Archives: Articles

By Martin Wolf

Trade liberalisation has stalled and one can see a steady rise in protectionist measures

Has the tide of globalisation turned? This is a vitally important question. The answer is closely connected to the state of the world economy and the west’s politics.

Migration raises quite specific issues. The era of globalisation was not accompanied by a general commitment to liberalising flows of people. So I will focus here on trade and capital flows. The evidence in these areas seems quite clear. Globalisation has reached a plateau and, in some areas, is in reverse.

An analysis from the Peterson Institute for International Economics argues that ratios of world trade to output have been flat since 2008, making this the longest period of such stagnation since the second world war. According to Global Trade Alert, even the volume of world trade stagnated between January 2015 and March 2016, though the world economy continued to grow. The stock of cross-border financial assets peaked at 57 per cent of global output in 2007, falling to 36 per cent by 2015. Finally, inflows of foreign direct investment have remained well below the 3.3 per cent of world output attained in 2007, though the stock continues to rise, albeit slowly, relative to output.

Thus, the impetus towards further economic integration has stalled and in some respects gone into reverse. Globalisation is no longer driving world growth. If this process is indeed coming to an end, or even going into reverse, it would not be the first time since the industrial revolution, in the early 19th century. Another period of globalisation, in an era of empires, occurred in the late 19th century. The first world war ended this and the Great Depression destroyed it. A principal focus of US economic and foreign policy after 1945 was to recreate the global economy, but this time among sovereign states and guided by international economic institutions. If Donald Trump, who has embraced protectionism and denigrated global institutions, were to be elected president in November, it would be a repudiation of a central thrust of postwar US policy.

Given the historical record and the current politics of trade, notably in the US, it is natural to ask whether the same could happen to the more recent era of globalisation. That requires us to understand the drivers.

Part of the reason for the slowdown is that many opportunities are, if not exhausted, radically diminished. When, for example, the production of essentially all labour-intensive manufactures has moved out of the rich countries, the growth of trade in such products must fall. Similarly, when the biggest investment boom in the history of the world, that in China, slows, so too must the demand for many commodities. That will affect both their prices and their quantities. Again, the end of once-in-a-lifetime global credit boom is sure to lead to a decline in the cross-border holdings of financial assets. Finally, after decades of FDI, a host of companies with something to gain from it will have taken their opportunity and succeeded or, in important cases, failed.

Yet this is not all there is to this story. Trade liberalisation has stalled and one can see a steady rise in protectionist measures. The financial crisis brought with it regulatory measures, many of which are bound to slow cross-border financial flows. The rise of xenophobic sentiment and the slowdown in trade are both likely to reduce the growth of FDI. In brief, policy is less supportive.

The politics are becoming even less so. Again, the US is the central part of the story. Mr Trump is much the most protectionist candidate for US president since the 1930s. But, revealingly, Hillary Clinton, an architect of the US “pivot to Asia” has turned against the Trans-Pacific Partnership of which she was once a keen supporter. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, being negotiated between the US and the EU, is now in deep trouble. The Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations is moribund. Above all, important segments of the western public no longer believe increased trade benefits them. Evidence on relative real incomes and adjustment to rising imports provides some support for such scepticism.

Globalisation has at best stalled. Could it even go into reverse? Yes. It requires peace among the great powers. Some would also argue it requires a hegemonic power: the UK before 1914 and the US after 1945. At a time of poor economic performance in leading high-income countries, rising inequality and big shifts in the balance of global power, another collapse must be a possibility. Consider the impact of any fighting between the US and China over the South China Sea, though such a calamity would be terrifying for far more than its narrow economic effects.

Does globalisation’s stalling matter? Yes. The era of globalisation has seen the first fall in global inequality of household incomes since the early 19th century. Between 1980 and 2015, average global real income rose by 120 per cent. The opportunities afforded by globalisation are vital. Our future cannot lie in closing ourselves off from one another.

The failure — a profound one — lies in not ensuring that gains were more equally shared, notably within high-income economies. Equally dismal was the failure to cushion those adversely affected. But we cannot stop economic change. Moreover, the impact on jobs and wages of rising productivity and new technologies has far exceeded that of rising imports. Globalisation must not be made a scapegoat for all our ills.

Yet it has now stalled, as have the policies driving it. It might reverse. Yet even a stalling would slow economic progress and reduce opportunities for the world’s poor. Pushing globalisation forward requires different domestic and external policies from those of the past. Globalisation’s future depends on better management. Will that happen? Alas, I am not optimistic.

martin.wolf@ft.com

Time to take our fingers out of our ears on trade / From Richard Stead

20 September 2016

By Gideon Rachman

Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines, caused shock and sniggers around the world when he called Barack Obama the “son of a whore”. But the Duterte comment that will have really hurt the White House came a few days later. Announcing that he was ending joint naval patrols with the US in the South China Sea, the Philippines’ president stated: “China is now in power and they have military superiority in the region.”

That statement will sting in Washington. Throughout the Obama years, the US has attempted to reassure all its Asian allies that America has both the means and the will to remain the dominant military power in the Asia-Pacific region. President Obama set the tone in a landmark speech in 2011, when he firmly asserted that “the United States is a Pacific power and we are here to stay”. Since then America has transferred more of its navy to the region and Mr Obama has regularly made the long journey from Washington to East Asia.

But Mr Duterte has now directly challenged the idea that America is still the hegemon in the Pacific. If others take his view, power could drain away from Washington, as more countries in the region begin to defer to Beijing.

The Philippines’ president’s assessment of the military balance between the US and China is questionable. The Americans currently have 11 aircraft-carriers, while China has one — with another on the way. But Chinese military spending has been rising fast for decades. And Beijing has also invested in the kinds of equipment, including missiles and submarines, that potentially make America’s aircraft carriers very vulnerable.

Over the past year, China’s new confidence has been reflected in its programme of “island building” in the South China Sea, designed to reinforce Beijing’s controversial claim that roughly 90 per cent of that sea falls within its territorial waters. The Americans have been unable to stop this clear assertion of Chinese power and have restricted themselves to sailing past the disputed and increasingly militarised “islands” to signal that they do not accept China’s claims.

The importance that the US attaches to the South China Sea has been repeatedly emphasised by the Obama administration. In an article on “America’s Pacific century”, published in 2011, Hillary Clinton pointed out that “half the world’s merchant tonnage flows through this water”. The US fears that Beijing intends to turn these crucial waters into a “Chinese lake”.

The Americans have long insisted, reasonably enough, that their position on the South China Sea is about upholding international law rather than engaging in a power struggle with China. The Philippines has been vital to this law-based strategy. In July, Manila won an international legal challenge toBeijing’s claims over the South China Sea, a ruling that was widely seen as a major setback to China’s ambitions. Yet it is rather hard for America to defend the legal rights of the Philippines, when Mr Duterte curses Mr Obama in public and then curtails joint naval patrols.

The US does have other partners in the region. Last week Japan announced that it will carry out naval patrols with the US in the South China Sea. But a partnership with Tokyo, which is locked in a bitter rivalry with Beijing, makes the maritime issue look more like a power struggle with China, rather than a question of international law, particularly since the Russians and Chinese have just completed their own joint exercises in the South China Sea. Under the circumstances, many Southeast Asian countries will be tempted to stand to one side rather than risk being caught up in a clash of regional titans.

The sense that America’s “pivot” to Asia is in trouble is compounded by the growing doubts about the fate of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade deal promoted by the US.

The TPP brings together 12 nations, including Japan and the US, but excludes China. The deal is widely seen as a counter to China’s growing economic dominance in the Asia-Pacific region.

Pleading the case for the TPP before the US Congress, Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, argued: “Long term its strategic value is awesome.”

But the entreaties of Mr Abe and Mr Obama seem unlikely to save the TPP. Donald Trump and Mrs Clinton, the two main candidates for the US presidency, have come out against the deal. Mr Obama may still try to force it through Congress before he leaves office. But the chances of the TPP surviving the current climate of protectionism in America seem small.

If the US fails to pass the TPP, America’s Asian allies will feel badly let down. They have risked antagonising Beijing by signing up to a US-led initiative. Now Washington may jilt them at the altar. On a recent visit to the US capital, Lee Hsien Loong, the Singaporean prime minister, called the TPP a “litmus test of (American) credibility and seriousness of purpose” in Asia. He pointed out that the implications go well beyond trade, extending to the credibility of America’s security guarantees to its Asian allies.

Unfortunately, long-term strategic thinking is almost impossible in the current maelstrom of American politics. As a result, President Obama faces the sad prospect of leaving office with his signature foreign-policy initiative — the pivot to Asia — sinking beneath the Pacific waves.

gideon.rachman@ft.com

20 September 2016

By Mohamad Javad Zarif

Tehran — Public relations firms with no qualms about taking tainted petrodollars are experiencing a bonanza. Their latest project has been to persuade us that the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, is no more. As a Nusra spokesman told CNN, the rebranded rebel group, supposedly separated from its parent terrorist organization, has become “moderate.”

Thus is fanaticism from the Dark Ages sold as a bright vision for the 21st century. The problem for the P.R. firms’ wealthy, often Saudi, clients, who have lavishly funded Nusra, is that the evidence of their ruinous policies can’t be photoshopped out of existence. If anyone had any doubt, the recent video images of other “moderates” beheading a 12-year-old boy were a horrifying reality check.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, militant Wahhabism has undergone a series of face-lifts, but underneath, the ideology remains the same — whether it’s the Taliban, the various incarnations of Al Qaeda or the so-called Islamic State, which is neither Islamic nor a state. But the millions of people faced with the Nusra Front’s tyranny are not buying the fiction of this disaffiliation. Past experience of such attempts at whitewashing points to the real aim: to enable the covert flow of petrodollars to extremist groups in Syria to become overt, and even to lure Western governments into supporting these “moderates.” The fact that Nusra still dominates the rebel alliance in Aleppo flouts the public relations message.

Saudi Arabia’s effort to persuade its Western patrons to back its shortsighted tactics is based on the false premise that plunging the Arab world into further chaos will somehow damage Iran. The fanciful notions that regional instability will help to “contain” Iran, and that supposed rivalries between Sunni and Shiite Muslims are fueling conflicts, are contradicted by the reality that the worst bloodshed in the region is caused by Wahhabists fighting fellow Arabs and murdering fellow Sunnis.

While these extremists, with the backing of their wealthy sponsors, have targeted Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Shiites and other “heretics,” it is their fellow Sunni Arabs who have been most beleaguered by this exported doctrine of hate. Indeed, it is not the supposed ancient sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites but the contest between Wahhabism and mainstream Islam that will have the most profound consequences for the region and beyond.

While the 2003 American-led invasion of Iraq set in motion the fighting we see today, the key driver of violence has been this extremist ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia — even if it was invisible to Western eyes until the tragedy of 9/11.

The princes in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, have been desperate to revive the regional status quo of the days of Saddam Hussein’s rule in Iraq, when a surrogate repressive despot, eliciting wealth and material support from fellow Arabs and a gullible West, countered the so-called Iranian threat. There is only one problem: Mr. Hussein is long dead, and the clock cannot be turned back.

The sooner Saudi Arabia’s rulers come to terms with this, the better for all. The new realities in our region can accommodate even Riyadh, should the Saudis choose to change their ways.

What would change mean? Over the past three decades, Riyadh has spent tens of billions of dollars exporting Wahhabism through thousands of mosques and madrasas across the world. From Asia to Africa, from Europe to the Americas, this theological perversion has wrought havoc. As one former extremist in Kosovo told The Times, “The Saudis completely changed Islam here with their money.”

Though it has attracted only a minute proportion of Muslims, Wahhabism has been devastating in its impact. Virtually every terrorist group abusing the name of Islam — from Al Qaeda and its offshoots in Syria to Boko Haram in Nigeria — has been inspired by this death cult.

So far, the Saudis have succeeded in inducing their allies to go along with their folly, whether in Syria or Yemen, by playing the “Iran card.” That will surely change, as the realization grows that Riyadh’s persistent sponsorship of extremism repudiates its claim to be a force for stability.

The world cannot afford to sit by and witness Wahhabists targeting not only Christians, Jews and Shiites but also Sunnis. With a large section of the Middle East in turmoil, there is a grave danger that the few remaining pockets of stability will be undermined by this clash of Wahhabism and mainstream Sunni Islam.

There needs to be coordinated action at the United Nations to cut off the funding for ideologies of hate and extremism, and a willingness from the international community to investigate the channels that supply the cash and the arms. In 2013, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, proposed an initiative called World Against Violent Extremism, or WAVE. The United Nations should build on that framework to foster greater dialogue between religions and sects to counter this dangerous medieval fanaticism.

The attacks in Nice, Paris and Brussels should convince the West that the toxic threat of Wahhabism cannot be ignored. After a year of almost weekly tragic news, the international community needs to do more than express outrage, sorrow and condolences; concrete action against extremism is needed.

Though much of the violence committed in the name of Islam can be traced to Wahhabism, I by no means suggest that Saudi Arabia cannot be part of the solution. Quite the reverse: We invite Saudi rulers to put aside the rhetoric of blame and fear, and join hands with the rest of the community of nations to eliminate the scourge of terrorism and violence that threatens us all.

Mohammad Javad Zarif is the foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

13 September 2016

By Andre Vltchek

In Europe, oppression is never really called by its true ugly name. It is constantly concealed by lofty slogans such as culture, even tolerance. Repression, discrimination and harassment are administered in order for the ‘entire society to be free’.

Or so at least the official narrative goes.

In France, recent and ugly row overso-called burkinis, a swimsuit used by many Muslim women all over the world, has demonstrated how little tolerance there really is in today’s Europe for other cultures and for different ways of life.

Recently, France’s highest administrative court has ruled that “burkini bans” being enforced on the country’s beaches are illegal and a violation of fundamental liberties. Still, more than 90 percent of French people are supporting the ban, which is thoroughly illogical and philosophically as well as ethically indefensible.
What is suddenly so shocking about a woman wearing a wetsuit on some French beach? And let’s face it:burkinisare nothing else but a wetsuit, which is commonly used on countless beaches of California, Australia, and Europe, in fact all over the world, by surfers and other water sport enthusiasts.

Just compare these images and these. Can you really tell much of a difference?

According to Wikipedia, a wetsuit is:

“…A garment, usually made of foamed neoprene, which is worn by surfers, divers, windsurfers, canoeists, and others engaged in water sports, providing thermal insulation, abrasion resistance and buoyancy.”

If courts manage to resurrect the ban (and actually some municipalities have already declared that they will uphold it no matter what), are the French police going to interrogate women on public beaches, while trying to determine whether they are wearing these plastic garments simply because they are planning to go surfing, or because of their religious beliefs? Would the first reason be allowed, while the other one forbidden?

Are we heading towards an era when people will be forced to confess to the authorities, why they are choosing to cover their bellies and shoulders? And is this going to re-define the meaning of ‘freedom’?
Who would be free to cover and who would not? Would the French state be permitted to decide what is the legitimate menace from which a woman should be allowed to protect herself from?

For instance, would the cold be ok? Imagine Paris, in January or February;100 degrees Celsius below zero… Most of the women you pass on the streets (Christian, Muslim and atheist) are “fully covered”, aren’t they? What can you see of them? Nothing, almost nothing! Their entire bodies are covered; their heads are covered, even their feet and hands are covered (unlike the hands and feet of women wearing burkinis). You travel to Grenoble in the winter, and the chances are that women will even be covering their faces with scarves. You know why, right? Because they are cold! Is this reasonOK, or should the French authorities demand that they expose their bellybuttons or shoulders or legs, in order to prove how “European”, how “French” they are?

Fine, so covering yourself up from the cold is most likely admissible; it is not ‘un-European’.

But what about the heat; is it OK to protect yourself from sun? In almost the entire Southeast Asia, but also in some parts of Latin America and the Sub-Continent, women want to be as white as possible. Unlike Western women, they hate suntan. I used to live in Vietnam and in Indonesia, as well as in many parts of Latin America, so I know… In the summer in Hanoi, you spot those (mainly secular, I emphasize it here!) elegant ladies on designer scooters, covered from head to toe: their feet are covered; they wear gloves, long dresses (áodài) or pants, most likely a helmet and underneath one more layer of headwear, plus sun glasses. Sometimes their mouth and nose is ‘protected’ by some fabric as well. While French women are fighting against the cold during the cold winters, hundreds of millions of women all over the world are covering themselves up because they are fighting against the sun. Could that be tolerated in France? Or is it unacceptable; just more evidenceof how badly foreigners are ‘integrating’?

But back to the beach… Would wetsuits or burkinis or whatever they are called by,be out-rightly banned, or only when a woman decides to go into the water? And as we know, when we go diving, we all, men and women, have to ‘cover ourselves up’ fully. So even if a woman would not be allowed to enter the water unless she exposes herself, could she still be covered if she would intend to go diving, surfing, or kayaking? Would there be some‘benevolent set of exceptions’?

And one more question: ‘If all women were to be required to expose themselves (by the new French law), then how much has to be actually shown?’ Could 60% of their skin be covered, or would only 40% be tolerated? Is there going to be some new and precise measuring device supplied to the police, calculating whether the law hasactually been broken?

And what about the punishment? Should women be fined? Should they be arrested, or even deported? Should they be forced to show their legs? Should police simply kick them out of the beaches? I really want to know.

Does it all sound absurd? But of course! But sadly, it is also real. To ban or not to ban burkini is one of the most passionately debated topics in Europe today!
That Europe is a ‘beacon of freedom’ is something that only Europeans (and far from all of them) truly believe. While anti-immigrant bigots are protesting against those relatively few migrants arriving at the EU doors every year, Europe annually literally regurgitates millions of its citizens, those who cannot stand living in what they see as a sad, oppressive and deteriorating continent. Legal and illegal European migrants are heading for North and South America, for Southeast Asia, China, even Sub-Continent and parts of Africa. Annually, they are entering millions of arranged marriages in order to secure local residency permits; others are crisscrossing Asia during their ‘visa runs’.

Many of the European migrants living abroad are very far from being ‘culturally sensitive’.Those who have plenty of money are buying off entire coastal areas of Asia and Africa. Entire nations like Thailand, Cambodia or Kenya are getting culturally ruined.

It is hardly ever debated in Europe:what is actually more damaging to local cultures – thoseMuslim women covering their bodies and hair on the streets and the beaches of Europe, or those literally millions of European potbellied, drunk,and half naked men in their sixties and seventies, promenading themselves publicly with their local teen female or male ‘acquisitions’ all over the Asian and African cities, villages and beaches?

And what about the European women, with their exposed breasts, wearing hardly detectable bikinis on the beaches of the once conservative Muslim communities of Indonesian Lombok or Southern Thailand?

I hate to write about this topic fleetingly, in such a short essay. I have lived, for many years, in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. The destruction of local cultures and entire communities by European migrants amounts toan extremely disturbing and painful topic, worthy of in-depth analyses. I mainly address these issues in my novels.

But this absurd anti-burkini outburst in France suddenly forced me to react, as it is thoroughly one-sided and hypocritical.
My ability to cope with today’s Europe is quickly evaporating. I still go there, perhaps 4 times a year, to meet my translators and publishers, to show my films, to give a speech here and there, or to see my mother who married a German around a quarter of century ago. I plan to stay for a week, but mostly I escape after 2-3 days.

The continent rubs me up the wrong way. I feel terribly un-free there. I’mforced to eat lunches and dinners at particular designated hours (as if Europe does not have tens of millions of doctors, pilots, writers, sex workers, firefighters, train operators and others who are on totally different schedules). In September I cannot buy a windbreaker that I forgot to pack, as only clothes for cold weather are now available in all department stores. I stopped renting cars in Europe, as even passing the speed limits by 5km/h kept getting me endless (electronically processed) fines. Unlike in China or in Cuba, I am not allowed to film or photograph at European train stations or at some ‘sensitive areas’. I was even stopped and chased away when I filmed the ice skating ring in front of the Municipality building in Paris! Surveillance cameras keep watching me from almost every corner, and the mainstream media feels ridiculously censored and submissive to the regime.A few months ago, when I travelled from Lebanon to Germany on Air France via Paris, both my suitcases were cut open by a saw, and then delivered to the final destination in plastic bags. “For security reasons they were ‘checked’ at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, as your bags were travelling from the Middle East,” I was told.

Of course I have a choice to stay for a while or to leave. And mostly, I leave. I frankly dislike 21st Century Europe, so why should I stay for longer than is necessary.

But many foreigners do not have this luxury. Their countries were raped, plundered and destabilized by the West, by NATO, by the US and by Europe. They are trying to survive, somehow. Surprisingly, only very few come to Europe! Very, very few compared to the millions of Europeans who are annually shutting the door behind their backs and leaving – leaving permanently, for distant shores.

Other ‘foreigners’ were born in Europe, but were never accepted. Were they to be born in Brazil or modern day South Africa, no one would even blink. They are Muslims, so what? They want to cover themselves on the public beaches? Well, it is hot and unusual, but illegal! How could it be illegal?

Europe is not at peace with itself. It robbed all over the world, it became rich because of colonialist and neo-colonialist plunder, but there is no joy behind its walls. Whenever I speak to Greeks, French, Germans, Italians, Czechs or Danes, I clearly feel it. Most Europeans do realize that their continent is in decline.

When one does not like his or her home, why not to re-think its concept, and rebuild it? Why not bring in totally new, even foreign ideas? Why stick to what makes it so oppressive?

But again, European ‘logic’ is quite different! The more dissatisfied people become, the more conservative and inward looking they get. Foreigners irritate them, or they even horrify and infuriate them. Unless they totally ‘adopt’ (abandon their culture), the majority of Europeans want them out.

In reality, Muslim women wearing burkinis is not about burkinis at all. At the beginning of this essay, we already illustrated how absurd the anti-burkini laws and regulations really are.

It is about something else. It is about the globally disliked culture of colonialist oppression and exceptionalism, flexing its muscles once again, at home and abroad. It is actually much more terrible than it looks. The movement to ban burkinis has its roots in a horrible past, when entire nations and cultures were annihilated by European barbaric expansionism.

So read between the lines:

“You can wear any wet suit, but not a burkini. It is exactly the same thing, but the wetsuit is our own invention (and therefore it is right), while the ‘burkini’ was designed by and for ‘the others’ (therefore it is clearly wrong). Remember, only our definitions are allowed on this Planet.

We are not religious or cultural fundamentalists (because only ‘the others’ can be), but we will protect our right and freedom to tell the world what can be believed, thought or even worn. Amen!”

This is the iron, unapologetic logic of the imperialism.

Therefore, poor burkinis should be defended! Let’s all buy them, even us, men. After all, when you look at those old black and white photos depicting European swimming pools and beaches, many dudes were wearing almost identical all-covering stuff, and so were the women. Just see it here!
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. Discussion with Noam Chomsky:On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

 

(First published by NEO (New Eastern Outlook)

19 September 2016

By Dr Binoy Kampmark

The disclosure of confidential material has its own sometimes fraught ethics. When it comes to medical information, assumptions abound that confidentiality comes first. Not, however, in international sports, a notorious field where the corrupt rub shoulders with the desperate; where perspectives of the supposedly level playing field meet unevenness and disadvantage. In such a case, disclosures can be both political and financial weapons.

The hack by the cyber espionage group Fancy Bears of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) data storage system has, to that end, produced a range of reactions. Transparency supporters have given it a good wink and in some cases, even a dismissive shrug. Germany’s discus thrower and 2012 Olympic Champion Robert Harting was content to tweet that, “We don’t hide anything. Go transparency!”

Australian Jock Bobridge, who had been prescribed prednisolone and glucocorticoids over a five-year period, explained that such prescriptions for rheumatoid arthritis were permissible. “Regarding the WADA hacks and ‘leaks’ of my personal information I’d like to make it clear I have no problem with this info becoming public.”[1]

That transparency drum has also been beaten by three-time Tour de France winner, Chris Froome, who insisted that nothing leaked on the issue of taking therapeutic use exemptions was particularly shattering. “I’ve openly discussed my TUEs (therapeutic use exemptions) with the media and have no issues with the leak which confirms my statements.”

Other individuals such as tennis figure Petra Kvitova revealed that she received therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) for hydrocortisone, and initially the banned anabolic agent DHEA, subsequently revoked by WADA.

The reaction from a spokesperson for two time Grand Slam winner Kvitova and the Czech tennis federation was all anger at the disclosure, arguing that her asthma condition had been “no secret”. “To say that Petra Kvitova suffers from asthma,” shot back Karel Tejkal with highbrow propriety, “is the same revelation as saying she’s won Wimbledon.”[2]

The picture emerging from the disclosure is that of top athletes who have been battling range of illnesses and lingering ailments within various rules of demarcation set out by WADA and general sports officialdom.

Venus Williams, who netted silver in the mixed doubles at the Rio Olympics, could not hide the fact that she was suffering from the energy-draining disease Sjogren’s Syndrome, a condition that necessitated her seeking exemptions. Those exemptions, she explained, had been established by the Tennis-Anti-Doping Program.

Sports officialdom had to race out explanations and clarifications in the wake of the disclosure. After all, athletes had tested positive for an assortment of goodies that may well have fallen foul of the establishment but for the fact that they were permitted by medical certificate. Delle Donne was certainly far from conflicted by this, expressing a round of thanks for the hackers “for making the world aware that I legally take a prescription for a condition I’ve been diagnosed with, which WADA granted me an exception for it.”

The often righteous Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) similarly noted that various exemptions were bound to be legitimate. “Despite the efforts of the hackers to twist these assumptions to prove foul play, in obtaining a TUE, the athletes have operated entirely within the rules of clean, fair sport.” Various conditions were legitimately treated by TUEs.

Gymnast Simone Biles, to reassure those watching the unfolding saga, insisted that she did “believe in clean sport, have always followed the rules, and will continue to do so as fair play is critical to sport”.

Biles, having tested positive for methylphenidate after four tests conducted on Aug 11, 14, 15 and 16, had been issued certificates from the International Gymnastic Federation for the daily use of the drug in quantities of 15 mg, and therapeutic use over the year period from September 2012.

It is precisely such behaviour that did not impress Russian president, Vladimir Putin. “It seems,” urged Russia’s suspicious leader, “as if healthy athletes are taking drugs legally that are prohibited for others, and people who are clearly suffering from serious illnesses, major disabilities, are suspected of taking some kind of substances and banned from the Paralympic Games.”

The hack has not merely revealed the way transparency can, inadvertently, create an economy of openness in a world that tends to lack it. It also shows the complexity, and unevenness of the drugs regime, where sports figures suffering from illness were still permitted various approved medications to effectively manage impairment and debilitation.

This stands in total contrast to the supposedly “war-like ideology” adopted by anti-doping agencies, which has struck some scholars as being akin to “the public discourse sustaining international efforts against illicit drugs.”[3] False assumptions about fairness in sports and the “level playing field” have been made in such a belligerent quest.

A crude form of social Darwinism has evidently been abandoned in certain, specific instances, where the doctor dispenses the certificate of medical mercy to enable a top performer to continue. Much has been left to WADA to explain in that regard. Such exemptions, in other words, may well be legal, but do they square with the evangelical world of the anti-dope crusader?

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

19 September 2016

By Dr Vivek Kumar Srivastava

The Syrian crisis has now moved into a serious zone where the next developments will bring the opposite groups, which were recently involved in a ceasefire deal, to a direct confrontation in more lethal way than the prevailing stage. The reason is not very hard to comprehend as in a strike by US led coalition forces; 62 Syrian soldiers have been killed. Though US regretted saying that it was nonintentional and was intended to target ISIS but Russia rejected the contention.

The Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said that ‘If previously we had suspicions that Al-Nusra Front is protected this way, now, after today’s airstrikes on the Syrian army we come to a really terrifying conclusion for the entire world: The White House is defending IS [Islamic State, formerly ISIS/ISIL].We demand a full and detailed explanation from Washington. That explanation must be given at the UN Security Council, immediately after the airstrike by coalition planes, Islamic State militants launched their offensive,[US coalition] strikes have cleared the way for ISIS fighters to take over Deir ez-Zor city now.’

Russia took the matter to UNO and fifteen members UN Security Council met last night and the relevant discussions are yet to open. US although has criticized the Russian demand for the security council meet calling it ‘cheap’.

These developments show that in Syria the rivalry is quite heightened between two powers, USA and Russia have looked to the Syrian crisis from different lens. The major contention of US has always been to replace Assad which is contested by Russia. This is the crux of the problem. In the aftermath of ceasefire deal by both the countries a common understanding was that this will not hold long. It happened so as since Monday when ceasefire was implemented after 9 September deal, about 199 violations till yesterday had taken place. Russia has accused US and the moderate groups for the same whereas US accused Assad regime for not allowing the humanitarian aids, consequently US said it would not set up a planned joint US-Russian military co-ordination cell in Syria.

The pro and anti groups of Assad cannot remain in silence because the US has concluded that removal of Assad is the final aim and the violations were mainly from the side of the anti Assad forces. Now the attack on the Syrian forces brings into open the US policies in Syria as the questions will be raised on several counts.

The start point will be- how the so efficient and scientifically managed US forces faltered on this point that the soldiers which were not to be attacked were killed. Was it a sheer negligence or the well thought strategy? It is often seen in the international conflicts that statements do not hold the truth and thrown only as a face saving tool. This was a well known trait of diplomatic communication and on several occasions the realities were enveloped by the use of the words. The traditional diplomacy is almost declined but the new ways and the tools cannot depart from the well established ways to save the faded faces.

Another question is related to the non coordination between the US and Russia. When a deal of non conflict was in operation, a proper understanding and the information sharing mechanism should have been established. The international norms in such cases demand the proper coordination and this is a very simple practice at the global conflict zones but since September 2015 when Russian air forces went to bomb the anti Assad targets mainly in North West Syria such cooperation lacked. USA and Russia failed to have a standard coordination and the cooperation on the issue of bombardment suggesting that a trust deficit existed between both and the main onus of responsibility was laid on US because Russia had carried more vigorous air attacks in terms of sorties than US. US never participated with the strength as it had executed during the gulf war. Its reluctance was always there not only in terms of sorties but also in terms of coordination. Though in some cases Russian strikes targeted which were to be avoided. Since those days the military cooperation between both the stakeholders in Syria survives with fragile thread.

One analysis leads us to think the likely cause of US attack may be just to measure the strength of the Syrian forces or a systematic and calculated deliberate act to destroy the Assad forces. This argument finds strength from the secrecy which is wrapped till now in the ceasefire deal which has taken place between US and Russia. The astonishing feature of modern nation state is that they desire transparency from others but when they are themselves to answer the questions they act as an innocent actor. The same has happened in case of ceasefire deal where it is still to be known to world what actually are the terms and conditions, both US and Russia have kept it a secret. The Russian stand is that first US should open then only it can follow. This secrecy supports the analysis that US may have given a thought to replace the Assad regime, its lasting goal. Russian President Putin has also given credence to such an analysis. He has explicitly stated ‘this comes from the problems the U.S. is facing on the Syrian track — they still cannot separate the so-called healthy part of the opposition from the half-criminal and terrorist elements. I don’t really understand why we have to keep such an agreement closed, in my opinion; this comes from the desire to keep the combat potential in fighting the legitimate government of Bashar Assad. But this is a very dangerous route.’

Such developments have wider implications because Russia will retaliate in its own manner. Russia will attempt to decipher the real cause of the strikes if it is deliberate then Syria will be thrust into more burring days and nights.

Dr. Vivek Kumar Srivastava is Consultant CRIEPS, Kanpur, e mail-vpy1000@yahoo.co.in

18 September 2016

By Counter Currents

Four militants stormed an Army base barely 50 metres from the Brigade Headquarters in Uri sector, 6 km from the Line of Control (LoC), killing 17 soldiers and wounding 23, nine of them critically, at 4.30 am Sunday morning. It is the highest casualty suffered by the Army in a single attack in Kashmir in the past two decades. The four fidayeen involved in the attack were also killed.

The well-trained, heavily-armed militants are believed to have crossed the LoC hours before the attack. They breached the 7-foot-high rear wall by cutting the barbed wire at about 4.30 am and sneaked into the Army base that houses an infantry battalion of the 12th Brigade.

As they lobbed grenades, opened fire and set ablaze the barracks and temporary shelters, there was utter chaos inside where 10 Dogra Regiment was in the process of moving out, making space for 6 Bihar Regiment. Of the 17 soldiers killed, 15 were from 6th battalion of the Bihar Regiment and two from 10 Dogra Regiment.

“Most casualties were primarily because of tents and temporary shelters catching fire. At the initial stage, soldiers of both the regiments were asleep inside. At least 10 of them were killed,” an Army official said. He said the militants, who belonged to the Jaish group, carried items with Pakistani marking.

The 12th Brigade is one of two brigades guarding the LoC in Uri sector, which is heavily forested. Sources said the militants may have infiltrated through Sokar sector and made their way through the dense cover.

The Army air-dropped special forces to zero in on the militants. After almost five hours of fierce fighting, all of them were killed.

The Army had a tough time shifting the injured to the Army Base Hospital. The state government rushed doctors from the Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences to the 92 Base Hospital in Badamibagh for assistance.

Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, who reached Srinagar following the strike, said he had asked Army Chief Gen Dalbir Singh to take firm action against those responsible for the attack.

Here is the full list of jawans who died in the Uri terror attack

(1) Subedar Karnail Singh, r/o Vill Shibu Chak, Teh- Bishnah, Dist Jammu, Jammu & Kashmir.
(2) Havildar Ravi Paul, r/o Samba, Dist Jammu, Jammu & Kashmir.
(3) Sepoy Rakesh Singh, r/o Vill Baddja, Dist Kaimur, Bihar.
(4) Sepoy Javra Munda, r/o Vill Meral, Dist Khuti, Jharkhand.
(5) Sepoy Naiman Kujur, r/o Vill Gumla, Chainpur, Jharkhand.
(6) Sepoy Uike Janrao, r/o Vill Nandgaon (Kh), Dist Amravati, Maharashtra.
(7) Havildar NS Rawat, r/o Vill Rajawa, Dist Rajasmand, Rajasthan.
(8) Sepoy Ganesh Shankar, r/o Vill Ghoorapalli, Dist Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
(9) Naik SK Vidarthi, r/o Vill Boknari, Dist Gaya, Bihar.
(10) Sepoy Biswajit Ghorai, r/o Vill Ganga Sagar, Dist South 24 Parganas, West Bengal.
(11) Lance Naik G Shankar, r/o Vill Jashi, Dist Satara, Maharashtra.
(12) Sep G Dalai, r/o Vill Jamuna Balia, Dist Howarah, West Bengal.
(13) Lance Naik RK Yadav, r/o Vill Balia, Uttar Pradesh.
(14) Sepoy Harinder Yadav, r/o Vill Ghazipur, Dist Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh.
(15) Sepoy TS Somnath, r/o Vill Khadangali, Dist Nashik, Maharashtra.
(16) Havildar Ashok Kumar Singh, r/o Vill Raktu Tola, Dist Bhojpur, Bihar.
(17) Sepoy Rajesh kr Singh, r/o Vill Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh.
19 September 2016

By Seyed Hossein Mousavian and Sina Toossi

In January, Saudi Arabia severed formal diplomatic ties with Iran after a row over its execution of a prominent Shia cleric ended with angry protestors attacking its Tehran embassy. Diplomacy has since been replaced by an ever-escalating war of words, and tensions have reached an all-time high.

Under pragmatist president Hassan Rouhani, Iran has for its part sought to foster dialogue on multiple occasions. Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif initiated meetings with his Saudi counterpart at venues like the UN General Assembly, attended the funeral of the late King Abdullah, and repeatedly dispatched envoys for talks with Saudi officials. “Once our Saudi friends are ready to engage in serious dialogue, they will find Iran to be … ready,” Zarif proclaimed in late 2015. His efforts have thus far been met with a muted Saudi response.

Instead, King Salman bin Abdulaziz’s Saudi Arabia has elected to pursue overt hostility. Among the kingdom’s provocations have been lending support to notorious Iranian terrorist groups like the MEK and expending considerable resources to persuade the GCC, Arab League, and Organization of Islamic Cooperation to adopt anti-Iranian stances.

The most recent Saudi-Iran spat to dominate global headlines stems from last year’s Hajj stampede, which resulted in a death toll the Saudis have obfuscated but Western sources have estimated at over 2,400 and Iran at roughly 4,700. It marked the latest in a long line of Hajj accidents under Saudi supervision.

According to The New York Times, Saudi authorities triggered the stampede by spontaneously blocking access to a key road near an Iranian encampment. A plurality of the fatalities were Iranians.

At the time, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei emphasized Iran was exercising “self-restraint in accordance with Islamic ethics” but cautioned it was nearing its limits. The succeeding year would prove to break this patience.

“Because of Saudi rulers’ oppressive behavior towards God’s guests, the world of Islam must fundamentally reconsider the management of the two holy places and hajj,” Ayatollah Khamenei declared on the stampede’s anniversary. Even the usually measured Javad Zarif recently stated that the al-Saud ruling family has turned into a “ruthless and illogical” regime.

Saudi Fears

At security conferences with many Saudis in the past two years, one of the authors, Seyed Hossein Mousavian, has consistently heard the same grievances. Iran, Saudis believe, has after three decades of sanctions and pressure still gained the upper hand over its neighbors. With traditional Arab powers like Egypt and Iraq either in domestic disarray or aligned with Iran, Saudi Arabia feels that it is the last Arab country standing in the way of total Iranian regional dominance.

It is understandable for Saudi leaders to feel vulnerable. Saudi Arabia is a young state that by itself is not capable of competing with Iran, given its population of roughly 20 million native citizens, upwards of 15 percent of whom are Shia Muslims that face routine discrimination. As an absolute monarchy, it also faces the triple threat of Sunni extremism, mainstream Islamist opposition, and calls for liberal democratic reform. Less discussed but also pertinent are the sharp regional and tribal fissures lurking just underneath the surface of Saudi society.

To bolster its regional position, Saudi Arabia has relied on its partnership with the United States. Over the past several decades, the US has effectively underwritten Saudi Arabia’s ability to exert power and influence in the region. Thus, what frightens the kingdom more than anything, and the prime reason for its opposition to the Iranian nuclear negotiations and much of President Obama’s Middle East policies, is the prospect of US engagement with Iran coupled with broader US disengagement from the Middle East.

The nature of Saudi provocations against Iran today suggests that it is bent on stoking regional tensions to keep the US embroiled in the region on its behalf. As President Obama has said, U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia “seek to exploit American ‘muscle’ for their own narrow and sectarian ends.”

A Realistic Peace Predicated on Mutual Acceptance

Saudi leaders must understand that Iran, regardless of its government, will always play a major regional role. This is primarily due to its structural characteristics, its strategic location and size, its demographics and natural resources, and a millennia-spanning history of unbroken statehood. Today, Iran is a nation of 80 million, endowed with the world’s largest combined oil and natural gas reserves, an increasingly diversified economy, self-reliance in key economic and security matters, and a highly educated population.

Saudi leaders have two choices before them. The first is to continue down their current path of pursuing aggressive, unilateralist foreign policies and preconditioning dialogue on quixotic notions of Iran having zero role in its neighborhood. This approach has been exemplified by the Saudis bombing Yemen with impunity, crushing pro-democracy protests in Bahrain, refusing to recognize the post-war democratic Iraqi government for six years, aiding and abetting terrorism (as attested by both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump), and countering the Arab Spring revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, to name but a few destabilizing policies. Of course, Saudi efforts to export its intolerant state ideology of Wahhabism and the disastrous effects this has had on the Muslim world have been well documented, most recently by Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif in a New York Times op-ed highlighting the global danger of this creed.

In taking this path, Saudi rulers would be wise to consider that for years the US, the sole global superpower, attempted a similar approach of altering Middle Eastern politics to align with its preferences through military intervention, only to meet failure and sow further destabilization. Given Saudi Arabia’s mounting economic and political woes, it is already bleeding while trying to make Iran bleed.

However, an alternative approach exists, predicated on abandoning self-defeating zero-sum mindsets and recognizing legitimate regional security threats and interests. Only then can Riyadh and Tehran begin to view their respective capabilities as assets and move towards establishing a credible, sustainable equilibrium that bolsters regional peace and security. Iran’s president has already demonstrated his readiness for such dialogue. The onus is now on Saudi Arabia.

Photo: Saudi ambassador to Iran Abdolrahma Bin Gharman al-Shahri meets with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in 2014. Photo by Amin Hosroshahi vis ISNA.

Seyed Hossein Mousavian is a Middle East Security and Nuclear Policy Specialist at Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and author of “Iran and the United States: An Insider’s view on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace.” Sina Toossi is a Senior Research Specialist at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

19 September 2016

 

By TASS Russian News Agency

“If this is the case, then maybe this is exactly why the US side does not agree on publishing the Russian-US agreements on Syria,” Russian Foreign Ministry’s official spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said

MOSCOW, September 17. /TASS/. US airstrikes at the Syrian army lead to the conclusion that Washington defends the Islamic State (terrorist organization banned in Russia), Russian Foreign Ministry’s official spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told Rossiya 24 TV channel on Sunday.

“If we had suspicions earlier that this is in defense of Jebhat al-Nusra (terrorist organization banned in Russia), then now, after today’s airstrikes at the Syrian army, we come to a scary conclusion — the White House defends IS,” Zakharova said.

“If this is the case, then maybe this is exactly why the US side does not agree on publishing the Russian-US agreements on Syria,” she continued. “We demand explanations from Washington – whether this is a deliberate policy to support IS or a mistake,” she noted.

According to the Syrian government forces’ command, 62 servicemen were killed and 100 more injured in an airstrike near the city of Deir ez-Zor. Russian Defense Ministry’s official spokesman Igor Konashenkov said that on Saturday, “from 5pm to 5:50pm near an aerodrome of the Deir ez-Zor city (Syria), the aircraft of ‘anti-IS coalition’ (two F-16 and two A10) delivered four airstrikes at units of Syrian government forces which were surrounded by Islamic State terrorist groupings,” Konashenkov noted.

18 September 2016

By Jay Syrmopoulos

Over the past 15 years many highly respected academics and experts have come forward to challenge the official narrative on the collapse of the WTC towers forwarded by the U.S. government. The official government position holds that the collapse of all three towers was due to intense heat inside of the buildings.

But a new forensic investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11, published in Europhysics News – a highly respected European physics magazine – claims that “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.”

While many in the mainstream have attempted to label anyone questioning the official narrative as “tin foil hat” conspiracy theorist, many highly respected experts have come forward to lampoon the idea that the buildings collapsed due to the intense heat and fires following two terrorist-directed plane crashes.

“Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities,” the four physicists conclude in the damning report.

The new study is the work of Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries and Ted Walter, the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers.

The comprehensive study in Europhysics Magazine directly challenges the official narrative and lends to a growing body of evidence that seriously questions the veracity of the government narrative.

In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology remarked that the case was exceptionally bizarre. There were no other known cases of total structural collapses in high-rise buildings caused by fires and so it is deeply unusual that it should have happened three times in the space of one day, noted NIST.

Official investigations have never been able to thoroughly and coherently explain how this might have happened and various teams tasked with examining the collapse have raised difficult questions about the veracity of the government’s story.

Perhaps most damning of all, the experts claimed that after a thorough forensic analysis of video footage of the building’s collapse, it revealed signs of a controlled implosion. Additionally, Jones has co-authored a number of papers documenting evidence of unreacted nano-thermitic material in the WTC dust.

The authors of the study note that the buildings fell with such speed and symmetry that they there was no other feasible explanation for the sudden collapse at free fall speeds – directly refuting studies that attempted to debunk the idea that the building fell without resistance. These respected experts’ new forensic analysis only adds to the growing movement of people calling for a new and impartial investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center.

Revealing the scope and breadth of public disbelief in the official government narrative surrounding the events of 9/11, even presidential candidate Jill Stein has recently called for a new investigation.

https://youtu.be/IYUYya6bPGw

The original source of this article is The Mind Unleashed

Copyright © Jay Syrmopoulos, The Mind Unleashed, 2016

17 September 2016