Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Saturday, May 21, 2016

‘The Shrapnel Finds Us Wherever We Hide’


Sudan’s Janjaweed are back. Only this time they’re better armed.

BY TOM RHODESMUSA JOHN-MAY 19, 2016

NUBA MOUNTAINS, Sudan — “They surrounded us, killed kids and women, burnt the village. We waited until nightfall, and then we escaped to the mountains,” said Kawthar Ali Adelan, who sought refuge from a March offensive by Sudanese armed forces in a remote mountain cave. “We can’t go to get water because we still hear the shelling and see the planes flying around.”

The 25-year-old mother was wedged in a rock crevice with her cooking materials laid out before her. “The shrapnel finds us wherever we hide,” she said.

Assaults like the one on Adelan’s village, Alazrak, coupled with near-daily air bombardment by President Omar al-Bashir’s forces are the new normal in Sudan’s Nuba Mountains. For five years now, the government has sought to defeat the rebel fighters who once fought alongside South Sudanese secessionists and now demand greater autonomy in their remote border region. Neither side has been able to gain the upper hand on the battlefield, resulting in a brutal, grinding conflict in which the rebel’s civilian communities are the ultimate victims.



The frontlines of this war have remained remarkably static since it broke out in 2011: Little has changed save for the body count, which has ticked steadily higher. But as Bashir’s government has fallen on increasingly tough economic times — the result of dwindling oil revenues and expensive wars not just in Nuba, but in the Darfur and Blue Nile regions as well — it has started to look for ways to cut military costs. To that end, it has repackaged the notorious Janjaweed militia from Darfur and dispatched it to the Nuba Mountains as a cheaper alternative to conventional troops. This Rapid Support Force (RSF), as it is now called, is under the direct control of Sudan’s National Intelligence and Security Service and thought to beleading operations against the rebels.

This year, the annual offensive that typically accompanies the beginning of the dry season — when vehicles can once again maneuver over the region’s swampy terrain — came several months later than expected. When it finally got underway, Sudanese forces were flanked by an unusually large number of heavily armed RSF forces, which are less accountable for the civilian casualties they inflict. In late March, these fighters took the lead in launching a massive attack on multiple rebel fronts, including the key towns of Alazrak, Um Serdiba, and Angarto, where fighting is ongoing.

When they came into Alazrak, they burnt houses [and] food storages of the civilians; some older people who could not flee were killed with machetes,” said Omar Ibrahim, a rebel soldier who estimated the number of pro-government fighters in Alazrak at roughly 6,000.

According to Alex de Waal, a Sudan expert and the executive director of the World Peace Foundation at Tufts University, the Sudanese government is increasingly relying on a range of paramilitary and militia groups in addition to conventional troops, not because they are more effective in battle, but because they are cheaper and their abuses can’t be directly pinned on the government. “Historically, the worst atrocities in Sudan’s civil wars have been committed by irregular militia, acting on the basis that they enjoy impunity,” he said. “The implications for the civilians of these areas are very worrying: This is a trend towards a protracted, commercialized conflict.”

For centuries, the Nuba people lived in relative isolation, shielded first from Arab slave raiders and then from the brutal government in Khartoum by the rough, mountainous terrain of their homeland. But by the early 1980s, isolation had become a weapon the government could use against them: It instituted a deliberate policy of political and economic marginalization that pushed many Nubans to join the rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), helping South Sudan eventually gain independence in 2011.

When new borders were drawn after the war, however, Nubans were left stranded in Sudan. For a time, they held out hope of negotiating for greater autonomy. But when the government reneged on its promise to hold a vaguely defined “popular consultation” that would give Nubans some say in how they were governed, and pushed for disarmament before the rebels were ready, they went back to fighting for their autonomy instead.

A similar popular consultation process broke down in the neighboring Sudanese state of Blue Nile, where fighting also resumed once again. The rebels in both areas now call themselves the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N).

The conflict quickly settled into a war of attrition. Unable to defeat the SPLA-N militarily, the government began a relentless bombing campaign targeting farmlands and other civilian areas. The goal was to force people into government-controlled areas — if not with the bombs themselves, then with the hunger that followed.

“They continue to target the heavily populated areas — the farming areas, schools, churches, mosques,” said Kumni Farid, the mayor of Delami County in the Nuba Mountains, whose town was bombed most recently in February. “They think the power of the SPLA-N is from the citizens, so they bomb us along with our farms and cattle.”

In five years of conflict in Blue Nile and South Kordofan, where the Nuba Mountains are located, thousands of people have been killed and nearly 400,000 have been displaced. But with most humanitarian aid blocked by the Sudanese government and few journalists able to access the region, the conflict has remained virtually invisible to the outside world.

This year started with hardly a bomb dropped, a sharp contrast to the 816 dropped in January of last year alone. But since the offensive began in late March, the rate of bombing has increased, keeping farmers from tilling their fields.

 Every day, they bombed; every day, it was impossible to farm,” said Mohamed Nalteen, the mayor of Kau, a rebel-controlled area in the Nuba Mountains, adding that there has been virtually no food in his area since June of last year.

According to a recent report by the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, an organization that monitors trends in food insecurity, both South Kordofan and Blue Nile face acute food shortages, mainly among internally displaced populations. Food production this year is projected to be 55 percent lower than last year, in part because of adverse weather conditions.

Some war-stricken areas are already facing famine. The South Kordofan and Blue Nile States Food Security Monitoring Unit, an independent organization that uses local monitors to assess food security levels, reported that 242 people, including 24 children, died of hunger-related illnesses in the second half of 2015 in the rebel-controlled Warni and Kau-Nyaro areas of South Kordofan.

The new government strategy hasn’t paid any military dividends: Sources on both sides of the conflict say that the SPLM-N repulsed nearly all of the government’s attacks, preventing it from gaining much territory. The rebel army also captured considerable military hardware. But the conflict remains largely frozen — and with little chance for a military victory on either side.

Diplomacy, too, has proved maddeningly slow. In March, peace talks failed for the 11th time. Neither side treats its counterpart as a credible broker for peace: The government has breached five peace deals with various rebel groups since 2005, and factionalism within the rebel coalition has made it unreliable in negotiations.

While the political impasse continues, it is the civilians of South Kordofan and Blue Nile who suffer the most. James Mohamed is a student at Tongoli Primary School in rebel-controlled Delami County. He is tired of government planes flying overhead, disrupting class. Whenever they hear the sound of an Antonov bomber, the entire class runs for the fox holes that have been dug near the school.

“War is always against education,” Mohamed said. “They [the government and rebels] should sit down and talk, as much as the government [is] bombing us. We are all Sudanese; nothing should push us to such wars.”

Just weeks after he spoke with Foreign Policy, a Sudanese Antonov bombed Tongoli Primary yet again, killing a teacher at the school.
Israel's defense minister, Moshe Yaalon, announced his resignation May 20, citing a lack of "trust" in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the governing party. (The Washington Post)

 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attempts to remake his governing coalition have set heads spinning, particularly the dumping of his well-regarded defense minister, to possibly bring aboard a polarizing maverick with few friends in Washington.

Definitely out: Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, who resigned his post on Friday. On the way to the door, Yaalon blasted Netanyahu, saying he has lost confidence in the prime minister’s decision-making and morals.

Maybe in: Avigdor Lieberman. He is a former foreign minister and current leader of an ultra­nationalist political party built around the 1 million Russian-speaking immigrants to Israel.

He has pressed for Arab citizens of Israel to move to the West Bank and wants to implement the death penalty for terrorists. He also wants to increase pension payments for the Russian newcomers.
Israeli pundits previously had called the current Netanyahu government the most right-wing in the country’s history, but this new coalition, if formed, will take the title.

Netanyahu’s closed-door negotiations are ongoing, and the deal has not been struck. There also is not a lot of wiggle room. Netanyahu’s coalition holds a one-seat majority in parliament.

In a news conference Friday, Yaalon, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, warned that Israel was drifting dangerously toward extremism.

“I fought with all my might against manifestations of extremism, violence and racism in Israeli society, which are threatening its sturdiness and trickling into the armed forces, hurting it already,” he said.

Yaalon appeared to be referring to support by Israeli leaders for a combat medic who fatally shot a wounded Palestinian attacker as he lay on a street in Hebron, in the occupied West Bank.
Thousands of Israelis rallied in Tel Aviv and proclaimed the soldier a hero. Human rights activists called the shooting an execution. The killing was captured on video.

Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon announces his resignation during a press conference on May 20, 2016, in Tel Aviv. (Jack Guez/AFP/Getty Images)


Just a few days ago, it looked as if Netanyahu was about to strike a deal with the leader of the opposition in parliament, Isaac Herzog, who steers the center-left Labor Party.

The speculation was that Herzog would take the post of foreign minister and seek to resurrect peace talks with the Palestinians, with the support of Arab allies such as Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi.
Then everything fell apart.

Yaalon’s departure comes as the Obama administration and Israel are locked in difficult talks over the future of U.S. military aid to its front-line Middle East ally.

Israel is nearing the end of a 10-year, $30 billion package — the most generous in U.S. history and more than double what any other nation gets — and Netanyahu wants the number to climb to $40 billion or more in the next decade.

Netanyahu has warned that if he doesn’t get what he seeks from the Obama White House, he is prepared to wait for the next administration.

With Yaalon’s abrupt and angry departure, the future of the deal is more unclear than ever.
Yaalon is deeply steeped in Israel’s defense culture. He is a retired general, a former chief of staff of the army and a past commander of commando units.

Lieberman, an immigrant from Moldova, served as a corporal in an artillery unit.

The Times of Israel called his service short and unimpressive: “His only noted physical confrontation appears to be two fist fights at Hebrew University with members of an Arab student group.”
Still, Israel has had other defense ministers without much military experience.

Yaalon, too, has tangled with U.S. officials in the past, famously deriding Secretary of State John F. Kerry as “obsessive” and “messianic” in his pursuit of a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, an effort that collapsed in the spring of 2014.

The State Department spokesman at the time called Yaalon’s comments “offensive and inappropriate, especially given all that the U.S. is doing to support Israel’s security needs.”

On Friday, State Department spokesman John Kirby said: “We appreciate Mr. Yaalon’s leadership and partnership as defense minister and we look forward to working with his successor.”

Kirby added, “Our bonds of friendship are unbreakable, and commitment to the security of Israel remains absolute.”

Yaalon has been a steady leader of Israel’s defense establishment, enjoying a cordial, frank, productive relationship with U.S. military brass, the White House security team and Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter, according to appraisals by American diplomats.

Lieberman is another story. During his tenure as foreign minister, he was essentially persona non grata at the State Department. If Israel and the United States had anything to talk about, Netanyahu picked up the phone and spoke with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In his first official trip to Washington in 2009, Lieberman and Clinton clashed over the continued construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, communities that the international community calls illegal and the United States considers illegitimate and an impediment to peace. Israel disputes this.
Lieberman lives on a settlement.

In a statement, the Palestinian Authority’s Foreign Ministry called Lieberman an “extremist” and said entry into the Netanyahu government would be “fresh proof that there is no real peace partner in Israel.”
During Obama’s two attempts to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Lieberman, even when he served as foreign minister, had no seat at the table.

Describing Lieberman’s tenure as foreign minister, Yuval Diskin, a columnist at Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, wrote: “He mainly visited largely irrelevant countries around the world.”

Lieberman has his supporters. An Israeli official watching the negotiations to form a new coalition told The Washington Post, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe inside dealings, that a populist tough guy like Lieberman is just the man to help broker a real peace with the Palestinians.

While it is uncertain whether Lieberman and his party will enter the Netanyahu government, one move appears certain.

With Yaalon’s departure, the next in line on the Likud list to join parliament is Yehuda Glick, a prominent activist who wants Jewish worshipers to be allowed to pray on the raised esplanade that Jews call the Temple Mount.

The same site is called the Noble Sanctuary by Muslims and holds al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock.

Glick survived an assassination attempt two years ago by a Palestinian gunman.

Recently, Glick told Israeli reporters that if he enters parliament, he will do his best to change the status quo on the Temple Mount — a position opposed by Netanyahu.

Incitement among Palestinians asserting that the Israelis wanted to let Jews pray at the Temple Mount was one of the sparks that began the most recent six months of stabbings and gun and vehicular attacks by Palestinians against Israeli soldiers and civilians.

Carol Morello in Brussels contributed to this report.

WORLD VIEW: Obama’s nuclear disarmament failure

The newly installed US nuclear defense system in Romania

Newsroom PanamaBy Jonathan Power -May 17, 2016

DURING the Cold War barely a week went by without some reportage or debate on nuclear weapons. Not today. Yet most of the nuclear weapons around then are still around.

It would be alright if they were left to quietly rust in their silos. But they are not. When in 2010 President Barack Obama made a deal with Russian President Dimitri Medvedev to cut their respective arsenals of strategic missiles by one-third the Republican-dominated US Congress, as the price for its ratification of the deal, decreed that Obama and future presidents be made to spend a trillion dollars on updating and modernizing America’s massive arsenal.

Now that chicken is coming home to roost- and a few other chickens too.

President Barack Obama’s unexpected legacy is that he has presided over an America that has been at war longer than any previous president. Moreover, of recent presidents, apart from Bill Clinton, he has cut the US nuclear weapon stockpile at the slowest rate.

The Republican’s extreme right clipped Obama’s wings. Of that there is no doubt, making it impossible thus far, to negotiate with Russia any further cuts. At the same time the counterproductive US/EU confrontation with Russia over Ukraine pushed President Vladimir Putin into the foolish tactic of talking about the possible use of nuclear weapons and deploying intimidating flights over the airspace of the Baltic Sea. When Putin was asked a year ago if Russia was prepared to bring nuclear weapons into play in the confrontation over Crimea, he replied, ”We were ready”.

Yet not all can be pinned on Congress or Putin. Obama’s vision of a nuclear-free world outlined in his famous speech in Prague in April 2009 has come to naught. “The Prague vision has been empty of calories”, says Bruce Blair, the former Air Force nuclear launch officer who revealed the tenuous controls on launching that exists in the underground silos that contain long-range ballistic missiles.

Why for example has Obama set about cutting the proposed budget for nuclear security? Yet there are a 200,000 putative nuclear weapons in the world in the form of highly enriched uranium and plutonium, as well as those already in service. The cuts will affect the Global Material Security Program which has the task of improving the security of nuclear materials around the world, securing orphaned or disused radiological sources and strengthening nuclear smuggling detection.

Why is Obama building the Ballistic Missile Defence System, based in Romania and Poland? It is meant to fire “a bullet at a bullet”, supposedly to defend Europe and the US against a nuclear attack by Iran. (Dutch and Danish warships are also being fitted with sensors that plug into the system.) But one of Obama’s greatest achievements is the nuclear defanging of Iran- an effort that was strongly helped by Russia’s contribution to the negotiations.

Obama and the Pentagon say this is not about Russia. But Russia believes it is. Nato’s Secretary-General Jens Stolenberg, says that “many countries are seeking to develop or acquire their own ballistic missiles”. 
But which ones? North Korea? It would not use this flight-path. Or Pakistan and India which only aim at each other and in India’s case at China. Richard Burt, who negotiated the path-breaking Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia at the time of President George H. W. Bush says, “It is debatable whether other countries will go nuclear”.

Stoltenberg also defends the Ballistic Missile System, arguing that “the interceptors are too few and located too far south to intercept Russian intercontinental missiles”. Yet once the system is fully in place it can be upgraded relatively easily and this is what perturbs Russia. Even now it could probably take out in flight Russian short and medium range missiles.

No wonder Putin talks the nuclear talk. The System destabilizes the nuclear balance.

Jonathan Beale, the BBC’s defence correspondent, recently broadcast an analysis of the System. He concludes that “Nato and the US may risk being accused of not telling the whole truth”.

Recently a dozen Democratic senators wrote to Obama asking him to “redouble” his efforts to reduce nuclear threats”. They went on to say that the US should propose again that the US and Russia reduce their nuclear arsenals to 1,000 weapons and 500 delivery systems apiece. That is less than half than what they currently have deployed. Richard Burt believes that Washington could be doing more to engage Moscow. “I don’t think we are trying hard enough to bring Putin to the table”.

Obama has only 6 months left to make his mark. A deal with Russia could not be negotiated in that time even if he wanted to. But he could emulate his predecessor, George W. Bush, who simply announced he was unilaterally putting 1000 nuclear missiles on the shelf. He could also cancel the Ballistic Missile Defence System.

Fear Is not a Good Counsellor

money_file_photo
All economists agree that we are entering into a post-industrial world, where the share of labour in value-added to products is going to continue to diminish. Automation will rise from the present 12 percent of industrial production, to 40 percent within ten years. The total number of refugees is now close to 20 million, according to the United Nations and will keep growing.

by Roberto Savio

( May 20, 2016, Rome, Sri Lanka Guardian) A new spectre is haunting the world. It is not the spectre of communism, as Marx’s Manifesto famously proclaimed. It is the spectre of fear, which has increasingly become the rationale behind politics. And, as the old proverb says, fear is not a good counselor.

Let us take, for example, the last elections in the Philippines. In a country where the of memory of the Marcos dictatorship are still relatively recent (Marcos was forced by a popular revolution to quit in 1986), people have elected by a large margin as their president Rodrigo Duterte, who made his campaign motto: “Let us kill them all”. He was referring to criminals, thieves, drug dealers and others whom he prosecuted using paramilitary gangs, when he was mayor of Davao City. In his campaign, he said that once president he would kill some of them himself. The outgoing President, Benigno S. Aquino III, tried to stop him, saying that was tantamount to return to the dictatorship of Ferdinando Marcos. He asked the other candidates to unite to defeat Duterte, but nobody agreed.

Despite strong economic growth, the Philippines still has a high level of poverty and unemployment, a raging war in the southern part of the country against insurgents and kidnapping gangs. Polls found that there was a general sense of fear: from those unemployed and looking for work, to those who were already working but were concerned with being able to keep their jobs. It was generally believed that this very sense of uncertainty in the population was an important element in the final vote.

On the other side of the world, in Brazil, President Dilma Roussef, elected less than two years ago by 50 million voters, has been deposed by the Congress. She has not been accused of stealing, (in a giant corruption scandal), but of falsifying the budget, a practice commonly used everywhere. A surveyby a specialized Brazilian firm, found that the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets calling for her impeachment, were from the middle class, and they knew that over 50 percent of parliamentary Deputees and Senators voting for her impeachment were under criminal investigation, and for far worse crimes than falsifying a budget. While the glue uniting the demonstrators was to eradicate corruption (though Rousseff has not been accused of this), citizens were upset by the growing economic crisis, which has put Brazil in a dramatic situation, where the government is incapable of facing the crisis.

It is important to know that the Workers Party (PT) under the Presidency of Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff, has lifted 30 millions from poverty into middle class. Those millions fear that they will go back to where they come from, and are the large majority of those who have taken to the streets. What is impressive is that another poll found that close to 32 percent of the demonstrators were actually dreaming of the period under the military regime,( 1964-1985) when order was guaranteed.

Looking now at the current situation in the United States,a country that that many consider ‘the’ example of democracy, the last book from two noted social scientists, John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, “Stealth Democracy”, uses results from a Gallup poll carried out in 1998, and updates it today. Incredibly, a surprising number of Americans dislike the messiness of democracy. Sixty percent of respondents believed that government would “run better if decisions were run like a business”. Thirty-two percent were convinced that the US government would “run better if decisions were left up to successful business people”, 31 percent believed it would run better if decisions were instead left to “non-elected experts”.

Some time ago, the NY Times published the results of a striking poll, where one third of respondents would have accepted a military government, if this were more efficient. The two authors think that those data are a good explanation for Trump’s success. But they also concur that the main support base for Donald Trump comes from people that feel that they have been left behind by the system and have fears for the future.

No wonder: the American middle class has shrunk by less than 50 percent of the adult population, compared with 61 percent at the end of the 1960. The Pew Research Centre, together with the Financial Times, has come to a startling conclusion. Society splinters, as the bedrock of post-war economy is “hollowed out” – the American middle class has shrunk by half. For the first time, those in lower and upper incomes households outnumbered those in the middle class. Just to give an example, the number of adults in the upper two tiers has grown by 7.8 million, while those in the middle class by 3 million. Those in the lower two tiers, increased by 6.8 million. In this trend, the most important wedge has been education. Those with a university education were eight times likelier to live in the upper income tiers, than adults who did not finish high school, and twice as likely as an adult who has only a high school diploma. Therefore, those who cannot afford higher education are now becoming excluded from a successful labour market. Many who work in low paying jobs, do not earn enough for a normal living.

Let us now go to Europe. The only country that has made a study about what is happening to its middle class is Spain: but it is certainly representative of many countries in Europe. Between 2007 and 2013, (the years of the great recession, from which Europe has not yet escapted), the lower class grow from 26,6 percent of the population, to 38.5 percent. A study from the Foundation BBVA has found three essential trends: 1) income per capita and for families has now reverted to levels not seen since the end of the last century; 2) the distribution of income has become worsened, increasing economic inequity; and 3) the unstoppable increase of this inequality combined with the decline in income” has created situations of poverty and social exclusion that, a few years ago, appeared to have disappeared from our society”.

In China, the middle class is frantically trying to place savings abroad; China has lifted 600 million people out of poverty but these same people are obviously worried about slide backwards again. The Chinese economy is in the middle of a change of economic model, from the export to the internal market. This is accompanied by the closure of many inefficient factories and companies, just the beginning of a radical process. Individuals and companies have moved about 1 trillion dollarsout of the country in the last year and a half. Economic insecurity adds to the list of daily worries which include pollution, tainted food and water, millions of faulty vaccines, the lack of a real retirement system, coupled with the lack of medical support. Social media now carry articles on “the anxiety of the middle class”, “will the middle class become the new poor?”. The Financial Times found that 45.5 percent of middle income earners wanted to take at least 10 percent of their savings abroad, and another 29 percent has already done so. In 2014, 76.089 Chinese were awarded permanent residency coupled with solid financial requirements, compared with 4.291 the previous year. In the 2014-15 scholastic year, 304 040 Chinese were studying in the US, compared with 110 000 in 2011-12. Meanwhile, according to official figures, there were over 850 000 public demonstrations last year.

All economists agree that we are entering into a post-industrial world, where the share of labour in value-added to products is going to continue to diminish. Automation will rise from the present 12 percent of industrial production, to 40 percent within ten years. The total number of refugees is now close to 20 million, according to the United Nations and will keep growing. The giant fire in Canada, that almost destroyed an entire town, is one of the many sign of climate change. Newspapers in every country devote growing space to corruption, the Panama Papers, youth unemployment, and to the threat of terrorism, just to quote a few elements that lead people to feel fearful. Therefore, the Trump, the Dutertes, the Le Pens, the Erdogans are a mechanic reaction to fear. But is fear a good counsellor?

Roberto SavioRoberto Savio
Roberto Savio, founder and president emeritus of the Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency, where this piece originally published and publisher of Other News.

Economics Has Failed America

When it comes to the impact of global trade, the dismal science has done a dismal job explaining how to help workers hurt by globalization.

Economics Has Failed America BY DANIEL ALTMAN-MAY 19, 2016

As a recovering economist writing on
behalf of my erstwhile field, I would like to apologize to every American who has lost a job or a livelihood because of globalization. Economics has failed you. It has failed you because of ideology, politics, and laziness. It has failed you because its teachings are woefully incomplete, and its greatest exponents have done almost nothing to complete them.

There are “positive” questions in economics that have mathematical answers — things that simply must be true — and then there are “normative” questions that amount to value judgments on points of policy. In economics classes, we teach the former and usually stop short when faced with the latter. This leaves a hole in any discussion of economic policy; students acquire first principles but rarely consider real-world applications, because to do so would presuppose a social or political point of view.

In the case of free trade and globalization, this omission has been disastrous. All first-year students of economics learn the theory of comparative advantage and gains from trade. They see a mathematical proof showing that when two countries trade goods or services, the benefits to the winners outweigh the costs to the losers. They are assured, correctly, that this result allows everyone to be made better off — or at least no worse off — by trade.

Yet the redistribution required to generate this broad improvement in living standards is hardly addressed, or sometimes even mentioned. To do so would be to step into the muddy mire of normative questions.Should the government take from some people in order to give to others? Who should give the most, and who should receive? What exactly should they receive?

Even putting politics aside, these are not easy questions. No one has figured out a foolproof way to make workers hurt by globalization whole again. In theory, everyone who benefited from globalization — every consumer who bought cheap imported products, every producer who used cheap imported inputs, every exporter — would have to chip in. Likewise, everyone who suffered — every worker whose job moved abroad, every shareholder whose company’s prices were undercut by foreign competition — would be in line for compensation. Moreover, society would have to agree on the value of all these benefits and costs, not in dollars but rather in terms of well-being.

This might be heavy going for first-year students, not to mention their professors, so we move on to the next model. Consider the following passages from recent first-year economics textbooks — after several pages on comparative advantage and gains from trade, these are virtually all the words the authors chose to devote to the nettlesome issue of winners and losers:

Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok of George Mason University offer this breezy guidance: “Job destruction is ultimately a healthy part of any growing economy, but that doesn’t mean we have to ignore the costs of transitioning from one job to another. Unemployment insurance, savings, and a strong education system can help workers respond to shocks.” It may be worth noting that Cowen is a frequent critic of unemployment insurance on his blog.

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman and his wife, the economist Robin Wells, are even less specific: “The great majority of economists would argue that the gains from reducing trade protection still exceed the losses. However, it has become more important than before to make sure that the gains from international trade are widely spread.” Perhaps the book’s brevity owes something to Krugman’s opinion that gains from trade have pretty much been exhausted anyway.

More realism comes from N. Gregory Mankiw, the former chairman of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, who sounds resigned: “But will trade make everyone better off? Probably not. In practice, compensation for the losers from international trade is rare. Without such compensation, opening up to international trade is a policy that expands the size of the economic pie, while perhaps leaving some participants in the economy with a smaller slice.”

Finally, R. Glenn Hubbard, Mankiw’s predecessor in the White House, and Anthony Patrick O’Brien of Lehigh University are the only ones who mentionthe program designed to accomplish redistribution: “It may be difficult, though, for workers who lose their jobs because of trade to easily find others. That is why in the United States the federal government uses the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to provide funds for workers who have lost their jobs due to international trade. These funds can be used for retraining, for searching for new jobs, or for relocating to areas where new jobs are available. This program — and similar programs in other countries — recognizes that there are losers from international trade as well as winners.”

The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program has a budget of about $664 million, or roughly 0.004 percent of gross domestic product.

 This means one dollar of every $25,000 in income generated by the United States goes to help people here who have been hurt by globalization. They don’t receive the cash directly; they just have to hope that the program — which offers retooling, retraining, and relocation, among other services — will aid their transition to new jobs.

There aren’t many beneficiaries, either. Even in the dark economic days of 2010, fewer than 300,000 Americansreceived TAA. Yet to judge by the political climate, millions more have grievances related to globalization. Across the country, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have garnered applause and probably votes as well by attacking the North American Free Trade Agreement and potential new deals with Europe and Asia.

This should not come as a surprise to economists. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve written that globalization reduces inequality among countries and increases inequality within countries. The wealthiest, most highly educated, and most internationally connected people are always the best equipped to claim the biggest gains from trade. In poor countries, these gains from trade often come from the exports of labor-intensive industries, and the millions of people who work in these industries may benefit as well. That used to happen here, too, but not anymore.

In the United States, the big losers from the current wave of globalization have been working- and middle-class people, as Branko Milanovic of the City University of New York details in his new book, Global Inequality. Many of them have gravitated to the insurgent campaigns of Trump and Sanders, whose proposals have left economists shaking their heads and wringing their hands.

But we have only ourselves to blame. We never told our students the importance of managing the transition to a more integrated global economy. We never really told them how to do it, either. If we had done our jobs, it needn’t have been this way.

Photo credit: FRANCK ROBICHON/AFP/Getty Images
EU members complain that Turkey sending unfit Syrians in swap deal

Turkey is sending ill and less-educated Syrians, EU members complain, as Ankara refuses to send Syrian academics


Around 400 people have been deported to Turkey from Europe since controversial deal began (AFP) -
Saturday 21 May 2016
EU members have complained to Turkey for sending unwell Syrians to Europe as part of a controversial migrant swap deal, German daily Der Spiegel reported on Saturday.
Under a deal that came into force in March, the EU will resettle one Syrian refugee from camps in Turkey in exchange for each asylum seeker deported back to Turkey after arriving in Europe by boat.
So far around 400 people have been returned to Turkey under the deal, meaning in theory that 400 others have been resettled in Europe.
However, amid legal challenges to the deal, Der Spiegel's report suggests that tensions over the fine print could also be putting it at risk.
At a recent internal EU meeting in Brussels, a representative of Luxembourg reportedly criticised Turkey for sending “serious medical cases” as well as less-educated Syrians as part of the scheme.
Germany's parliamentary state secretary in the interior ministry, Ole Schroeder, also reported to the country's parliament this week that Turkey is not sending highly educated Syrians to Europe.
Turkey has informed UNHCR, the UN's refugee agency, that Syrian academics may not be included in the scheme and resettled to Europe.
UNHCR is usually in charge of identifying people eligible for refugee resettlement programmes, but in this case Turkey has insisted that it be in charge of selecting candidates.
There has been growing resentment between the EU and Turkey over recent weeks, with Turkish politicians repeatedly threatening to suspend the programme if its citizens are not granted visa-free travel to Europe.
The legality of the scheme, which has been criticised by rights groups as being immoral, came under renewed question on Friday when an independent appeals tribunal in Greece ruled that it would be unlawful to deport a Syrian asylum seeker back to Turkey.
A three-person appeals tribunal based in Lesbos ruled that Turkey does not uphold international treaties governing human rights, resulting in the overturn of the defendant's forced deportation.
“The committee has judged that the temporary protection which could be offered by Turkey to the applicant, as a Syrian citizen, does not offer him rights equivalent to those required by the Geneva convention,” the tribunal wrote in its verdict.
The ruling, which suggests that returning asylum seekers to Turkey could violate their human rights, could set a precedent that puts the continuation of the deal in serious doubt.
- See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/eu-members-complain-turkey-sending-unwell-poorly-educated-syrians-migrant-swap-deal-1631437229#sthash.9jNDmmK6.dpuf

New poll shows overwhelming support in UK for refugees

18 May 2016, 6:46pm


More than three quarters of the British public would accept refugees in their neighbourhood or home, according to a new Amnesty International survey published today, showing that anti-refugee political rhetoric is “out of step” with public opinion.

The survey, carried out for Amnesty by internationally renowned consultancy GlobeScan of more than 27,000 people across 27 countries to gauge public attitudes towards refugees, also found that 70 per cent of British people think the UK government should do more to help those fleeing war and persecution.

The results from the majority of countries in the survey show that most people are ready and willing to accept refugees. Globally, two out of three people think that their governments should do more to help refugees fleeing war and persecution, and 80 per cent would accept refugees in their country, city, neighbourhood or home. GlobeScan has ranked public opinion in order of the countries most accepting of refugees – the UK comes third after China and Germany.

The survey is published ahead of the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul next week (23-24 May). Amnesty is calling on governments to commit to a new, permanent system for sharing the responsibility to host and assist refugees.

Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK, said:
“The results show that the British public is overwhelmingly supportive of refugees and reflect what we are seeing in communities up and down the country. Local organisations are campaigning for their councils to take in refugee families, grassroots groups are collecting supplies for Calais or organising fundraising comedy or music nights and individuals have been heading as far as Greece to volunteer in refugee camps.
“The survey reveals that anti-refugee political rhetoric is out of step with reality. The UK government must go to the World Humanitarian Summit and commit to playing its part in dealing with the refugee crisis, and it can do so confident that British citizens are ready and willing to welcome refugees, not only into the country, but also into their neighbourhoods and even their homes.”
Results
The results of the survey show that in the UK and across the world, people are overwhelmingly in favour of helping refugees:
  • Globally, one person in 10 would take refugees into their home: the number rises to 46% in China, 29% in the UK and 20% in Greece, but was as low as 1% in Russia and 3% in Poland.
  • Globally, 32% said they would accept refugees in their neighbourhood, 47% in their city/town/village and 80% in their country.
  • In 20 of the 27 countries, more than 75% of respondents said they would let refugees in their country.
  • Globally, only 17% said they would refuse refugees entry to their country. Only in one country, Russia, did more than a third of people say they would deny them access (61%).
People support access to asylum, want governments to act
The survey also asked two other questions about access to asylum and current refugee policies.
Access to asylum:
  • 73% of people globally agreed that people fleeing war or persecution should be able to take refuge in other countries.
  • Support for access to asylum is particularly strong in Spain (78% strongly agree), Germany (69% strongly agree) and Greece (64% strongly agree).
Governments should do more to help refugees:
  • 66% of people said their governments should do more to help refugees.
  • In several countries at the heart of the refugee crisis, three-quarters or more still want their governments to do more, including Germany (76%), Greece (74%) and Jordan (84%).
  • The least support for more government action came from Russia (26%), Thailand (29%) and India (41%).
World Humanitarian Summit: Share responsibility for protecting refugees

To respond to the global refugee crisis, Amnesty International is calling on governments to resettle 1.2 million refugees by the end of 2017. That is far more than the 100,000 per year governments are currently taking annually, but less than a tenth of the 19.5 million refugees in the world today.

Amnesty International is also calling for governments at next week’s World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul on 23-24 May to commit to a new, permanent system for sharing the responsibility to host and assist refugees. This “Global Compact on responsibility-sharing” already proposed by the UNon 9 May, would then be adopted at a high-level UN summit of world leaders on 19 September. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is convening both summits to address the biggest humanitarian and refugee crises in 70 years.

Governments at the World Humanitarian Summit must also address the $15 billion shortfall in humanitarian funding highlighted by the UN at the start of 2016, putting forward more money to support both refugees and the countries hosting large numbers of refugees.

Ranking by country of public attitudes towards refugees

This index ranks countries on a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 = all respondents would refuse refugees entry to the country and 100 = all respondents would accept refugees into their neighbourhood or home.
Rank
Country Score
1
China
85
2
Germany
84
3
UK
83
4
Canada
76
5
Australia
73
6
Spain
71
7
Greece
65
8
Jordan
61
9
USA
60
10
Chile
59
11
South Korea
59
12
India
59
13
France
56
14
Ghana
52
15
Pakistan
51
16
Mexico
50
17
Lebanon
50
18
Brazil
49
19
Argentina
48
20
South Africa
44
21
Nigeria
41
22
Turkey
39
23
Kenya
38
24
Poland
36
25
Thailand
33
26
Indonesia
32
27
Russia
18