A harbour of discontent

Sanjana Hattotuwa-July 7, 2018, 8:07 pm 

An article published in the New York Times generates a sobering frame of accountability and corruption in Sri Lanka today. After publication in print and online, the article generated extremely high readership, sharing and other stories, referencing the original. The role, reach and relevance of the New York Times was buttressed considerably since 2016 by domestic pushback in the US from quarters in Washington DC chagrined by the paper’s unwavering and unflattering scrutiny of policy, pronouncement and politics. The manner in which the story spread in Sri Lanka was revealing, though this brief summary doesn’t do justice to the nuance and variance present in the capture and contestation of the original story, especially over social media.

The immediate and expected response from the Rajapaksa camp was to deny and decry vehemently. This initial enfilade was followed by various pronouncements over social media promising a more robust official response, which however didn’t appear for days. In the meanwhile, the former Central Bank Governor released content in response to the article, which was picked up and distributed by the Rajapaksa camp as evidence of the story’s false premises, and bias. The official response, badly formatted and without spell-checking in English, was perhaps first drafted in Sinhala. Stylistically, the English version was clearly the product of many authors. By the time the Rajapaksas produced an official response, the original article had gone viral.

At the same time and over social media, an unprecedented cacophony of trolls – accounts with fake photos and names, activated after a long period of being dormant, or freshly created – started to attack in particular the journalist from the New York Times and those she had worked with in Sri Lanka. Personal attacks produced by close associates of the Rajapaksa camp over social media helped these trolls, in two ways. One, by the production of content that tried to name and shame the journalists involved in the story as having hidden agendas, partial to or somehow architected by the UNP. Two, by the support they extended to more vicious commentary by trolls by the act of actively liking their content on Twitter – a process which cannot be automated or accidentally occur.

These trolls, in a frenzy of activity, let loose a barrage of verbal abuse against those partial to the merits of the story. Many of the worst comments were explicitly liked by prominent, official, personally curated accounts of the Rajapaksa camp, signifying that they were partial to not just the pushback, but the expression used and the violence engineered. On TV, politicians from the Joint Opposition held up photos of those involved in the story and said that the entire article was rehashing content first published in the Daily News newspaper, some years ago. After the official response from Mahinda Rajapaksa’s office, the former President, those close to him and the troll army all noted how they would sue the New York Times.

Many, this writer included, roundly welcomed this move, as a way in which facts and documents pertinent to the article would be through court proceedings, be made public. The public and private pressure - not all of which is in the public domain –directed at those who worked on the story was so bad, and happened at such an accelerated pace, the New York Times issued an unprecedented public warning noting that any issue the former President had with the substance of the article should only be taken up with the newspaper, and not by threats of violence or retribution.This warning was echoed by the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Foreign Correspondents Association of Sri Lanka, as well as other domestic and international media freedom groups. The shrill threats of suing the newspaper died down.

Late last week, Rajapaksa regime acolytes over social media, giving their ‘personal’ opinion, noted that it would be a waste of money and that it was far more useful to go after the conspirators in Sri Lanka who fueled the story. Meanwhile, in response to a complaint lodged by a government MP, the CID was reported to have launched an investigation into the allegations noted in the New York Times article. The only problem here was that the New York Times highlighted in some detail content it claimed was sourced from on-going investigations into the Hambantota Port deal and campaign financing around it. On social media, this writer and others flagged the sheer absurdity, truly comedic if not for how tragic a picture it painted of governance in 2018, of the CID investigating an on-going investigation purportedly conducted by the CID itself!

The farce only got worse (or better?) towards the end of the week.The Media Secretary to the former President spun the original article as somehow linked to a statement by John Kerry made in 2016 which had helped the UNP government come to power, and that the New York Times, ideologically partial to or part of Obama-Clinton liberalism, opposed the incumbent US President as well as China, which in turn was why in concert with senior figures in government, who with local collaborators embedded in the mainstream media, conspired to produce the article - all with a view to discrediting Mahinda Rajapaksa!

This writer has lived through and heard a lot of conspiracy theories since 2002. This one though – by sheer force of imagination - was in a different league.

For its part, the UNP – seemingly unaware of any on-going investigation by the CID and dealing with a political nuclear winter after MP Vijayakala’s pro-LTTE statement, distanced itself from allegations in the article that it was forced to hand over the port to the Chinese. In doing so, astute observers noted that the PM was no different to the former President in denying allegations in the article which were politically inconvenient, without any robust material evidence or public debate. Meanwhile, China also unsurprisingly denounced the article as fabrication and fiction. The pro-Rajapaksa troll and tripe army, activated shortly after the article went live, focused their attention more towards those in Sri Lanka, instead of a global media giant that clearly couldn’t be dragged into their snake pit. From at first a frothing Hydra-headed monster, the pushback – online and through more traditional means, morphed into a sharper, more strategic, ominous spear intentionally aimed increasingly at those in Sri Lanka, in tandem with the Rajapaksa camp’s shift in focus to go after - legally or by other means – those they perceived to be behind the article.

It is unlikely the lead author of the New York Times expected any of this. The theatre of the absurd surrounding the publication of the article holds some humbling lessons. Journalists, freelancers and fixers in Sri Lanka tasked with helping international media institutions cover in-depth stories now know the fate that will befall them if and when they cross a line in the sand that raises the ire of those in power or seeking to regain it. It is a chilling effect that will impact quality, probative, investigative journalism. The current government will not deliver on promises to hold the Rajapaksas accountable for corruption. The Rajapaksas have much to hide, going by the raw nerve that was touched and the telling dynamics of the responses to the article. China has much to hide, going by what it has said and importantly, what it has not said. It takes the New York Times to bring to public attention investigations that are so dormant, the CID itself seems to be unaware of them. It takes an international newspaper to focus, however short-lived, public debate on issues our President, our Prime Minister, the government, and domestic media should be leading the scrutiny around.

The New York Times article may have set out to flesh-out Mahinda Rajapaksa’s corruption. What it has inadvertently achieved is to flag the current government’s inability and unwillingness to hold the former President answerable. Clearly, accountability is just a word that features in campaign manifestos.

The Bribe Culture of Sri Lanka

JUL 07 2018

What makes us give bribes or solicit bribes from other people? In a psychological sense, extortion is viewed as behaviour motivated by greed, desperation and ambition. The very particular set of thinking and expectations involved in bribery and corruption has been an occasional topic of research for economists and psychologists over the years, on the overall cultural, organizational, and personal levels.

Researchers have measured and studied corruption on the global scale, for instance. The World Bank has estimated that US$ one trillion gets paid every year in bribes, worldwide. There’s corruption in every Government in the world, but what varies is how extreme, how visible, and how tolerated it is.

Recently, the Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC), President’s Counsel Sarath Jayamanne made reference to this when he said that State employees are ‘pressured’ by family members to seek bribes and use other exploitative methods in order to fulfil the illicit appropriation of cash or funds.

The Director General noted that, “We have learned that it is the family members who pressure the State workers to seek bribes because they compare their social status with neighbours and others. They compare as to how many floors the neighbours’ houses have. This influences the State workers to go after bribes. But in countries like Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia such things never happen. We are planning to take measures to educate everyone, especially, the schoolchildren against corruption so that they would know that it is not good to pressure their loved ones who are employed in the State sector”.

Funny as it maybe, this is the only available and efficient solution to rid the country of the corruption. The collective culture, as opposed to its individual impact, promotes bribery which perceives the removed responsibility faced by an individual, from the society. In other words, the person who solicits or gives a bribe does not see the individual responsibility the action creates and the potential impact it creates in his immediate and non-immediate environments i.e. society which he lives in which indirectly affects the entire Nation State as a whole in the long run.

In order to rid a society of this plague, the solution has to come from within the society itself and not without. To change the bribing culture, it requires a large scale societal change. However, ironically, large scale change in society does not and cannot happen overnight and has to be implemented in subtle ways. One such would be the education and awareness increase in the younger generation. Hence the project commenced by the CIABOC is rather commendable as changing the mindset of the future generations is the stepping stone or the foundation for a corruption-free environment.

Yet there are obvious practical issues in this. Despite children learning these in school or from outside lecturers during a one-day seminar would not potentially make much of a difference if the society they enter after school, has not changed. If their seniors are as corrupt as before, the so-called new born adult in the society is forced to adapt in order to survive. This means that the individual, no matter how learned and how strong in his morals, will have to forgo some of his or her principles for the sake of surviving the adult world. A child might not have to make that choice but an adult will be forced to.

Therefore, education is not the only solution for this. Stricter laws and regulations, proper methods of identifying, prosecuting, being held accountable and prevention of future attempts too, have to be in place in a more concrete manner if the society is to rid itself of corruption. This, of course, is never an easy task. If corruption is instilled in humanity then it is impossible to deviate from its set path. One could only hope that we evolve out of this immoral creature’s skin. But then again, evolution has nothing to do with what’s right or wrong.

Israeli forces kill Palestinian, injure hundreds in Gaza

Gaza's health ministry said the injuries were sustained from live fire and teargas

Protests have persisted despite an ongoing crackdown against demonstrations in the Gaza Strip (AFP)

Saturday 7 July 2018

Israeli forces killed one Palestinian and injured hundreds during Friday's protests by the fence separating Gaza and Israel. 

Gaza's health ministry said that injuries sustained in eastern Gaza were from Israeli soldiers firing tear gas and live ammunition at unarmed protests. 

The ministry did not identify the person killed at the time of writing. Images posted online showed Palestinians struggling to breathe and others being carried away on stretchers. Palestinian medics were among the injured. 

This week's protests are a continuation of a series of demonstrations launched as part of the Great March of Return initiative. 

The latest injuries come after two Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip last week. Among the dead was 14-year-old Yasir Amjad Musa Abu Naja who was shot in the head by Israeli forces. 

Palestinians began the Great March of Return protest campaign earlier this year to call for the right of return for refugees displaced in 1948 from their towns and villages in what is now Israel. Israel's military has responded to the mostly peaceful demonstrations with deadly force. 

Protests have persisted in spite of the crackdown. The Israeli military did not comment by the time of publication. 

Israel is arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine

The Azov Battalion uses the Nazi Wolfsangel symbol as its logo. Its founder Andriy Biletsky (center) has moved to ban “race mixing” in the Ukranian parliament. (Azov/Twitter)

Asa Winstanley- 4 July 2018

Israeli arms are being sent to a heavily armed neo-Nazi militia in Ukraine, The Electronic Intifada has learned.

Azov Battalion online propaganda shows Israeli-licensed Tavor rifles in the fascist group’s hands, while Israeli human rights activists have protested arms sales to Ukraine on the basis that weapons might end up with anti-Semitic militias.

In a letter “about licenses for Ukraine” obtained by The Electronic Intifada, the Israeli defense ministry’s arms export agency says they are “careful to grant licenses” to arms exporters “in full coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other government entities.”

The 26 June letter was sent in reply to Israeli lawyer Eitay Mack who had written a detailed request demanding Israel end all military aid to the country.

Azov’s official status in the Ukrainian armed forces means it cannot be verified that “Israeli weapons and training” are not being used “by anti-Semitic or neo-Nazi soldiers,” Mack and 35 other human rights activists wrote.

They had written that Ukrainian armed forces use rifles made in Israel “and are trained by Israelis,” according to reports in the country.

The head of the Israeli arms export agency declined to deny the reports, or to even discuss cancellation of the weapons licenses, citing “security” concerns.

But Racheli Chen, the head of the agency, confirmed to Mack she had “carefully read your letter,” which detailed the fascist nature of Azov and the reports of Israeli arms and training.

Both the defense ministry letter and Mack’s original request can be read in the original Hebrew below.

Israeli rifles in Ukraine

The fact that Israeli arms are going to Ukrainian neo-Nazis is supported by Azov’s own online propaganda.

On its YouTube channel, Azov posted a video “review” of locally produced copies of two Israeli Tavor rifles – seen in this video:

A photo on Azov’s website also shows a Tavor in the hands of one of the militia’s officers.

The rifles are produced under licence from Israel Weapon Industries, and as such would have been authorized by the Israeli government.

IWI markets the Tavor as the “primary weapon” of the Israeli special forces.

It has been used in recent massacres of unarmed Palestinians taking part in Great March of Return protests in Gaza.

Fort, the Ukrainian state-owned arms company that produces the rifles under license, has a page about the Tavor on its website.

The Israel Weapon Industries logo also appears on its website, including on the “Our Partners” page.

Starting as a gang of fascist street thugs, the Azov Battalion is one of several far-right militias that have now been integrated as units of Ukraine’s National Guard.

Staunchly anti-Russian, Azov fought riot police during the 2013 US and EU-supported “Euromaidan” protests in the capital Kiev.

The protests and riots laid the ground for the 2014 coup which removed the pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych.

This photo from Azov’s website shows an officer of the neo-Nazi militia armed with a version of Israel’s Tavor rifle. The Tavor is made under license from Israel by Ukraine’s national arms maker Fort.

When the civil war began in eastern Ukraine against Russian-backed separatists, the new western-backed government began to arm Azov. The militia soon fell under the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian interior ministry, and saw some of the most intense frontline combat against the separatists.

The group stands accused in United Nations and Human Rights Watch reports of committing war crimes against pro-Russian separatists during the ongoing civil war in the eastern Donbass region, including torture, sexual violence and targeting of civilian homes.

Today, Azov is run by Arsen Avakov, Ukraine’s interior minister. According to the BBC, he pays its fighters, and has appointed one of its military commanders, Vadym Troyan, as his deputy – with control over the police.

Avakov last year met with the Israeli interior minister Aryeh Deri to discuss “fruitful cooperation.”

Azov’s young founder and first military commander Andriy Biletsky is today a lawmaker in the Ukrainian parliament.

As journalist Max Blumenthal explained on The Real News in February, Biletsky has “pledged to restore the honor of the white race” and has advanced laws forbidding “race mixing.”

According to The Telegraph, Biletsky in 2014 wrote that “the historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade for their survival. A crusade against the Semite-led untermenschen.”

At a military training camp for children last year, The Guardian noticed that several Azov instructors had Nazi and other racist tattoos, including a swastika, the SS skull symbol and one that read “White Pride.”

One Azov soldier explained to The Guardian that he fights Russia because “Putin’s a Jew.”

Speaking to The Telegraph, another praised Adolf Hitler, said homosexuality is a “mental illness” and that the scale of the Holocaust “is a big question.”

An Azov drill sergeant once told USA Today “with a laugh” that “no more than half his comrades are fellow Nazis.”

An Azov spokesperson played that down, claiming that “only 10-20 percent” of the group’s members were Nazis.

Nonetheless, the sergeant “vowed that when the war ends, his comrades will march on the capital, Kiev, to oust a government they consider corrupt.”

After Azov’s founder Andriy Biletsky entered parliament, he threatened to dissolve it. “Take my word for it,” he said, “we have gathered here to begin the fight for power.”

Those promises were made in 2014, but there are early signs of them being fulfilled today.

This year the battalion has founded a new “National Militia” to bring the war home.

This well-organized gang is at the forefront of a growing wave of racist and anti-Semitic violence in Ukraine.

Led by its military veterans, it specializes in pogroms and thuggish enforcement of its political agenda.

Earlier this month, clad in balaclavas and wielding axes and baseball bats, members of the group destroyed a Romany camp in Kiev. In a YouTube video, apparently shot by the Azov thugs themselves, police turn up towards the end of the camp’s destruction.

They look on doing nothing, while the thugs cry, “Glory to the nation! Death to enemies!”

Israeli defense minister Avigdor Lieberman (left) met with the Ukranian prime minister last year to discuss deeper military ties. (Ukranian Government Portal)

Israel’s military aid to Ukraine and its neo-Nazis emulates similar programs by the United States and other NATO countries including the UK and Canada.

So obsessed are they with defeating a perceived threat from Russia that they seem happy to aid even openly Nazi militias – as long as they fight on their side.

This is also a throwback to the early Cold War, when the CIA supported fascists and Hitlerites to infiltrate from Austria into Hungary in 1956, where they began slaughtering Hungarian communist Jews and Hungarian Jews as “communists.”

Recent postings on Azov websites document a June meeting with the Canadian military attaché, Colonel Brian Irwin.

Read More

Former Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif sentenced to 10 years in jail

Corruption charges related to purchase of London flats, with verdict likely to affect election


 Nawaz Sharif, who is in London with his critically ill wife, is expected to appeal. Photograph: Aamir Qureshi/AFP/Getty Images

Memphis Barkerin Islamabad-Fri 6 Jul 2018 

The former Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for corruption in a verdict likely to influence the general election on 25 July.

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Pakistan’s anti-graft court, ruled that Sharif and his family laundered money in the 1990s to pay for four luxury apartments in Park Lane, central London, drawing on allegations that resurfaced in the Panama Papers leak, published by the Guardian and others in 2016.

The court also sentenced Sharif’s daughter and presumed political heir, Maryam Nawaz Sharif, to seven years’ imprisonment, fined the family £10m and ordered the seizure of the Avenfield properties.

“The Pakistani nation and the PML-N [Pakistani Muslim League (Nawaz), Sharif’s party] reject this decision,” Sharif’s brother, Shahbaz Sharif, told reporters. “This is a dark chapter in the history of this country. There was no solid legal evidence in the entire case.”

Sharif, who has been at the sickbed of his wife, Kulsoom Nawaz, in London, did not attend the hearing. The court earlier denied his request for a week-long delay to the verdict while she is on a respirator after treatment for throat cancer.

In July last year, the supreme court removed Sharif from office and ordered the NAB trial, before barring him from politics for life. The 68-year-old claims his legal troubles are the result of a military-backed conspiracy; allegedly in revenge for attempts to assert civilian control of foreign policy and put the former military dictator Gen Pervez Musharraf on trial for treason. It is expected that Sharif will launch an appeal.

The punishment of Maryam, who received an additional one-year sentence for presenting forged documents in court, may see control of the party shift to Shahbaz Sharif, who has pursued a more conciliatory approach with the army.

Imran Khan, the former cricketer and leader of the main opposition party the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), has accused Sharif of maligning Pakistan’s institutions to save himself. “Adiala jail is ready for you,” he said before the verdict, also claiming that Sharif was using his wife’s illness to “emotionally blackmail” voters.

The verdict’s electoral impact will depend on Sharif’s response, according to the columnist Mosharraf Zaidi. If he returns to Pakistan and goes to jail, the “visuals” would likely add to sympathy for the PML-N, providing a “cherry on top” of the party’s argument that its leader has been unfairly victimised, he said. Should Sharif stay in London, the party may suffer; with Sharif absent from the campaign trail, the pollsters Gallup revealed on Wednesday that the PTI had closed the gap to a single point, with support for the PML-N dropping to 26% nationwide.

Sharif has long struggled to explain how the Avenfield flats came into his family’s possession. Family members initially told different stories. During the NAB trial, his defence claimed that a Qatari investment fund gave the expensive properties to the family to repay a debt owed to Sharif’s father. Commentators last year mocked a letter from a Qatari prince apparently testifying to that deal as a rabbit pulled out of a hat.

Still, analysts point to a variety of events that suggest a campaign by Pakistan’s deep state to hurt the PML-N ahead of the vote. The process has left “little doubt that the system is geared to get Mr Sharif”, said Zaidi. The NAB has arrested several PML-N members in recent weeks and in May its chairman was ridiculed for ordering an investigation into Sharif over spurious claims in a newspaper article that he laundered almost $5bn to India.

What’s next for Najib Razak

The good news is that, under the new Mahathir administration, foreign governments will now have access to Malaysian documents related to the 1MDB probe. The US, Singapore and Switzerland are among the countries investigating the scandal.

by James Chin- Jul 6, 2018

( July 6, 2018,  Canberra, Sri Lanka Guardian) The arrest of Najib Razak, the former prime minister of Malaysia, on Tuesday was widely expected. In fact, many Malaysians were hoping he would be arrested immediately after the ruling party, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), was defeated in the May 9 election.

Najib was the main reason why UMNO lost – he was widely seen as corrupt and the main person behind the scandal at 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a state investment fund.

US prosecutors have accused Najib of diverting US$731 million from 1MDB into his personal bank account. Many people assume Najib’s arrest is connected to this fund, but legally speaking, he faces charges relating to a company called SRC international, a one-time subsidiary of 1MDB.

SRC took a loan of about US$1 billion from a state-run retirement fund and Najib is alleged to have siphoned off about US$10.5 million from the top. The money allegedly ended up in his bank account, the same account that was implicated in the 1MDB affair.

Najib has denied any wrongdoing, and on Weddnesday pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Why was Najib not charged in the 1MDB probe?

The simple answer is that the 1MDB investigation covers multiple jurisdictions. At the last count, money involved in the 1MDB affair is believed to have passed through the following financial systems: the United States, United Kingdom, Singapore, Switzerland, Australia, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, among others.

It is simply not possible to put such a complex case together in such a short amount of time following the election of opposition leader Mahathir Mohamad two months ago.

The good news is that, under the new Mahathir administration, foreign governments will now have access to Malaysian documents related to the 1MDB probe. The US, Singapore and Switzerland are among the countries investigating the scandal. When Najib was in power, all financial institutions in Malaysia refused to cooperate with these foreign probes.

Why is SRC International different?

The key factor here is a star witness, a former director of SRC International who decided to come forward to testify for the prosecution. This individual was too afraid to come forward when Najib was prime minister. That is no longer the case.

There are several key witnesses in the 1MDB scandal who may be thinking along the same lines as the former SRC director. With Najib no longer in control, some of these witnesses may now turn against him, as well.

Top of the list is Jho Low, the accused mastermind of the 1MDB scam. He is believed to be dividing his time between Macau and Taiwan, both places where extradition to Malaysia is not possible.

Another important witness under tremendous pressure to come forward is Tim Leissner, the former Southeast Asia chairman for Goldman Sachs, the bank that handled most of the 1MDB bond sales. He was pushed to resign from Goldman Sachs in February 2016, and both Singapore and US securities regulators have banned him from working again in the financial industry.

An interesting side note is that he is better known in the US as the husband of Kimora Lee Simmons, an American model and fashion designer and the former wife of hip hop mogul Russell Simmons.

What’s next in the Najib case?

By charging Najib, the Mahathir administration is keeping an electoral promise to take action against the former leader. But more importantly, the new government is also sending a strong message to Malaysians and the international community that it is serious about cleaning up the mess left by Najib’s government, especially when it comes to corruption.

For Najib, this will likely be the first of many trials he will face, as more charges are expected in the 1MDB case. It’s also likely that Najib’s family members, including his wife, stepson and son-in-law will face charges, as they are alleged to be direct beneficiaries of the stolen funds.

And this will likely bring an end to the Razak political dynasty in Malaysia for the time being. Najib’s father was Malaysia’s second prime minister and many of his immediate relations used to hold political office. Until the election in May, Najib’s cousin, Hishammuddin Hussein, had been Malaysia’s defence minister.

UMNO will also need to shed its associations with Najib in order to rehabilitate its image among the Malaysian people. Last weekend, the party elected a new president, former Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

All in all, Najib’s arrest represents a clean break from the past for all of Malaysia. The end of one-party rule has opened up the possibility of a new era of good governance in the country, which was unthinkable just three months ago. In today’s “new” Malaysia, anything is possible – even calling to account a former prime minister who was just defeated.

More importantly, going forward, the Malaysian public will demand full accountability from their leaders, both past and present.

James Chin, Director, Asia Institute Tasmania, University of Tasmania

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Indo-Pacific Command a threat to peace in Indian Ocean

 

 2018-07-06

On May 31st this year, at a solemn ceremony in Hawaii, the United States military renamed its Pacific Command as the “Indo-Pacific Command”. The move, though significant in many respects, has not generated as much debate as it should have in the South Asian region. 

In a tweet to mark the occasion, the US embassy in New Delhi said: “In symbolic nod to India, United States renamed its @PacificCommand the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. Looking forward to higher levels of #USIndiaDefence cooperation.”

This week, testifying before the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Alaina Teplitz, the ambassador-nominee for Sri Lanka and the Maldives, said the two island nations were important for the wider security and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific region. 

She noted that both Sri Lanka and the Maldives are positioned astride key shipping lanes that connect the Straits of Hormuz and Malacca, the free navigation of which is vital to US economic and security interests.  Teplitz said Washington must also be mindful of the economic and commercial opportunities each country afforded, and the importance of working with them to maintain a rules-based international order.

The mentioning of the Indo-Pacific region in her testimony was deliberate.  It was an attempt to further popularize or formalise the term ‘Indo-Pacific’, while her call for a rules-based international order is a direct swipe at China, which is being accused by the US and its Asian allies of wrongfully claiming sovereignty over disputed islands in the South China Sea and of building artificial islands for military use in violation of international law. 

The Donald Trump administration, which is seen to be opposing everything that was Barack Obama, has fully embraced the term Indo-Pacific, which the Obama administration showed some reluctance to formalise.  

After a meeting between India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Trump in the White House in June last year, a joint communiqué described the two leaders as “stewards” for the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific region. During Trump’s East Asia tour in November last year, the term ‘Indo-Pacific’ figured so liberally in statements that it exposed hurried and deliberate efforts  to win recognition for the new region.  That the term is also being liberally used in political discourses in Japan is no coincidence. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is a key architect of the concept.

Last month, addressing the Shangri La Dialogue conference in Singapore, Modi defined the Indo-Pacific region as “a natural region” that stretches from the east coast of Africa to the west coast of America.  While emphasising that India’s acceptance of the Indo-Pacific region was not directed against any nation, he said the building of a “stable, secure and prosperous Indo-Pacific region” was an “important pillar” of India’s partnership with the US.

With the formal announcement of the Indo-Pacific command, the Indian Ocean region is set to become a militarised zone where the big powers will flex their military muscles sooner than later. The new command together with the US Central Command (for Middle East), the African Command and the European Command provides around-the-world connectivity to the US military. 

The Indo-Pacific Command is a blow to the Indian Ocean peace zone concept.  In the 1970s, Sri Lanka had been in the forefront of global efforts to declare the Indian Ocean as a peace zone and had opposed superpower military presence in the region. Although the Soviet Union was supportive of the Sri Lankan initiative, the US, which had a major military base in the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, ignored Colombo’s call, which was then fully backed by the Non-Aligned Movement. 
It is significant to note that India has veered away from its ‘middle-path’ foreign policy and has cooperated with the US in the renaming of the Pacific Command, in keeping with its redefined geostrategic objective of containing a rising China, with whom it has several territorial disputes, the latest being last year’s Doklam crisis on the Bhutan border.  India’s new policy is a major shift from its Indira doctrine which was designed to keep the US out of the seas surrounding India. In keeping with the doctrine – named after Prime Minister Indira Gandhi – India policed and dominated the South Asian part of the Indian Ocean.  Now a combined Indo-US effort will go into the policing of this part of Indian Ocean, where concerns have been raised by India over China’s increasing naval movements including the sighting of nuclear submarines.

The move further consolidates the US strategy of making India the lynchpin in containing China – and India, it appears, cherishes the importance the US gives it. India is now, to all intents and purposes, part of the United States’ Asia Nexus. The partnership takes their defence ties to the next level, two years after they signed a logistics defence pact to allow the militaries of both countries to use each other’s assets and bases for repair and replenishment of supplies.

Besides, India is a key member of a tri-nation defence arrangement, also involving the US and Japan. The three countries conduct annual military exercises on a mega scale.  Called ‘Malabar’, this year’s exercise, which took place, significantly, a week after the ‘Indo-Pacific Command’ renaming ceremony, was held in the seas off the Pacific Island of Guam where the US maintains its biggest offshore military base. Also part of this arrangement was Australia. However, of late, Canberra has scaled down its involvement, perhaps in deference to its growing trade and investment ties with China.

In international relations, alliances are important because power is also assessed on the basis of the military alliances a nation makes.  However much China catches up with the US in terms of economic power, military parity and advancement in science and technology, it still lags behind in making military alliances with strategically important nations.  This is why it remains edged out in the contest for the Indo-Pacific region.  Despite growing economic ties with China, most ASEAN countries view China with suspicion and will not abandon the US military protection.  

The only South Asian country which China can consider as a strategic ally is Pakistan, although Islamabad also maintains close military relations with Washington.  Countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal and the Maldives in South Asia, on the one hand, are much in need of China’s development aid and investments, and, on the other, are wary of getting caught in the cold war between China and the Indo-US military alliance. It is diplomatic tightrope walking for these countries.   China sees the formalisation of the Indo-Pacific Command as part of the US strategy to instigate China and India into a long-term conflict. The Global Times, China’s official English language mouthpiece, sees India as having fallen into a US trap aimed at strengthening Washington’s control of the Indian Ocean. 

The Indo-Pacific military command appears to be bellicose and therefore Indian Ocean nations should be wary of the consequences.  The Indian Ocean littoral states – members of the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation – need to meet soon to discuss moves to stop the militarisation of the Indian Ocean. India owes these nations a commitment that it will not allow its Indo-Pacific partnership with the US to threaten the peace of the Indian Ocean. 

Trade war risk, rising oil costs seen keeping rupee near record low: Reuters poll

A rupee note is seen in this illustration photo June 1, 2017. REUTERS/Thomas White/Illustration/Files

Shrutee Sarkar-JULY 5, 2018

BENGALURU (Reuters) - Global trade tensions and rising oil prices are expected to weaken India’s rupee over the next year, a Reuters poll has found, dragging the currency closer to the record low hit last week against the dollar.

While economic growth has picked up and India has retained its spot as the fastest growing major economy this year, the rupee hit an all-time low of 69.09 per dollar last week and is the worst-performing currency in Asia this year.

The rupee, already down more than 7 percent this year, has been pressured by a sell-off in emerging markets driven by the daily escalation in global trade tensions and on worries of a widening current account deficit from the rising price of oil, India’s biggest import item.

In the poll of 45 strategists taken July 2-5, the rupee was forecast to weaken to 68.90 per dollar by June 2019, slightly down from Wednesday’s close of 68.69. Just last month, the rupee was expected to have strengthened in a year’s time.

“We are pretty bearish (on the rupee) at this moment, given all the circumstances combined. Not only high oil prices but also the trade war that has been taking off,” said Hugo Erken, senior economist at Rabobank.

“So, although India has a large internal market, and I still think the Indian recovery will last, the external pressure is really building at the moment. This is not good for the Indian currency.”

What has changed over the past month is that the prospect of a global trade war has increased and oil prices have risen sharply. U.S. crude futures are up 13 percent since June 1 and were trading near a 3-1/2-year high on Wednesday.

“India is obviously one of those countries with higher exposure to commodities, especially oil imports, dragging the current account to a deeper stretch going forward and this is basically negative for INR,” said Prakash Sakpal, economist at ING, who has the most pessimistic 12-month call of 72.80.

India’s finances will also be hit by the increase to the government-mandated price for summer-sown crops to the highest since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014 as he looks to woo millions of poor farmers ahead of a general election next year.

While that is likely to keep foreign investors wary, Asian currencies and foreign exchange markets will more likely be driven by how the current trade dynamics play out after the July 6 deadline passes for the United States to impose tariffs on some of the Chinese goods it imports.

A separate poll on China’s yuan [CNY/POLL] showed it will have failed to reverse June’s losses against the dollar even a year from now.

On the rupee, though, not all respondents were bearish.

While more than a quarter of 46 analysts who had a 12-month view forecast the Indian currency to weaken to the crucial 70 mark or beyond to the dollar, more than 45 percent of respondents predicted the currency would appreciate. The remainder expect the rupee to stay around current levels.

Several strategists said the expected policy tightening by the Reserve Bank of India would help the rupee.

“The reason we think that it (the rupee) will strengthen, is our forecast for domestic monetary policy...there will be a couple of more rate hikes this year, which is slightly more than expected and that should provide some support to the currency,” said Shilan Shah, senior India economist at Capital Economics.

“But also, we are forecasting a fall in oil prices over the remainder of this year. If that proves to be the case, then that should lead to some strength in the rupee.”

Polling by Khushboo Mittal and Anisha Sheth; Editing by Eric Meijer

Motherhood Is Kicking Indian Women Out of Work

A new act gives more maternity leave — and reinforces the same old patriarchal values.

A Kashmiri 'Anganwadi', a government sponsored child and mother care worker, kicks away a chili grenade thrown by Indian police during an anti-government protest in Srinagar on May 30, 2018. (TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AFP/Getty Images)

BY NAMITA BHANDARE-

JULY 6, 2018, 10:11 AM

American progressives often bemoan the country’s lack of maternity leave, but in India, the problem may be too much time off, not too little. As many as 12 million Indian women could lose their jobs next year thanks to a new law that mandates employers must allow 26 weeks paid time off after giving birth.

There have been worries about the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act since it was passed in March 2017, bumping paid leave up from the previous 12 weeks and making day care centers mandatory for companies with more than 50 employees.

Some saw this as a step forward for women’s rights. But a new survey by TeamLease, a payroll and human resources services company, claims that the act could lead to 2.6 percent of women’s jobs disappearing. The survey says that employers are less likely to hire women due to their concerns about the demands imposed by the act, especially at smaller companies.

These concerns may well be overrated. There were similar concerns when laws against workplace sexual harassment were passed. There’s no data to support whether these fears actually panned out, but this was a common refrain when the law was passed — that companies would stop hiring women because of the anti-harassment law. But this new law also reinforces the idea that child care is the responsibility of women alone — a belief that’s already making many educated Indian workers believe they have to choose between children and a career.

This is bad news for India, where already nearly 20 million women left the workforce between 2004 and 2012. In 2011, census data put the female labor force participation rate at 27 percent. This year, the annual economic survey conducted by the Ministry of Finance said it was just 24 percent — the worst in South Asia, and among the G-20 nations only beating Saudi Arabia.

Indian women’s shrinking involvement in the workforce at a time of declining fertility, rising educational attainment, and increasing economic growth has perplexed economists and policymakers. In April 2017, a World Bank report found the sharpest workforce participation drops among both illiterate women and India’s most educated women.

One of the main factors is what some economists call the motherhood penalty, which takes a particular toll on workforce participation of educated women.In March 2017, a World Bank policy paper by Maitreyi Bordia Das and Ieva Zumbyte, “The Motherhood Penalty and Female Employment in Urban India,” found that “having a young child in the home depresses mothers’ employment.”

It’s this motherhood penalty that results in India’s most educated women quitting jobs midway through their career. For instance, women make up 51 percent of all new recruits in the tech industry, but only 34 percent of all employees, according to a 2011 study by Nasscom, India’s largest trade body for tech.

India has one of the world’s largest gender gaps in unpaid care work. In November 2015, the McKinsey Global Institute found that women in India do 10 times as much unpaid care work than men, far above the global average of three times. No wonder then that at times of economic growth, when household incomes go up and paid work is no longer a survival imperative, India’s women are unwilling to shoulder the burden of extra work outside the home when they’re already worked to the bone inside it.

But men in the Asia-Pacific region are the worst in the world when it comes to shouldering some of the responsibility of unpaid care work, according to a recent release by the International Labour Organization (ILO), “Care Work and Care Jobs for the Future of Decent Work.” Pakistani men, on average, chip in with 28 minutes a day, and Indian men are only marginally better with 31 minutes a day, compared with the regional average of four hours and 22 minutes put in by women for similar work, the ILO report finds.

But care work is only one of the ways in which patriarchy imposes burdens on working women in India. The other way is by controlling and restricting women’s physical movement.

Rohini Pande, co-director of the Evidence for Policy Design Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School, finds that social norms that restrict women’s mobility are one of the challenges women confront when they set out to find a job. Using government data she found, for instance, that 79.9 percent of women in India needed permission from husbands or other family members to visit a health center. “In the end, it’s pretty difficult to look for a job if you can’t leave the house alone,” she wrote.

Unlike men, women need to get an all-clear from their fathers, brothers, husbands, in-laws, or, sometimes, entire village councils before they can step out of their houses.

Social norms also dictate what work is appropriate for women. So nursing, teaching, and beauty work is considered acceptable, but jobs in hotels, where there is a demand for skilled female workers, is considered unacceptable because women might have to serve food to men in restaurants or enter their rooms for housekeeping. “Social norms often limit women’s opportunities to so-called traditional jobs, closely linked to typical ideas of what women can and cannot do,” Clement Chauvet, the chief of skills and business development at the United Nations Development Programme in India, told me when I researched the topic in a nationwide investigation for IndiaSpend.

Safety, infrastructure, and a lack of reliable and affordable public transportation are key issues for Indian women. In my IndiaSpend work I found that in one village in the state of Haryana, a woman who was hired to work in a factory in the summer quit by winter when the days became shorter and the walk back home alone from the bus stop became unsafe in the dark. In a slum in outer Delhi, women said they preferred low-paying jobs in factories close by because they just couldn’t afford the bus fare or deal with the commute time.

If the government wants to start breaking down the familial burdens placed on women, equalizing leave is a good place to start. “The law should entitle parents to shared leave, which can be split between a couple in the way they choose,” wrote feminist economist Mitali Nikore. Moreover, she advocates that the financial burden associated with the extended maternity leave should be split between employers and the government.

Indian workplaces are not just losing women because they are getting pregnant. They are losing women because society imprisons them in work that is unpaid, unrecognized, and unsung.

After all, if it takes a village to raise a child, why is it that only mothers bear the cost?