the capital Ankara and the cosmopolitan Istanbul, and the assassination of Russia’s Ambassador to Turkey last December. The recent intensification of Turkish military actions against the Kurds, which have led to an escalation of activity in Syria, will certainly not help this dynamic.

The ‘No’ vote would deliver a short-term blow to Erdogan and push him to seek other avenues to establish stability and further his interests in the country, perhaps through compromise with political figures such as former President Abdullah Gul and former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, two key figures from his own ruling AKP party who have grown more distant from Erdogan over time. Further, the ‘No’ vote would help reduce public resentment against the President and ensure that Erdogan does not meet the fate of his neighbors, such as Assad or Hosni Mubarak, in the longer run. Indeed, he would be well advised, should he fail to reach compromise and stabilize the country, to seek a suitable successor rather than seek to remain in office interminably and invite a future Turkish Spring. Such an uprising would hardly be a surprise in the face of growing social, political and economic issues.

Shehab al Makahleh, a Jordanian political analyst and director of Geostrategic Media Middle East.

The post Why a ‘No’ Win at Referendum is the Best Option for Erdogan appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

 

The thaw in U.S.-Russia relations hit a snag this week when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson received a chilly reception in Moscow after President Trump ordered a missile attack on a Syrian military airbase. Trump had campaigned on putting “America First” and avoiding military entanglements abroad—a stance Russia welcomed. But the President’s position, took an abrupt turn after Bashar al-Assad reportedly deployed chemical weapons against defenseless civilians, in what seems to be Trump’s first exposure to how “God’s children” suffer under Assad. Relations with Russia, however, may be the least of Trump’s problems if U.S. involvement in Syria escalates.

Trump’s pivot from isolationism to interventionism while staying the course on his paranoid and miserly approach to immigrants and refugees reveals the fundamental incoherence of his worldview. What had seemed a stunted, transactional form of realpolitik has turned out to be nothing more than improvisation and reflex, and the President’s actions may very well commit the U.S. to a path for which we are ill-equipped in light of how other administration policies damage our credibility and chances for success.

For instance, the U.S. would need the help of local interpreters to succeed in Syria. We relied heavily on local interpreters In Iraq and Afghanistan, where they proved essential to carrying out military operations. These locals possess a deep understanding of local dialects and politics, which newcomers cannot readily learn. The average pay for a locally hired linguist is as low as $15,000 per year—a paltry sum, considering the grave risks to life, limb, and loved ones inherent in collaborating with U.S. forces.

To augment this pittance, the Obama administration leveraged the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, which uses U.S. residency to entice support from local nationals with critical-needs linguistic skills. But only about 20 percent of applications are approved, and many applications languish, leaving thousands in limbo—and in grave danger of reprisal.

Worsening the situation is the Trump Administration’s revised order on immigration, which has halted the visa and refugee programs for at least 120 days, sending a message to local linguists that an anemic paycheck is all the compensation they can expect from the U.S. The SIV program’s years-long backlog only reinforces that impression. Therefore, if events in Syria continue to escalate and require additional U.S. troops, there will emerge a disastrous inability to attract local linguists to share their talents that are so necessary for success.

Local informants also stand as human-intelligence assets who are vital to successful military intervention. We depend on these trusted local informants to give credible information on everything from opposition troop movements to ground assessments of civilian casualties. And again, with collaborators facing death and worse, proper incentives are essential.

Informants are typically compensated with U.S. currency in an amount commensurate with the value of their information. But money does not adequately offset the risks involved.

By contrast, visas and legal immigration status provide powerful incentive for local informants wishing to escape dangers at home. But Trump’s well-publicized immigration policies erect near-insurmountable hurdles to Syrian citizens trying to obtain visas, leaving us without a proverbial carrot for would-be informants and linguists who otherwise face extreme risks and negligible rewards for providing information and helping our troops abroad. This, in turn, hinders our military’s ability to procure accurate, real-time intelligence at a speed useful in fast-paced military operations.

Moreover, our forces also need to collaborate with local allied groups in order to have any hope of navigating the complex local and geopolitical landscape that will greet them. But current U.S. immigration policies complicate our ability to garner allied support and cooperation by choking off key incentives for potential collaborators.

For instance, the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) is among the most effective anti-Assad forces in Syria, but it is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, making aid to anyone affiliated with the PKK illegal. Similar complications arise with organizations such as the Al-Nusra Front, the Muslim Brotherhood, and militias reportedly affiliated with Iran. Despite their affiliations, not all members are true believers or hardliners, and their knowledge of the theater is a valuable asset for U.S. forces, providing “force multiplier” effects during ground operations. But Trump’s immigration policies remove our only bargaining chip to attract combatants out of such organizations in favor of U.S.-backed militias: the promise of visas and legal-resident status in the U.S.

Finally, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also made clear the necessity of support from prominent figures within rival local factions. In Syria, most such organizations are riven with splinter sects and offshoots that frustrate military planning and post-operational civil recovery. And so courting local leaders in Syria’s fractured political environment can potentially solve many thorny problems, including curbing Russian interference and resolving the tension between the desire to “de-Baathify” post-conflict institutions and the need to provide stable government services.

But the administration’s dim view of refugees and other immigrants from predominantly Muslim nations makes these tasks all the more daunting by undermining U.S. credibility with Syrian opposition leaders, who will therefore tend to cynically view the U.S. only as a means to oust Assad, not as a credible ally willing to make a long-term investment in a better quality of life for Syrians. Cooperation with Americans under those conditions can serve only to undermine amenable leaders’ credibility with their own constituents.

In essence, current U.S. policy under Trump makes military intervention more difficult and more dangerous. Raising America’s drawbridge to immigrants and refugees does our military no favors, considering how these policies deplete scarce reserves of goodwill and credibility—vital assets with local human assets in war. The President’s incoherent approach to these interrelated issues represents a serious battlefield liability. We are charting a bumpy course, and we can expect to repeat the worst of our missteps from the last decade and a half of war—and some new missteps besides.

Jesse Medlong is a Navy veteran, an international lawyer, and a member of the Truman National Security Project’s Defense Council. Logan Goldstein is a former Army infantry officer who served two tours of duty in Afghanistan and currently works as a private military contractor and consultant. Views expressed are their own.

The post Trump’s Pivot from Isolationism to Interventionism? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.