Fighters with no arms, no legs

Tuesday, 17 January 2017

Lessons they teach all of us

Life without limbs yet without limits; changing obstacles into opportunities. The only person keeping us from reaching our full potential is our own self as False Evidence Appearing Real manifests FEAR to hold us back. These are words of wisdom that have inspired me to pen this lines.

Nicholas James “Nick” Vujicic (pronounced Voo-yee-cheech) is an Australian (35), born in Melbourne to Serbian orthodox emigrant parents from Yugoslavia.

Janis (pronounced Yanis) McDavid is a German (25), born in Hamburg. It was soon after last Christmas when I met Janis here over two hours to share our thoughts and experiences.

Nick and Janis both were born with no legs no arms, but that could not dampen their spirits. They also have several other things in common.

They both are two people who had overcome significant physical limitations – made into obstacles by others in same society – to achieve greater success in daily life and continue to live as productive citizens.

They both have faced challenges head-on, surmounted extraordinary odds, turned their dis-ability into a blessing and proved again and again that “ability (of all) is much stronger than dis-ability”.

They both believe that everyone is worthy being treated with respect and dignity – which in turn is also an inherent right to enjoy.

Affording opportunity to be heard – regardless of the degree of one’s ability – is now a legal obligation and moral duty of the Government of Sri Lanka and a prerequisite for inclusivity and equality of treatment.

Ability is stronger than dis-ability

Nick has a tiny deformed foot. He use his toes as fingers to grab and turn a page; and his foot to operate an electric wheelchair, a computer and a mobile phone.

Janis looked up at me, extended his stump of an upper right arm in greeting, and smiled… “Hi, I’m Janis.”

He gently takes the edge of his glass of water between his lips, lifts it with the help of this short right arm and balances it there while he drinks.

He writes with his mouth holding the pen between his molars and drives a specially modified van.

Nick is a Bachelor of Commerce graduate from Griffith University in Queensland with a double major in financial planning and accountancy.

Janis is an undergraduate studying business economic at the University of Witten/Herdecke. He believes education is the key to open people’s mind that had also helped him to gain knowledge and develop creativity.

Nick never thought he would find love. Four years ago he was blessed with to marry Kanae Miyahara – a wonderful, devoted wife.  The couple has two sons and they now live in Southern California.

When only 17 years Nick formed the non-profit organisation Life without Limbs and in 2007 founded Attitude Is Altitude(AIA) – a company dedicated to spark passion, kindle hope and ignite positive change and thereby to empower people across the globe in transforming their lives.  Nick and Janis are both authors and motivational speakers.

Nick has started his mission in using his restricted ability – what most of us still often call dis-ability – to start conversations that change lives. Over the past 15 years Nick has spoken in more than 50 countries not only of his own life story but on topics as varied as inspiring positive change, persistence and determination.

Nick is the author of several books including ‘Life without Limits (2010) Inspiration for a Ridiculously Good Life,’ which has been translated into more than 30 languages, and ‘Stand Strong (2015): You Can Overcome Bullying’.

He also markets a DVD for young people titled ‘No Arms, No Legs, No Worries!’

In 2009 Nick also starred in the short feature film ‘The Butterfly Circus’ and for his starring performance was awarded Best Actor.

Janis speaks at conferences and workshops to motivate people to focus on the positive side and to concentrate on the power within themselves to achieve great things. His book ‘DeinBestesLeben’ (Your Best Life) is a top seller in Germany.  He joins German Parliamentary sub committees as an expert on promoting wider acceptance of people with dis-abilities.

Mind openers

What is different in persons – even with no arms no legs – who find success in situations where others often might fail?

Achievements are far more appreciated when they are accomplished with apparent significant physical limitation in ability.

It takes courage for any normal man to achieve an outstanding feat when he lacks something important in daily life; it requires extraordinary effort and commitment continuously for a person with a serious physical limitation to level the fame.

Few people are successful in situations where others would have given up. They surmount with determination and perseverance hurdles that lead others to fail.

How have these people managed to succeed in the face of adversity? They all have ambition – but I have found there is much more in them.

Lessons Nick and Janis teach

They both are positive and firmly believe strengths outweigh weaknesses (we all have).

Nick communicates one core message that — no matter your circumstance, you can overcome adversity!

We have a choice: To be angry and cursing for what we have lost or don’t have or thankful for what we do have. Hope is strength to live.

There are several things in life out of our control that you cannot change and you have got to live with. The choice we have is either to give up or get up and keep going.

We all can take only one step at a time and just keep doing that.

Along the way you are sure to fall down. Then just get up each time you fall down and keep going. If you fail and you give up, you shall then never get up. So keep trying again and again and again.

As long as you try and try again, there is always the chance of you getting up. There is still hope as long as you keep trying.

Are you going to believe in yourself or everybody else’s judgement on you? The fact is that often people put you down. People even don’t look you in the eye.

Effort never dies, not until given up

Janis’s core message is that even under difficult circumstances it is possible to make the impossible possible. And that is true for all of us.

As an adolescent, Janis has hopped up stairs and avoided going out in public without a wheelchair. But he had ultimately realised that his embarrassment was an additional unwanted limitation, as were bad moods.

Getting upset about lot of such things that we have no control about, Janis had soon realised wouldn’t do him any good.

FAIL - First Attempts In Learning

Nick and Janis make sure to remind themselves frequently not to get disheartened and give up when some things do not work well as expected.

Of course a lot will go wrong and often it does for every one of us. In real world we all do things differently and that is normal.

Setbacks should not be allowed to frustrate us too deeply so we could bounce back to continue with greater resilience.

What is really important is to achieve the desired goals well but not the way of doing things. Remember, there are several ways to succeed in today’s society.

The burning desire should be to constantly learn and try out new things and new ways. We need to experiment to do things differently in a way that best suits us in particular circumstances.

The self-discipline to constantly overcome barriers to move ahead and not to dwell too much on failures other than to identify the root causes.

Don’t dis-able us

Janis in Sri Lanka has showed us how he enables himself to live a life anyone else would live, provided the built environment do not make him dis-able.

Yes, dis-abling built environments are a colossal waste of resources Sri Lanka no more can afford.

Like all of us, Janis also has limitations as some things he simply cannot do; to open a door, for instance, or to overcome even two steps at an entrance.

All of us are abled differently and our abilities keep changing. When entrances, doors, steps and toilets are rightly designed, people are empowered to live up to their optimum potential enabling them to become productive employees, entrepreneurs and consumers, along with everybody else. It’s a low cost investment with rich dividends for everyone.

It is important to think about the design of buildings – that includes places of education, shops, bookshops, restaurants, banks and ATMs – so that no one gets dis-abled and marginalised, everyone is equally catered for and equal access is assured to all.

This is also paramount for services and businesses to grow and achieve their optimum potential.

Ensure that physical infrastructures, public facilities and services, at least, under new Megapolis agenda include, not exclude, everyone.

Proper advice and close guidance are essential prerequisites here.

Inaccessible tourism denies new profits for Sri Lanka

The international theme for 2017 is Accessible Tourism but still, permitting man-made physical and social obstacles to grow, Sri Lanka is wasting resources and preventing becoming the destination of choice for a generation destined to transform the travel, hotel and tourism industry.

[Dr. Ajith C. S. Perera – a professional – is the pioneer accessibility activist here and a widely experienced accessibility adviser promoting over two decades of time the theme ‘Ability (of all) is much stronger than dis-Ability’. For details see: goo.gl/wPeOax]

François Hollande’s final love song for Israel

French President François Hollande speaks to representatives of 70 countries at a conference in Paris on 15 January, with the aim of shoring up the two-state solution.Bertrand GuayEPA/Newscom

Ali Abunimah-16 January 2017

Barack Obama and his French counterpart François Hollande have much in common. Both presidents were swept into office on a wave of hope for progressive change.

After years of implementing harsh neoliberal policies at home and waging bloody and futile wars abroad, they will leave office a few months apart with pitifully meager achievements to their names.

The noted public intellectual Cornel West writes that the “reign of Obama did not produce the nightmare of Donald Trump – but it did contribute to it.”

If Hollande’s reign is followed by the far-right nightmare of a Front National presidency, that will be part of the outgoing French leader’s legacy for his country too.

In perhaps no area has the failure of these two men been more abject and complete than in their supposed efforts to bring about the so-called two-state solution.

They both took a similar approach: claiming to oppose Israeli settlement construction in the occupied West Bank while in practice providing Israel with every protection and assistance to pursue its occupation and violent colonization with impunity.

Obama’s record is long and well-established; it has been capped with his commitment to unconditionally supply Israel with $38 billion in American weapons over the next decade – the biggest military aid package to any country in history.

Self-abasement

As the veteran French journalist Alain Gresh notes, Hollande has followed much the same path.

The French president even told Benjamin Netanyahu during a cozy dinner at the Israeli prime minister’s home in 2013 that he wished he had the musical talents to sing “a love song for Israel and its leaders” – an act of self-abasement immortalized on video:

Though France cannot afford the extravagant military aid provided by Obama, Hollande would not allow himself to be outdone in his anti-Palestinian fervor in any other way.

As Gresh recalls, Hollande’s government went as far as banning Palestine solidarity rallies during Israel’s 2014 assault on Gaza that left more than 2,200 Palestinians, among them more than 550 children, dead.

The Hollande administration’s prosecutions and denunciations of citizens who advocate for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) to hold Israel accountable have made France one of the most repressive countries in the world against the Palestine solidarity movement.

“What is striking,” Gresh notes, “is the double-speak of France, which proclaims its support for international law, while reinforcing bilateral relations with Israel, as if that country was not in permanent violation of international law.”

Gresh cites a potent example: in November, for the first time, Israeli warplanes carried out exercises with the French air force in the skies over Corsica – a possible precursor to joint military operations around the world.

“A last slap”

In both cases, the result of this outpouring of aid and affection has been the same: Hollande and Obama will leave office with Israel hurling insults as they go.

Gresh calls Netanyahu’s enraged reaction to the “conference for peace in the Middle East” that the French president hosted in Paris on Sunday, “a last slap at François Hollande, who will no doubt turn the other cheek.”

Before the conference – attended by representatives of some 70 countries, but no Israelis or Palestinians – had even begun, Netanyahu declared it “futile.”

“These are the death throes of yesterday’s world. Tomorrow will look different,” Netanyahu added in apparent enthusiastic anticipation of Trump entering the White House on Friday.

Trump’s representatives also reportedly condemned the conference – and the British government, ever eager to ingratiate itself with an incoming American president, stayed away.

Other Israeli ministers have been even more scathing. Defense minister Avigdor Lieberman previously compared the conference to the Dreyfus Affair, the notorious 19th century persecution of a French military officer that is seen as a seminal example of modern European anti-Semitism.

Two competing racist visions

If, as the record shows, Hollande and Obama have been among the most pro-Israel Western leaders in history, what explains Israel’s limitless rage?

The answer is simple. Obama and Hollande, on the one hand, and Netanyahu and Trump, on the other, represent two competing pro-Israel visions.

As I’ve noted previously, Netanyahu represents an unabashedly racist Israel which is no longer interested in claiming that it wants peace nor that it is willing to give the Palestinians their rights under any conditions.

The countries represented at the Paris conference are equally committed to Israel’s right to continue to be racist, but they believe this can only be guaranteed if some bantustan option remains open to the Palestinians.

Just like the UN resolution that was passed with much fanfare in December, and the speech days later by US Secretary of State John Kerry, the Paris meeting aimed to resurrect this bantustan option – the two-state solution.

But the conference’s final declaration confirms the sterility of the approach.

False equivalence

While it reaffirms – as it must and should – the illegality of Israel’s settlements on occupied land, it also relentlessly reinforces the false equivalence between occupier and occupied as equally responsible for the absence of “peace.”

It calls for “meaningful direct negotiations” in a context of a radical imbalance of power between Israel and the Palestinians – a strategy whose failure has been conclusively proven to all but the most stubborn and delusional by more than two decades of the so-called peace process.

The Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz observed that the final product was “less harsh” – presumably to Israel – than a draft that had been leaked earlier in the week.

Like December’s UN Security Council Resolution 2334, the Paris declaration threatens no consequences if Israel does not end its colonization and violent oppression of millions of Palestinians.

Kerry even spoke to Netanyahu the day of the conference to reassure him that it would lead to no further action at the UN or in any other international forum.

And the final declaration’s panicky insistence that “both sides officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution, thus disassociating themselves from voices that reject this solution” will not suppress the growing support for a one-state solution as the most realistic path to justice and peace in all of historic Palestine.

Nothing that happened in Paris should change this basic conclusion: Israel, like its kindred apartheid regime in South Africa a generation ago, must be pressured and isolated until it is compelled to change.

All the conference amounted to, then, was President François Hollande’s final love song for Israel.

'Europe's fate is in our hands': Angela Merkel's defiant reply to Trump

Chancellor joined by French president in making curt comments about the US president-elect’s remarks about Germany, EU and Nato

Merkel to Trump: Europe’s fate is ‘in its own hands’

Philip Oltermann in Berlin-Monday 16 January 2017

Angela Merkel and François Hollande have responded curtly but defiantly after Donald Trump cast further doubt on his commitment to Nato and gave strong hints that he would not support EU cohesion once in office.

“We Europeans have our fate in our own hands,” the German chancellor said after the publication of the US president-elect’s interviews with the Times and German tabloid Bild. “He has presented his positions once more. They have been known for a while. My positions are also known.”

In the Times interview, Trump complained that Nato had become “obsolete” because it “hadn’t taken care of terror” – a comment later welcomed by the Kremlin. He suggested that other European countries would follow in Britain’s footsteps and leave the EU.

Hollande, the French president, retorted by saying Europe did not need to be told what to do by outsiders.

“Europe will be ready to pursue transatlantic cooperation, but it will based on its interests and values,” 

Hollande said on Monday. “It does not need outside advice to tell it what to do.”

Germany’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said the criticism of Nato had caused concern in the political and military alliance. “I’ve spoken today not only with EU foreign ministers but Nato foreign ministers as well and can report that the signals are that there’s been no easing of tensions,” he said.

Other senior members of Merkel’s government were quick to defend Germany’s policies after Trump criticised the chancellor’s handling of the refugee crisis and threatened a 35% tariff on BMW cars imported to the US.

Responding to Trump’s comments that Merkel had made an “utterly catastrophic mistake by letting all these illegals into the country”, the deputy chancellor and minister for the economy, Sigmar Gabriel, said the increase in the number of people fleeing the Middle East to seek asylum in Europe had partially been a result of US-led wars destabilising the region.


BMW factory in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Photograph: Bloomberg/via Getty Images

“There is a link between America’s flawed interventionist policy, especially the Iraq war, and the refugee crisis; that’s why my advice would be that we shouldn’t tell each other what we have done right or wrong, but that we look into establishing peace in that region and do everything to make sure people can find a home there again,” Gabriel said.

“In that area, Germany and Europe are already making enormous achievements – and that’s why I also thought it wasn’t right to talk about defence spending, where Mr Trump says we are spending too little to finance Nato. We are making gigantic financial contributions to refugee shelters in the region, and these are also the results of US interventionist policy.”

John Kerry, the outgoing US secretary of state, also responded tartly to Trump’s criticisms of Merkel, warning him he would need to rein in his views once he took office.

“I thought, frankly, it was inappropriate for a president-elect of the United States to be stepping in to the politics of other countries in a quite direct manner,” Kerry told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “As of Friday, he’s responsible for that relationship.

“But I think we have to be very careful about suggesting that one of the strongest leaders in Europe - and one of the most important in respect of where we are heading - made one mistake or another.”

Gabriel, who is expected to run as the centre-left candidate against Merkel in Germany’s federal elections in September, said Trump’s election should encourage Europeans to stand up for themselves.

“On the one hand, Trump is an elected president. When he is in office, we will have to work with him and his government – respect for a democratic election alone demands that,” Gabriel said.

“On the other hand, you need to have enough self-confidence. This isn’t about making ourselves submissive. What he says about trade issues, how he might treat German carmakers, the question about Nato, his view on the European Union – all these require a self-confident position, not just on behalf of us Germans but all Europeans. We are not inferior to him, we have something to bring to the table, too.

“Especially in this phase in which Europe is rather weak, we will have to pull ourselves together and act with self-confidence and stand up for our own interests.”

The German foreign ministry rejected Trump’s criticism that creating “security zones” in Syria would have been considerably cheaper than accepting refugees fleeing the war-torn country.

“What exactly such a security zone is meant to be is beyond my comprehension and would have to be explained,” said Martin Schäfer, a spokesman for the German foreign ministry.

 Brexit supporters at a pro-EU rally. Trump said Brexit vote was a good thing. Photograph: Luke MacGregor/Reuters

Schäfer also rejected Trump’s labelling of the EU as a “vehicle for Germany”. He said: “For the German government, Europe has never been a means to an end but a community of fate which, in times of collapsing old orders, is more important than ever.”

Hints of a fundamental shift in US trade policy sent shockwaves through German politics and business.

In his interview, Trump indicated that he would aim to realign the “out of balance” car trade between Germany and the US. “If you go down Fifth Avenue, everyone has a Mercedes Benz in front of his house, isn’t that the case?” he said. “How many Chevrolets do you see in Germany? Not very many, maybe none at all … it’s a one-way street.”

Asked what Trump could do to make sure German customers bought more American cars, Gabriel said: “Build better cars.”

Shares in BMW, Daimler and Volkswagen fell on Monday morning following Trump’s comments. BMW shares were down 0.85%, shares in Daimler were 1.54% lower and Volkswagen shares were trading 1.07% down in early trading in Frankfurt.

All three carmakers have invested heavily in factories in Mexico, where production costs are lower than the US, with an eye to exporting smaller vehicles to the US market.

A BMW spokeswoman said a BMW Group plant in the central Mexican city of San Luis Potosi would build the BMW 3 Series from 2019, with the output intended for the world market. The plant in Mexico would be an addition to existing 3 Series production facilities in Germany and China.

But Gabriel said on Monday that a tax on German imports would lead to a “bad awakening” among US carmakers since they were reliant on transatlantic supply chains.

“I believe BMW’s biggest factory is already in the US, in Spartanburg [South Carolina],” Gabriel, leader of the SPD, told Bild in a video interview.

“The US car industry would have a bad awakening if all the supply parts that aren’t being built in the US were to suddenly come with a 35% tariff. I believe it would make the US car industry weaker, worse and above all more expensive. I would wait and see what Congress has to say about that, which is mostly full of people who want the opposite of Trump.”

John Lewis: Trump slammed for attack on rights icon

Congressman Lewis said he did not regard Mr Trump as a legitimate president

14 January 2017

Politicians, entertainers and others have come to the defence of a US civil rights campaigner, Congressman John Lewis, who has become embroiled in a row with President-elect Donald Trump.

Mr Trump tweeted that Mr Lewis was "all talk" and should focus on his constituents, after he said Mr Trump was not a legitimate president.

But Mr Lewis' supporters reacted with anger, saying he was a hero and icon.

Mr Lewis was a leading figure in the 1960s civil rights movement.

He is the last surviving speaker from the 1963 March on Washington, led by Martin Luther King.

Trump's history on Twitter

Twitter combusts over Streep v Trump row

The tweets that say so much and reveal so little

The row came as civil rights activists led by Rev Al Sharpton began a week of protests ahead of Mr Trump's inauguration on 20 January.

Several thousand protesters braved near-freezing temperatures to march to the Martin Luther King Jr Memorial in Washington DC, chanting "No justice, no peace".

In a separate development on Saturday, African American Broadway star Jennifer Holliday pulled out of performing at the inauguration after pressure from followers, many of them from the LGBT community.

Holliday, who has sung for both Republican and Democrat presidents, apologised for her "lapse of judgement" and said she did not realise her participation would be seen as expressing support for Mr Trump.

John Lewis is the last surviving speaker from the 1963 March on Washington

Mr Lewis, a Democrat, said on Friday he would not attend the inauguration on the grounds that he did not see the Republican as a legitimate president.

"I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected," he told NBC's Meet the Press. "And they helped destroy the candidacy of [Democrat] Hillary Clinton."

Mr Trump responded in tweets on Saturday: "Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime-infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk - no action or results. Sad!"

---

Georgia's 5th congressional district

• Represented by John Lewis since 1987
• Includes almost 75% of the city of Atlanta and some affluent suburbs
• About 60% of constituents are African American
• Crime and unemployment rates higher than national average
• Contains most of the state's higher education institutions
• Contains several Fortune 500 company headquarters, including Coca Cola and Delta Airlines

---

But Mr Lewis' supporters were quick to rally round.

California Senator Kamala Harris, a Democrat, said it was wrong to treat him in this way.

"John Lewis is an icon of the Civil Rights Movement who is fearless in the pursuit of justice and equality," she tweeted. "He deserves better than this."

Image copyrightTWITTER

Others mentioned Mr Lewis' bravery and the fact that the exchange had taken place on the eve of Martin Luther King Day, on 16 January.

Many of them linked to photos of the two men, or to the 1965 so-called Bloody Sunday march in Alabama, in which Mr Lewis received a fractured skull as the protest was violently broken up by police.

Image copyrightTWITTER

Image copyrightTWITTER

Image copyrightTWITTER

Image copyrightTWITTER

Republican Senator Ben Sasse tweeted his support, saying Mr Lewis' "talk" had changed the world. However, he said he disagreed with his decision to boycott the inauguration, adding: "It isn't about a man. It is a celebration of peaceful transfer of power."

Facing the Trump Presidency – Will the Monroe doctrine finally die?

Eight years of Obama’s presidency has left lights and shadows. On the one hand, he fostered normalization with Cuba and he played an important role in FARC’s and the Colombian government’s peace agreement.

by Nicola Bilotta - Jan 17, 2017

( January 17, 2017, Vienna, Sri Lanka Guardian) Due to Donald Trump’s victory in the Presidential election this November North American foreign policy will experience radical changes. The new government creates hopes and fears. On the one hand, there is hope cooperation with Russia will be improved. On the other hand, peace dialogues with Iran are expected to worsen. However, international geopolitical equilibrium will have a different settlement.

The US has always influenced South American political history due to its geographical proximity and its economic interests. So how will Latin America be affected by Trump’s foreign policy? Hilary Clinton was supposed to continue Obama’s political strategy in the continent. But which heritage did Obama leave in South America?

Obama’s inheritance

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama became famous worldwide because of his charm and great oratory skills. In his electoral platform there was a message of cooperation and peace to all Latin American governments. Obama’s victory thus was celebrated by leftist Presidents in the entire continent. Lula – the former Brazilian President from 2002 to 2011 – said that Barack’s election was a historical moment for the world, “In the same way that Brazil elected a metalworker (Lula himself), Bolivia an aboriginal (Evo Morales), Venezuela a (Hugo) Chavez and Paraguay a bishop (Fernando Lugo), I believe it will be an extraordinary thing if in the biggest economy in the world a black person (Barack Obama) is elected president.” Also Chavez was optimistic about improving Venezuelan cooperation with the US.

Obama promised to improve North American partnership with South America based on multilateralism. But the opportunity to repair the relationship between Latin American countries and the US was already lost in 2009. In June 2009, the elected President of Honduras Manuel Zaleya was overthrown by a military coup. The US foreign office considered Zaleya as a dangerous leftist leader. Even though the OAS (Organization of American States) expelled Honduras after their break of constitutional order, Hilary Clinton, secretary state at the time, and President Obama pushed for new elections rather than asking for the return of Zaleya, the democratically elected President. US government immediately recognized the legitimacy of the new Lobio government in Honduras and it pressured other Latin countries to do the same. Clinton, when talking about Honduras coup, said “Now I didn’t like the way it looked or the way they did it, but they had a strong argument that they had followed the constitution and the legal precedents.”[1] However, Hugo Llorens, the US ambassador in Honduras stated “Zelaya may have committed illegalities but there is no doubt that the military, supreme court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the executive branch.”[2]

Obama’s strategy in Honduras thus worsened the US relationship with Brazil and with all leftist parties in South America. Furthermore, the Colombian and US government signed an agreement on military cooperation in 2009 without consulting any other Latin American countries. American and Colombian economic and military alliance finds its roots since the 1990 with Plan for Colombia establishment. Former President Bill Clinton approved a massive military and economic aid initiative to fund Colombian struggle against drug cartels and left-wing insurgent groups. The aim of the plan was to supply Colombia with military training and military technologies to contrast violence in the country. The flow of money from the US government to Colombia has not stopped since then. Former President G.W. Bush and Obama maintained Plan for Colombia. According to the US Foreign Office, in 2012 the US allocated 644.304.766$ in Colombia. Breaking down the aid, we discover that 446.552.148$ were funds for military and security help. The tight relationship between the two countries is confirmed by the trade deal signed in 2011.

Besides chief architect and broker that of Cuba, Obama was a strong sponsor of the peace dialogue between the FARC and Santos government. He even promised to increase American economic aid to Colombia totalling 450 million of dollars. Even though Obama was not personally involved in the discussion of the peace agreement in Colombia, he has started a process of normalization with Cuba. The US and Cuba has not had diplomatic relations since the 1960s. After the communist revolution in the country, the US imposed a trade embargo against Cuba. Obama’s plan was to improve Cuban and American relations by reviewing Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism and by ending the economic embargo. After formal talks, American Congress will be called to vote for the official revocation of the embargo. The new course, however, was not just due to Obama’s effort. The role of the former Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis was fundamental to foster peace between the two countries. Regardless the fact that it was a multilateral effort, the improvement of Cuban and American relations has been the most considerable heritage of Obama’s presidency in South America.

Obama has not been able to improve the precarious diplomatic relationship whit Venezuela and Ecuador. Even if the US is the largest trading partner of Venezuela, US governments have not sent Ambassadors to this Latin Am country since 2006. Their diplomatic relations are now extremely tense. Maduro accused US governments of imperialism and of trying to defeat his government in Venezuela, while American diplomacy denounced human rights violations against Maduro’s adversaries. The latter, instead, declared US Ambassador Persona non-grata in 2011 in response to the release of secret documents in which US diplomatists accused Ecuadorian President Correa to be corrupted. In the last months of 2015 Ecuador and the US re-established diplomatic relations. However, there is still a considerable tension between them. Guillaume Long, Ecuadorian foreign minister, said that he wanted to cooperate with the US but American governments needed to not interfere with internal political decisions in South America.

In the last eight years Brazilian and American relations have been problematic. After the disclosure of NSA secret reports on Brazil, former Brazilian President Dilma cancelled her official state visit in 2014. NSA was spying the conversations of top Brazilian managers and politics, even Dilma was recorded during her private calls. It appears, at least, unusual that US secret services were spying the establishment of a country which is a stable democracy and an American ally for the last thirty years. Obama’s presidency had tense diplomatic relations also with Argentina and her former President Kirchner. Specifically, their conflict was about Argentinian default in 2014. American hedge funds, which bought cheap Argentinian bonds in 2001, were asking for a full pay out that Kirchner refused to provide.

Interestingly, both, Dilma and Kirchner, found themselves at the centre of scandals the last year. The former was indirectly involved in Petrobas investigation, the latter was accused to have covered Iranian responsibility on the terroristic attack which killed 84 people in Buenos Aires in 1994. With their defeat, Latin America is going through the end of the leftist season. The new Argentinian President, Mauricio Macri, has already endorsed his priority to mend relations with investors and big foreign groups. The new Brazilian President, Michel Temer, has already approved liberalizations on natural resources exploitation which will attract foreign investors in Brazil. The new courses in Brazil and Argentina seem to find North American support. Actually, Macri and Temer will be aiming to improve Argentinian and Brazilian economic and diplomatic cooperation with the US.

Eight years of Obama’s presidency has left lights and shadows. On the one hand, he fostered normalization with Cuba and he played an important role in FARC’s and the Colombian government’s peace agreement. On the other hand, he was not able to radically change American relations with Latin countries. Obama promised to establish multilateral relations with South American countries failed. It cannot be identified a turning point in how Obama’s governments interfere with internal political affairs of Latin countries.

Trump, uncertainty of US future 

Trump has promised to radically change US foreign policy. However, it is unclear how he will do so. During his presidential campaign, he contradicted himself several times. Trump said that he would reduce America’s intervention in the world. First of all, Trump’s disengagement will alter US commitment to international organizations. NATO and the defence agreements with Japan and South Korea could experience a decrease of US military and financial dedication. In addition, the relationships with China and Iran seem to be critical factors in the international equilibrium. Trump criticized Obama’s the Nuclear Deal with Iran, he could run away from the agreement and re-impose sanctions. His proposal to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese import would start an economic conflict with the Chinese government.

The South American continent does not seem to be a priority in the new President’s agenda.  Three main topics on Latin America dominated his electoral campaign:

• According to Pew Hispanic Center, in 2014 there were 11. 7 million Mexican immigrants residing in the US and 6.5 million of them would be illegally living in the country. So when he promised that 11 million illegal immigrants would be deported, it was clear whom he was referring to. Trump even claimed that he would force the Mexican government to build a wall on the border between the US and Mexico. His economic plan for “making America great again” claimed to bring back manufacturing factories to the US. Trump said he would overtax North American companies which produce in Mexico. After having described Mexican immigrants as drug dealers, criminals and rapists, in August 2016 Trump officially met Mexican President Nieto. But there were no significant results from their conversation. Actually, while Trump said Niento agreed to pay for a wall on the border, the Mexican President posted a tweet to contradict Trump’s claim.

• Trump is one of the few Republican leaders that support the process of normalizing relations between Cuba and the US. The President-elected is said to agree with the “Cuban Thaw”, however, he argues that the US could have made a better deal. In this case, uncertainty about the future of Cuba-US relations is driven by the fact that the majority of the Republic party does not support the normalization of Cuban and North American relations.

• Even thought Nicholas Maduro, President of Venezuela, recently stated to hope for improving his relations with the US in Trump presidency, few days ago he called Trump a bandit. During his campaign, Trump was not friendly to Maduro, he said that “Venezuelans are good people, but they have been horribly damaged by the socialists in Venezuela and the next president of the United States must show solidarity with all the oppressed people in the hemisphere.”[3] Even if Trump does not believe in “exporting democracy”, it is unclear how he will work to improve US relations with Venezuela. 

It is not clear what Trump’s presidency will mean for American and Latin countries relations, Trump is still a mystery. Obama’s presidency instead was an unsuccessful hope that the US would have been able to establish multilateral forms of cooperation with Latin American countries.

Nicola Bilotta has a BA and a MA in History from Università degli Studi di Milano and a MSc in Economic History from the London School of Economics. He works as a Global Finance Research Assistant at The Banker (Financial Times) and collaborates as an external researcher at ISAG (Istituto di Alti Studi di Geopolitica e Scienze Ausiliari). N.bilotta@lse.ac.uk

[1] N. Lakhani, Did Hillary Clinton stand by as Honduras coup ushered in era of violence?, The Guardian 31/08/2016

[2] N. Lakhani, Did Hillary Clinton stand by as Honduras coup ushered in era of violence?, The Guardian 31/08/2016

[3] [3] M. E. Jorge, Venezuela expectant as to how Trump will address Chavismo and country’s crisis, Fow New Latino 18/11/2016

Trump national security spokeswoman Monica Crowley to forgo post amid plagiarism charges

By John Wagner January 16 

Monica Crowley, recently appointed by President-elect Donald Trump to a key national security communications job, said Monday that she would relinquish the post amid multiple allegations of plagiarism.

Crowley, who has been named senior director of strategic communications at the National Security Council, said in a statement that “after much reflection,” she had decided to remain in New York and “will not be taking a position in the incoming administration.”

[Trump aide Monica Crowley’s book sales suspended amid plagiarism allegations]

“I greatly appreciate being asked to be part of President-elect Trump’s team and I will continue to enthusiastically support him and his agenda for American renewal,” Crowley said in the statement, in which she made no mention of the plagiarism charges.

The publisher of a 2012 book by Crowley said last week that it will stop selling copies until she addresses allegations of plagiarism. Crowley, a conservative pundit, is also under fire for allegedly plagiarizing passages in her PhD dissertation at Columbia University.

The plagiarism charges were originally reported by CNN and Politico.

Crowley was to have worked for national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general.

“The NSC will miss the opportunity to have Monica Crowley as part of our team,” Flynn said in a statement. “We wish her all the best in her future.”

When the plagiarism charges first surfaced, the Trump transition team defended Crowley, putting out a statement praising her “exceptional insight and thoughtful work on how to turn this country around.”

“Any attempt to discredit Monica is nothing more than a politically motivated attack that seeks to distract from the real issues facing this country,” the statement said.

As a White House aide, Crowley would not have faced confirmation proceedings.

In the aftermath of her appointment, CNN reported that Crowley's book, “What the (Bleep) Just Happened?” lifted work from columnists, news reports, articles and think tanks without proper attribution.

“The book, which has reached the end of its natural sales cycle, will no longer be offered for purchase until such time as the author has the opportunity to source and revise the material,” publisher HarperCollins said in a statement last week.

Politico reported that Crowley’s 2000 dissertation contained more than a dozen sections of text that were lifted, with little to no changes, from scholarly works without proper attribution.

The dissertation was titled “Clearer Than Truth: Determining and Preserving Grand Strategy: The Evolution of American Policy Toward the People’s Republic of China Under Truman and Nixon.”

IMF upgrades China growth estimate on stimulus, downgrades India after cash crunch

A stray dog rests as people queue outside an ATM to withdraw cash in Kolkata, India, December 4, 2016. REUTERS/Rupak De Chowdhuri/File Photo

Apartment blocks are pictured next to a construction site on a hazy day in Wuqing district of Tianjin, China, December 10, 2016. REUTERS/Jason Lee/File Photo

Mon Jan 16, 2017

The International Monetary Fund on Monday raised its forecast for China's economic growth this year by 0.3 percentage points to 6.5 percent, on expectations of continued policy stimulus.

At the same time, it downgraded India's growth outlook by 0.4 percentage points to 7.2 percent as consumption in Asia's third-largest economy takes a hit from the government's recent decision to abolish large currency notes.

China's economy grew 6.7 percent over the first three quarters of 2016, in line with the country's 6.5 to 7 percent growth target, but risks are also increasing with growth reliant on government spending, record lending by state banks and an overheating property market.

The IMF warned of the risks to China's economy of a sharp slowdown or disruptive adjustment as the government has been slow to tackle high corporate debt, with capital outflows also potentially exacerbating pressures.

China's corporate debt has climbed to 169 percent of GDP and international institutions have repeatedly urged Beijing to act quickly to tackle the problem in order to avoid a financial crisis.

The country's leadership said China will focus on tackling financial risks this year, and the head of the state planning agency said China would cap the corporate debt ratio at current levels.

But China's record 17.8 trillion yuan ($2.58 trillion) in credit last year has left analysts sceptical that policymakers will be able to wean the economy off years of debt-fueled growth and still hit official growth targets.

The IMF's forecast for a 6.5 percent expansion this year is roughly in-line with analysts and policy insiders who have said China is likely to target around 6.5 percent growth in 2017.

The IMF raised its forecast for China's 2016 growth to 6.7 percent from 6.6 percent, but still expects China's growth to slow to 6.0 percent in 2018.

The IMF maintained its forecast that global growth will pick up to 3.4 percent this year and 3.6 percent in 2018 from the 2016 estimate of 3.1 percent. (For a full story on the IMF's global forecasts see)

The institution cited China as a key factor driving a faster global recovery this year, but a slowdown in the world's second-largest economy is also as one of the main downside risks to global growth.

India, which has recorded some of the world's strongest recent growth, is experiencing a shock to consumption from the government's decision in early November to withdraw larger currency notes from circulation to crack down on tax dodgers and counterfeiters.

Citing the blow to the cash-reliant economy, the IMF chopped a full percentage point off its fiscal 2016-17 growth outlook to 6.6 percent. The fiscal year ends on March 31.

The Fund trimmed its fiscal 2017-18 forecast for India to 7.2 percent from 7.6 percent.

($1 = 6.8923 Chinese yuan renminbi)

(Reporting by Elias Glenn; Editing by Kim Coghill)