Peace for the World

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

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

‘Nothing to lose’: Palestinians set out to sea in attempt to break Gaza blockade


Sick and wounded say boats may be their only chance to access treatment as coastal enclave faces humanitarian crisis because of Israeli siege
Mohammed Arour, 33, is one of a number of sick and injured Palestinians who have boarded boats in recent weeks in an attempt to break the Israeli-led siege on Gaza (MEE/Maha Hussaini)

Maha Hussaini's picture
Maha Hussaini-Tuesday 17 July 2018

GAZA CITY, Gaza - Trapped inside 365 square kilometres with few opportunities of escaping the 11-year siege, Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have turned out in large numbers at the fence separating the small coastal territory from Israel in recent months to protest the abysmal humanitarian conditions.
A smaller, yet equally determined number of Palestinians, meanwhile, have set their sights westwards, towards the Mediterranean Sea, as their only hope for salvation.
While international activists have challenged the Israeli sea blockade from outside over the years, Palestinians have begun attempting a similar feat in the opposite direction.
University students, individuals injured during the recent months of protests or previous Israeli military offensives, and terminally ill patients seeking treatment abroad, have boarded boats leaving Gaza’s shores in the hope of avoiding Israel's naval forces and arriving in Cyprus some 400km away. All have been turned back.
But the poor living conditions in the small Palestinian territory, where medical shortages have only become more acute in the midst of the Israeli army’s repression of large-scale protests, have only left Palestinians more determined to seek a way out.

‘They left us with no choice’

Palestinians in the coastal enclave are preparing to welcome a group of four ships - the al-Awda (The Return), Freedom, Mairead and Falestine - in coming days, despite Israel’s repeated declarations that it would prevent international flotillas challenging the blockade from reaching the Gaza Strip.
The vessels - part of the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, which has sent more than 30 ships towards Gaza since 2008 - arrived on Monday in Palermo, Sicily, after first setting sail from Scandinavia two months ago, carrying much-needed medical supplies to the Palestinian enclave where more than 16,000 have been wounded since the beginning of the Great March of Return on 30 March.
“Although the Freedom Flotilla Coalition continues to see our mission’s goal as political solidarity rather than charity or aid, the need for medical supplies in Gaza is too urgent to ignore,” the activists of the Freedom Flotilla declared on its website.
With Israel announcing earlier this month that it was shutting down Gaza’s only commercial crossing except for the transfer of Israeli-approved humanitarian goods, and progressively restricting the designated fishing zone down to three nautical miles off the coast, the humanitarian situation has only become more urgent for Gaza residents.
'We tried to win our basic rights using [Israel's] legal ways, but they have always dealt with us as if we were subhuman'
- Mohammed Arour, a passenger on the Freedom Boat 2
In parallel with the efforts of the Freedom Flotilla, Palestinians trapped in Gaza have also sought to break the siege, in the hope of receiving medical treatment abroad.
Mohammed Arour, 33, was injured during Israel’s Operation Protective Edge when an Israeli drone targeted his house in the Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip on 22 July 2014, killing two members of his family and injuring 40 others.
Arour was left with severe damage to his bladder that no hospital in Gaza was equipped to treat. Despite spending a month in Saint Joseph Hospital in East Jerusalem - a hospital stay in occupied Palestinian territory that necessitated an Israeli permit for Arour to be allowed to leave Gaza - the Palestinian man still needs to undergo several operations.
“I have been living on painkillers for the past four years, and my body now rejects all kinds of drugs,” Arour told Middle East Eye. “I am hopeless. No matter how many times I try to leave Gaza for treatment, the Israeli authorities always deny me permits.
“Once I heard the registration for the Freedom Boat was open during Ramadan, I immediately registered, as this was the only hope left for me to leave the Strip and receive proper treatment.”
Arour was among eight Palestinians who attempted to break the Israeli blockade by setting sail aboard the Freedom Boat 2 from Gaza on 10 July.
Israeli authorities have recently reduced Gaza's designated fishing zone to three nautical miles off the coast, despite the Oslo Accords setting the limit to 20 nautical miles (MEE/Mohammed Asad)
The Freedom Boat 2 was the second of two attempts by Palestinians to breach the Israeli blockade by sea since the Great March of Return protests began.
“They [the Israelis] left us with no choice. We tried to win our basic rights using their legal ways, but they have always dealt with us as if we were subhuman,” Arour explained.

Drones and boats

Arour recalled how an Israeli drone followed their boat once they passed six nautical miles from the shore. Gunboats appeared at 12 nautical miles - well within the 20 nautical miles fishing zone agreed upon in the Oslo Accords - at which point Israeli naval forces intercepted their boat and detained them.
“They approached our boat and asked us through megaphones to sit on the ground, threatening to open fire if anyone moved,” he said.
“Four warships carrying around 40 soldiers then appeared. They searched us and dragged us to their ships with our feet cuffed, and then took us to the Ashdod seaport" in southern Israel, he added.
Israeli soldiers scolded the passengers, Arour said, accusing them of purposefully “choosing the day of the France-Belgium match in the World Cup” to sail and “disturb the soldiers”.
“An Israeli officer told us that they were going to throw us in the sea if they did not finish searching us before the game started,” Arour told MEE. “He was angry and serious, as if the match was more important than our lives and long-term suffering.
“It was so unjust and humiliating.”
After questioning the passengers for several hours, Israeli authorities released them back in Gaza and seized the boat.
The boat's captain, Khaled al-Hessi, remains in Israeli custody.

‘We will not stop’

A 39-year-old leukemia patient, Nafeth al-Loh was on the first humanitarian flotilla that was turned back while attempting to leave the coastal enclave on 29 May.
Unable to work because of his illness, Loh lives with his parents, wife and children, dependent on relatives to help feed his family and receive the drugs he needs to stay alive.
“My father cannot afford my drug any more - he can barely secure food for us,” he said. “I did not want to leave the Strip for the sake of travelling or migrating, I was just going to receive treatment abroad and come back to my family in Gaza.”
If Israeli naval forces had not intercepted their ship, being able to leave Gaza and receive treatment would have been “a rebirth”, he said.
Gaza hospitals have raised the alarm over shortages of even the most basic medical supplies (Reuters)
“All I wanted was to relieve the pain I have been enduring for years,” he told MEE. “I spend weeks where I do not sleep more than an hour or two a day. I just wanted to feel normal again.”
Ramadan al-Hayek, a human rights activist in Gaza, said Israel was committing a war crime with its blockade of Gaza, imposing collective punishment measures through “isolating and starving two million residents in the Gaza Strip”.
“What those Palestinians did is a normal and understandable reaction to the severe Israeli restrictions and different forms of control on all aspects of their lives,” Hayek told MEE of the would-be siege breakers.
'All I wanted was to relieve the pain I have been enduring for years... I just wanted to feel normal again'
- Natfeh al-Loh, leukemia patient
“The international community must finally take tangible steps to put an end to Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law, and exert pressure on the Israeli authorities to at least let civilians in the besieged Strip enjoy their basic right to healthcare.”
Loh remained determined to sail once again, although he fully expects that Israeli forces will continue to block any attempts to break the siege.
“I cried when the second Freedom Boat sailed last week because I could not be with them,” Loh told MEE.
“They’ve left us with nothing to lose,” he said. “Although I know they will never let us out, we will not stop kicking at all the doors.”

Supreme Court urges separate laws against mob killings

A man walks inside the premises of the Supreme Court in New Delhi. Photo: Reuters
A man walks inside the premises of the Supreme Court in New Delhi, India, July 17, 2018. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi

Malini MenonSuchitra Mohanty-JULY 17, 2018

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday urged the government to enact laws separate to those against murder to act as a deterrent against lynchings, following a series of attacks in which mobs have beaten people to death.

Hindu groups opposed to the slaughter of cows have also targeted cattle traders, mainly from the minority Muslim community, and others on the suspicion they were eating beef. The majority of Hindus consider cows sacred.

“We think it appropriate to recommend ... to parliament to create a separate offence for lynching and provide adequate punishment for the same... A special law in this field would instil a sense of fear,” the court said in its judgment.

The court was hearing a petition filed by an activist to stop violence by Hindu vigilante groups, who are against the slaughter of cows and who critics say have become emboldened since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s nationalist government came to power in 2014.

Supreme Court urges separate laws against mob killings
A view of the Indian Supreme Court building is seen in New Delhi December 7, 2010. REUTERS/B Mathur/Files

The court asked the Modi government to report back within four weeks.

“The horrendous acts of ‘mobocracy’ cannot be permitted to inundate the law of the land,” the judgment said.

Writing by Malini Menon; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani and Nick Macfie

American establishment: It is an ugly imperialism without an emperor

The makers of the first US constitutional state, which was founded in revolt against British colonialism, balanced popular sovereignty against the rule of law. This framework required carefully constructed rules about the conduct of representation and the limits of government intervention.

SRI LANKA GUARDIAN A LONG READING 
by Anwar A Khan- 

( July 17, 2018, Dhaka, Sri Lanka Guardian) One may identify the current moment as a critical one for US hegemony, with a possibly decisive shift toward reliance on empire as the key characteristic of emerging US government geopolitical reasoning of looting wealth of other countries and posing threat to be supreme over the present world order. One limitation of this strategy, however, is that the institutions and mores of US marketplace society do not readily support the imperial mantle. US hegemony, it is crucial to point out, is not congenial to a reinstatement of an explicitly territorial empire. It has created a new geography of power associated with the term globalisation. Therefore, by way of judgment, one should emphasise the likelihood that empire will fail and, as a result, globalisation will become increasingly free of an independent US hegemony to be regulated by a complex of markets, states, and global institutions rather than by a single hegemon with the passage of time. And that time is not very far.

Will Republicans punish Trump for his performance with Putin?

President’s comments on election meddling called ‘disgraceful’ but most in his party are reluctant to enter open conflict
The US president has drawn ire over his support for Putin’s claim that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election. Photograph: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

 @laurenegambino-
Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence agencies about whether Moscow meddled in the US elections. The question that now looms before Republican lawmakers: how will they respond?
Air Force One departed Helsinki on Monday after a head-spinning week in which the US president attacked the postwar international order and sided with the Russian president

Donald Trump’s conduct during the joint press conference with Putin drew condemnation from across the political spectrum, including from Republicans who have been previously wary of criticizing him.

Yet despite the deep disappointment and shock, leading Republicans lawmakers have so far failed to pledge any concrete action to punish Trump for his conduct next to Putin, which some panned as “shameful” and a “sign of weakness”.

“Some statements coming out from [Republicans] are OK,” said Senator Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii. “But the foundational question is whether or not a member of Congress will use their constitutional authorities to slow or stop this.”

Republicans, who hold the majority in both chambers of Congress, could try to force Trump’s hand on Russia by holding up nominees, demanding hearings or pushing for increased oversight. There is, as Democrats note, pending legislation that Congress could pass to protect special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating whether Trump campaign associates colluded with Russia during the election.

On Tuesday, the editors of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine called on Republicans in Congress to formally censure the president.

“We understand that such a measure would be largely symbolic,” the editors wrote. “But symbols matter. It would be no small thing for congressional Republicans to declare, in a formal manner, that a president who coddles and defends an anti-American despot doesn’t deserve their support.”



Key moments from the Trump-Putin press conference - video

Late Monday evening, Senator John Cornyn told CNN Republican lawmakers were considering a measure that would reaffirm support for the intelligence community conclusion on Russian meddling. Such action would follow the non-binding resolution in support of Nato, which the Senate passed last week before Trump landed in Brussels for a summit with military allies.

In the hours after the press conference, several leading Republicans rebuked Trump for appearing to disregard his own intelligence community and place trust in Putin, an adversary accused of having attacked the very foundation of American democracy: its electoral system.

“They think it’s Russia,” Trump said during the press conference, referring to US intelligence officials and aides. “I have President Putin – he just said it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

In a statement, House speaker Paul Ryan reprimanded Trump: “There is no moral equivalence between the United States and Russia.” He also reasserted his view that there is “no question” Russia interfered in the US presidential election and continues to meddle in democracies around the world.
Ryan was joined by other Republican lawmakers. John McCain, the ailing Arizona senator and one of the party’s leading voices on national security, delivered perhaps the harshest rebuke, calling the press conference “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory”.
In a tweet on Tuesday, Trump said the media had distorted a successful European trip.

“While I had a great meeting with NATO, raising vast amounts of money, I had an even better meeting with Vladimir Putin of Russia,” Trump wrote. “Sadly, it is not being reported that way – the Fake News is going Crazy!”

Paul Ryan reprimanded Trump for his comments about the US and Russia. Photograph: Michael Reynolds/EPA

Democrats have laid out four actions they say Republicans could take. The Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said Republicans should refuse to “water down” and instead should “ratchet up” sanctions against Russia. Secondly, Schumer asked Republicans to join him in calling on Trump’s national security team present for the summit with Putin to testify before Congress.

He then called on Republicans to end their attacks on the Mueller investigation. Lastly, he said, Republicans should pressure the president to demand the extradition of the 12 Russian intelligence officers charged last week in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.

“The president is doing grave harm to the standing of these United States while kowtowing to the number one enemy which we probably have on the globe, Vladimir Putin,” Schumer said. “He’ll continue to do so if he isn’t checked and the best people to check him are not Democrats, but his fellow Republicans.”

Patrick Toomey, a Republican senator from Pennsylvania, suggested the US should threaten “tough, new sanctions” if Russia refuses to extradite the 12 intelligence officers. Ryan and Senate No2 John Cornyn subsequently suggested they would support new sanctions.

 Putin says Russia has never interfered with US internal affairs – video

Still, there were some Republicans who stood by Trump.

Mark Meadows, chair of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, declined to criticize Trump for blaming the US for poor relations with Russia. Senator Rand Paul, of Kentucky, dismissed the focus on Russian meddling as “Trump derangement syndrome”.

Republicans may settle on a course of action over the coming days. But as past episodes have shown, they largely prefer to avoid open conflict with the president.

For now, even Trump’s harshest Republican critics seem to place their hopes not in Congress but rather the president’s ability to change.

“Americans are waiting and hoping for President Trump to embrace that sacred responsibility,”

McCain said. “One can only hope they are not waiting totally in vain.”

In battle for nonverbal dominance at U.S.-Russia summit, Putin was the clear winner, experts say


At their summit in Helsinki on July 16, President Trump appeared to wink at Russian President Vladimir Putin at least twice.



Carrie Keating was almost slack-jawed with amazement by the end of President Trump’s news conference with Russian leader Vladimir Putin Monday. Keating has studied the nonverbal gestures of politicians for three decades, but she found the performance between the two men on the stage nothing short of incredible.

“Whoever made the arrangements, they so clearly favored Putin. You saw him do almost every dominant behavior you could stage in social science lab study,” said Keating, a psychology professor who studies charisma and leadership at Colgate University.

Keating quickly ticked off more than a dozen nonverbal assertions of dominance by Putin — including Putin’s agile hop onto the podium (vs. Trump’s lumbering walk), Putin’s animated gestures and the way he often disregarded the audience when speaking.

But the key victory for Putin was the fact that he spoke first and spoke the longest, she said. In research conducted in her lab, she said, in groups of strangers, the person in the group who spoke first and longest almost always ended up having the most influence during subsequent problem-solving tests or exercises.

“In that way Putin was absolutely dominant. He spoke for so long at the beginning, just going on and on while everyone else, including Trump, had to wait on him,” Keating said.

The one instance where Putin appeared to hit pause on his alpha male behavior was during his answers to questions about Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 election. “You saw him shrug a lot and raise his eyebrows almost in a childlike way and gestured with an open palm. We call those approach gestures. They’re meant to suggest, ‘I’m not here to hurt you,’ to seem nonthreatening,” Keating said.

But then Putin’s face absolutely danced when Trump started talking about the missing servers and Hillary Clinton’s emails, she said. “It is just amazing. You see looks of contempt. If you look close, you can see his tongue go into the side of his mouth, almost like he’s trying to inhibit his gestures. Like he’s trying and having trouble controlling his nonverbal gestures at that point,” she said.

In the face of Putin’s performance, Keating concluded, “maybe the one thing Trump had going for him was how tall he was … that’s maybe the one aspect he may have won.”

In the wake of high-profile meetings of world leaders — where every gesture often seems fraught with meaning — cable TV news programs often call in body language experts. The evidence behind some of their claims, however, is somewhat squishy.

There is serious research devoted to the science of nonverbal communication, including Keating's, but academics caution that it’s often hard to draw firm conclusions from studying limited interactions.
“Whenever there’s a big meeting of leaders, you see all the body language ‘experts’ on TV with interpretations. But the reality is little of that is validated by science,” said David Matsumoto, who has studied nonverbal expressions for more than 30 years. “Yes, there’s a wealth of information in nonverbal expressions, but the problem is that there are real limits.”

Scientists who study nonverbal expression often have much more data than a brief handshake or news conference. Researchers analyzing the gestures of two people walking together, for example, would measure the distance, speed and gait of each person’s walk and compare it to their walks with others. To break down facial reactions, researchers often spend hours coding the intensity and duration of more than 40 independent muscle movements in the face. Context matters as well. “You can’t compare Trump walking into meeting with Putin or standing at podium, for example, to video of him sitting down with [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel. They’re different settings and actions,” said Matsumoto, a psychology professor at San Francisco State University.

Despite those limitations, experts are extracting what they can.

Throughout Monday’s news conference, for instance, Matsumoto noticed Putin clearing his throat during Trump’s answers to the media, which could be seen as an attempt to assert control.
“There was some contempt in some places, and then some very subtle disgust,” said Matsumoto, such as when Putin was addressing certain topics like Syria and the Islamic State.

Since Trump’s rise to power, Judi James, a communication expert in England, has noted a revival of many classic power and alpha male nonverbal behaviors among world leaders — from Trump's epic power handshake competitions with French President Emmanuel Macron to his often cool, dismissive interactions with European leaders.


What's up with President Trump's intense handshakes?
It's hard to tell, for example, if Trump was deliberately late to his meeting with British Prime Minister Theresa May a few days ago, James said, “but it seemed to lead to her lukewarm trait of greeting him from her doorstep at [her country residence] Chequers rather than rushing forward as he got out from his car.” Similarly, Trump and Putin seemed to be competing to see who could keep whom waiting on Monday, with Putin ultimately showing up an hour late to the summit.

The reason people try to read so much into these high-stakes meetings is we have so little to go on about what’s happening between the two leaders, experts say. Even now, for example, no one knows what was said in the meeting between Trump and Putin. All we are left with is their little gestures and handshakes when they came out.

“And it’s not like the data isn’t there,” said researcher Matsumoto. “There’s a lot there you could glean, but the problem is deciphering the signal from the noise.”

Vote Leave campaign referred to police for breaking electoral law

Report by the Electoral Commission says the official Brexit campaign exceeded its legal spending limit by almost £500,000.

The official Brexit campaign, Vote Leave, has been fined and referred to the police for breaking electoral law.

17 Jul 2018

The announcement follows an investigation by Channel 4 News and the Observer into allegations of overspending.

report by the Electoral Commission said there was “significant evidence” of joint working between Vote Leave and other Brexit campaigners – BeLeave and its founder, Darren Grimes.

A donation of almost £680,000 – made by Vote Leave to BeLeave – took the official campaign’s spending over the legal limit of £7 million.

Some of the money was used to pay Aggregate IQ, the Canadian data firm that Channel 4 News also investigated in the wake of the  Cambridge Analytica scandal.

The Electoral Commission said: “Evidence shows that BeLeave spent more than £675,000 with Aggregate IQ under a common plan with Vote Leave. This spending should have been declared by Vote Leave.

“It means Vote Leave exceeded its legal spending limit of £7 million by almost £500,000.”
Vote Leave, which was supported by the likes of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, has now been fined £61,000.

Darren Grimes has also been fined £20,000 and referred to the Metropolitan Police, along with David Halsall, who was the responsible person for Vote Leave, “in relation to false declarations of campaign spending”, the Commission added.

In turn, Vote Leave accused the Commission of being “motivated by a political agenda rather than uncovering the facts”.

But Bob Posner, Electoral Commission director of political finance, said: “We found substantial evidence that the two groups worked to a common plan, did not declare their joint working and did not adhere to the legal spending limits.

“These are serious breaches of the laws put in place by Parliament to ensure fairness and transparency at elections and referendums.

“Our findings relate primarily to the organisation which put itself forward as fit to be the designated campaigner for the ‘leave’ outcome.”

The original allegations, broadcast by Channel 4 News, were made by whistleblowers including Shahmir Sanni, who helped run the BeLeave offshoot campaign with Darren Grimes. He claimed the money was used to pay Aggregate IQ for targeted messaging services on Facebook and other social media.

A Vote Leave spokesman said the Electoral Commission’s report contained “a number of false accusations and incorrect assertions that are wholly inaccurate and do not stand up to scrutiny”.
He said: “Vote Leave has provided evidence to the Electoral Commission proving there was no wrongdoing.

“And yet, despite clear evidence of wrongdoing by the Remain campaign, the Commission has chosen to ignore this and refused to launch an investigation.

“All this suggests that the supposedly impartial Commission is motivated by a political agenda rather than uncovering the facts.

“The Commission has failed to follow due process, and in doing so has based its conclusions on unfounded claims and conspiracy theories.

“We will consider the options available to us, but are confident that these findings will be overturned.”

He also reiterated the claim that the Commission failed to interview anyone from the campaign despite them being “willing to do so”.

In a statement posted on Twitter, Darren Grimes said: “It is incredible that the Electoral Commission has issued a £20,000 fine on the basis of the wrong box being ticked on an application form.

“The Commission has been aware of this for over two years, and had not raised the issue before in our extensive correspondence, during voluntary interview or its two previous investigations.

“This raises serious questions about why the Commission has taken these steps now despite no new evidence being provided. The fine is entirely disproportionate and unjustified.

“I also find it remarkable and surprising that the Commission has concluded I was part of a common plan with Vote Leave, despite never providing me with the particulars of this allegation so that I could make representations about it.

“Politicians say they want young people to engage with politics. I was 22 when I got involved in a referendum I felt passionately about. I did nothing wrong. I have been persecuted for over two years by powerful people for nothing more than engaging in the democratic process and having the temerity to be on the winning side. It has been appalling for my family.”

But Bob Posner from the Electoral Commission said: “Vote Leave has resisted our investigation from the start, including contesting our right as the statutory regulator to open the investigation.
“It has refused to co-operate, refused our requests to put forward a representative for interview, and forced us to use our legal powers to compel it to provide evidence.

“Nevertheless, the evidence we have found is clear and substantial, and can now be seen in our report.”
Labour MP David Lammy, part of the Best For Britain campaign, said: “This news makes the narrow referendum result look dodgier than ever. Its validity is now in question.

Vote Leave is the latest Brexit campaign group to be penalised over its spending during the EU referendum. In May, Brexit campaign group Leave.EU was fined £70,000 and its chief executive Liz Bilney referred to police.

Key factors in upcoming parliamentary elections in Pakistan

Elections to Pakistan’s National Assembly (NA) are to be held on July 25. The elections are of great significance to Pakistan and the Indian sub-continent given the background in which they will be held.  
2018-07-17

The elections to the 342-member NA are taking place in the context of four major developments: the jailing of the top most civilian political leader in the country, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, for high corruption; the rise of anti-corruption crusader Imran Khan in the political firmament as the only credible alternative to Sharif; the political mainstreaming of Jihadi organizations which are used by the Pakistani Deep State to destabilize India; and re-emergence of the army as a decisive factor in electoral Pakistani politics.  

The principal parties in the fray are: Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) led by Nawaz Sharif (with 189 seats in the present NA); Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) led by Bilawal Bhutto (with 47 seats now)and the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), led by Imran Khan (with 33 seats currently).   
PML (N) has hit a very bad patch now. Its founder-Nawaz Sharif, was disqualified from holding public offices in 2017 by the SC and in July 2018, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison for high corruption
In addition, there are Islamic and Jehadi parties, some of them recently “mainstreamed” on the recommendation of the Pakistan Army/Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).  

Of the three principal parties, only the PML (N) and the PTI are taken seriously because the PPP led by greenhorn Bilawal Bhutto and his corrupt father, Asif Zardari, is now not a patch on what it was under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his daughter Benazir Bhutto.  However, the PML (N) has hit a very bad patch now. Its founder-leader, Nawaz Sharif, was disqualified from holding public offices in 2017 by the Supreme Court and in July 2018, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison for high corruption.  

Revelations in the 2015 Panama Papers about Sharif’s unaccounted investments in the UK made corruption a central issue in Pakistan, opening the door to Imran Khan and the PTI. With PPP’s Zardari also known as “Mr.10 percent” the only top leader who can play the corruption card credibly now, is Imran.

Sharif’s political family is presently divided, with his brother, Shehbaz Sharif, apparently suing for peace with the army. Shehbaz did not show up at the Lahore airport when Nawaz arrived to be arrested. Shehbaz is now talking of “a national coalition government” and not a PML (N) government. PML (N) cadres are demoralized.  The PTI, in contrast, has been a rising party, riding on an anti-corruption sentiment sweeping the country. Its leader, Imran Khan, has been hammering at corruption for the last two decades. He is also known to be the only top rung Pakistani political leader to have done charity work. He single-handedly built a cancer hospital for the poor in the name of his mother Shaukat Khanum.  

Army’s support

Above all, Imran Khan has the tremendous advantage having the support of the all-powerful Pakistani army.The army has controlled the main levers of power in Pakistan, dominating foreign and security policies, since the early 1950s. Sharif’s efforts to assert civilian control over the military during his last term failed, turning him into an intensely hated figure in the military.  

But Khan has no qualms about working with the military. Putting it in a roundabout way, he told an interviewer: “I think a democratic government rules from moral authority. And if you don’t have moral authority, then those who have the physical authority assert themselves. In my opinion, it is the Pakistan Army and not an enemy army. I will carry the army with me.”  
  • Imran Khan has tremendous advantage with the support of the all-powerful Pakistani Army
  • Sharif was overthrown by Gen. Pervez Musharraf in 1999 for signing the “Lahore Pact”

Khan blames the “corrupt and inept civilian leaderships of the past” for bringing the army into the political picture. He also blames India and Afghanistan for the military’s “outsize” role in the country.  

“I have very clear foreign policy objectives, and where there are security concerns of the army, we will address them. We will sit down. It is our army,” Imran Khan said.  

Explaining Khan’s stand, Lahore-based political analyst Hasan Askari Rizvi said: “Imran Khan has realized that if you want to run Pakistan, you have to work with the military because of the internal and external challenges. By fighting with the military you cannot run the State. With adversarial neighbors like India and Afghanistan, clearly, the military will have a bigger say in the security policy.”  

Punished for befriending India

Nawaz Sharif had also made the “cardinal error” of trying to make peace with India, peace which would have reduced or nullified the army’s overwhelming influence over Pakistan’s foreign and strategic policy.   

Sharif was overthrown by Gen. Pervez Musharraf in 1999 because he had signed the “Lahore Pact” with the then Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and had called off the military operations in Kargil. If Sharif is now out of power, it is partly because he tried to have a détente with India by inviting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi over to his home in an impromptu way, raising suspicions in the army.  

But the last straw on the camel’s back was the Sharif government’s instruction to the army to curb Jihadi militant groups which were on terrorist missions in India.  After Imran Khan filed a case in the Supreme Court against Sharif in 2016 based on the Panama Papers, and as the court proceedings were on, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, the army chief, met Khan on March 31, 2017. In April, the Supreme Court ordered the constitution of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to further probe the matter. Significantly, the JIT included two military members, one from the Military intelligence and the other from the Inter-Services Intelligence.  

As one commentator put it: “Whether the judges called the Generals or the Generals called the judges, is irrelevant. The JIT`s report was already decided when it was constituted.”  

Sharif ought to have known the nature of the game played by the army and political parties in Pakistan because, like Imran Khan now, he himself had conspired with the army to overthrow Benazir Bhutto in 1990.  

Army’s popularity

As Sharif’s popularity was on the downward trend, the army’s popularity was growing, given its strong action against the anti-government Jihadi militant groups like the Pakistani Taliban which were wreaking havoc in Pakistan.  

However, at the same time, the military intelligence had successfully persuaded the government to mainstream Jehadi groups which had been useful in mounting terror attacks in India. This too was popular in Pakistan partly because some of the Jehadi groups were doing charity work and partly because there is support for their destructive work across the border in India.  
Khan blames the “corrupt and inept civilian leaderships of the past” for bringing the Army into the political picture
The Islamic parties’ alliance Muttahida Majlis Amal (MMA) has been revived. US designated terrorist Hafiz Saeed’s candidates will be in the fray through a proxy party, the Allaha-u-Akbar Tehreek because his own new party, Milli Muslim League, has been denied registration.  

The leader of the sectarian Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, Maulana Mohammed Ahmed Ludhianvi, has been removed from the terrorist list and allowed to fight the elections. Then there is the five party Islamic alliance Muttahida Majlis e Amal which includes known religious figures.  

The mainstreamed terror groups are expected to carry on their terror activities in India, even as they exert pressure and influence on democratic institutions as elected representatives.   

How Venezuela Struck It Poor

The tragic — and totally avoidable — self-destruction of one of the world’s richest oil economies.

Hanson_lead
 
In the spring of 1959, at a secretive meeting at a yacht club in Cairo, Venezuela’s then-minister of mines and hydrocarbons, Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonso, hatched a plan to give big oil-producing countries more control over their black gold — and a greater share of the wealth it promised to create. A year later, his scheme would be formally christened the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC. Venezuela, which sits atop what are arguably the biggest petroleum reserves in the world, was the only non-Middle Eastern country to be included — a testament to its importance to the global oil business.

Venezuela was considered rich in the early 1960s: It produced more than 10 percent of the world’s crude and had a per capita GDP many times bigger than that of its neighbors Brazil and Colombia — and not far behind that of the United States. At the time, Venezuela was eager to diversify beyond just oil and avoid the so-called resource curse, a common phenomenon in which easy money from commodities such as oil and gold leads governments to neglect other productive parts of their economies. But by the 1970s, Venezuela was riding a spike in oil prices to what looked like a never-ending economic bonanza. Complemented by years of stable democracy, it seemed a model country in an otherwise often troubled region.

Such success makes the sorry state of Venezuela’s oil industry today, not to mention that of the country at large, all the more surprising — and tragic. The same state that, six decades ago, dreamed up the idea of a cartel of oil exporters now must import petroleum to meet its needs. Crude production has tanked, hitting a 28-year low last fall when it dipped under 2 million barrels a day. “I don’t think we’ve ever seen a collapse of that magnitude [anywhere] without a war, without sanctions,” said Francisco Monaldi, a Latin America expert at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

The combination of plummeting oil revenues and years of government mismanagement has virtually killed off the country’s economy, sparking a humanitarian crisis that threatens to engulf the region.
Venezuela has not, of course, fought a war in recent years. But the combination of plummeting oil revenues and years of government mismanagement has virtually killed off the country’s economy, sparking a humanitarian crisis that threatens to engulf the region. Caracas refuses to track inflation (or at least publish its findings), but the National Assembly calculates the annual rate to be more than 4,000 percent, and the International Monetary Fund predicts it could hit 13,000 percent this year. Given how much prices have already risen since January, the real number could be 10 times higher.

Listen to this story and other feature stories from  FP and other magazines: Download the Audm app for your iPhone.

Venezuela’s murder rate, meanwhile, now surpasses that of Honduras and El Salvador, which formerly had the world’s highest levels, according to the Venezuelan Violence Observatory. Blackouts are a near-daily occurrence, and many people live without running water. According to media reports, schoolchildren and oil workers have begun passing out from hunger, and sick Venezuelans have scoured veterinary offices for medicine. Malaria, measles, and diphtheria have returned with a vengeance, and the millions of Venezuelans fleeing the country — more than 4 million, according to the International Crisis Group — are spreading the diseases across the region, as well as straining resources and goodwill.

What explains the country’s precipitous decline from being one of Latin America’s richest and most stable states? Mark Green, the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, blames President Nicolás Maduro — who, in May, won another six-year term in elections widely denounced as fraudulent — and his “delusional” policies. But while there’s no question Maduro is partially culpable, to fully understand how a country blessed with the world’s biggest oil endowment could end up so crushingly poor requires going much further back. The fuse for the bomb that is now blowing up Venezuela’s oil industry — and the country along with it — was deliberately lit and fanned by Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, the strongman Hugo Chávez, not long after he swept into power in the late 1990s.


The decline and fall of Venezuela’s oil industry essentially begins with its nationalization in 1976, a time of booming crude prices and rising resource nationalism. President Carlos Andrés Pérez sought a much greater role for the state over the economy and especially wanted to use the country’s fast-growing oil wealth to turbocharge development. That year, to gain full national control over the oil fields, Caracas banished foreign oil firms and created a new, state-run oil monopoly called Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). The moves marked the capstone to Pérez Alfonso’s decades-long dream of Venezuela grabbing full control of its destiny. It was also the logical outcome of the widely held belief that the country’s oil, discovered in 1922 on the shores of Lake Maracaibo, was national patrimony.

At first, Venezuela’s state-owned oil company stood out from peers such as Petróleos Mexicanos in many ways. A large number of its executives, for example, had previously worked for foreign companies in the country and imbued the new firm with a business-oriented outlook and a high degree of professionalism. PDVSA had a lean workforce, an efficient cost structure, and a global outlook: A decade after its creation, the company acquired half of Citgo, the big U.S. refiner, and stakes in a pair of European refineries.

Yet none of these assets proved much help when a global oil glut in the mid-1980s depressed prices and hammered the national economy. OPEC members struggled to prop up prices by cutting back output. By the middle of the decade, Venezuelan production had fallen below 2 million barrels a day, or about 50 percent less than during the heyday right before nationalization.

When oil is cheap, it becomes very tempting for countries to pump more crude — even if that extra production ends up keeping prices low. And so, to right the reeling Venezuelan economy in the early 1990s, the government sought to reopen the oil industry to international companies. The outsiders would be especially useful in accessing Venezuela’s mother lode, the Orinoco heavy oil belt, which holds more than a trillion barrels of tarlike bitumen. Unlike regular light crude oil, which can be pumped straight out of the ground and sold as is, heavy oil is more difficult to extract and then needs to be upgraded to something resembling liquid oil before sale. Doing all that takes the kind of cash and sophisticated know-how PDVSA lacked at the time.

By the mid-1990s, international firms, including Chevron and ConocoPhillips, had moved back into the country and were hard at work unlocking Venezuela’s massive heavy oil deposits. But in 1998, the price of oil collapsed again, dipping to $10 a barrel. The impact on Venezuela — which, like many oil-rich countries, had never managed to diversify its economy despite a bout of reform efforts in the 1970s — was severe, given that petroleum exports then represented about one-third of the state’s revenues. Then along came Chávez, a former army lieutenant colonel who’d served time in prison for an abortive coup attempt in 1992. He won the 1998 presidential election on the promise to reshape and restore Venezuela’s reeling economy.

Chávez, a former army lieutenant colonel who’d served time in prison for an abortive coup attempt in 1992, won the 1998 presidential election on the promise to reshape and restore Venezuela’s reeling economy.

Among his first targets: the technocrats at PDVSA, especially the company’s deeply knowledgeable then-chairman and CEO, Luis Giusti, who’d led the drive to reopen the country’s oil sector. “Chávez saw Giusti as a potential rival. In fact, Chávez used the slogan ‘PDVSA is part of a state within a state,’” said Juan Fernández, a former PDVSA manager who would also fall afoul of the strongman. Giusti, alarmed by Chávez’s plans for the oil company, resigned just as he took office in early 1999; he was then replaced by a revolving cast of political appointees. The departure of Giusti, who’d spent three decades in the Venezuelan oil business and had won international plaudits for overhauling and modernizing the state-run firm since taking over in 1994, would prove to be bad news for PDVSA’s fortunes.

Chávez’s goal was to exert control of PDVSA and maximize its revenue, which he needed to fund his socialist agenda. But achieving the latter required cooperating with the rest of OPEC, which, as in the 1980s, wanted to cut production in order to raise prices. The problem for Chávez was that many of the PDVSA’s then-managers wanted to increaseproduction, by continuing the development of Venezuela’s technically challenging heavy oil fields. To do so, they needed to reinvest more of the company’s earnings rather than hand them all over to the government. So the managers had to go.
Unfortunately for Venezuela, Chávez — like many of the people he appointed to run PDVSA — knew nothing about the business that was so central to the country’s prosperity. “He was ignorant about everything to do with oil, everything to do with geology, engineering, the economics of oil,” said Pedro Burelli, a former PDVSA board member who left the company when Chávez took power. “His was a completely encyclopedic ignorance.”

“[Chávez] was ignorant about everything to do with oil, everything to do with geology, engineering, the economics of oil,” said Pedro Burelli, a former PDVSA board member who left the company when Chávez took power. “His was a completely encyclopedic ignorance.”

But Chávez wasn’t the type to let that stop him. In 2001, the former paratrooper pushed through a new energy law that jacked up the royalties foreign oil firms would have to pay the government. It also mandated that PDVSA would lead all new oil exploration and production; foreign firms could only hold minority stakes in whatever partnerships they struck with the national company.

In 2002, Chávez took two more steps to turn the once-proud PDVSA into his private preserve. First, he installed a new president, Gastón Parra Luzardo, a leftist economics professor who was a fierce opponent of opening the industry to more private investment. Then, in April, he went on live television to humiliate and fire a handful of PDVSA managers, replacing them with political hacks. Together, the moves sparked violent public protests, which turned into a coup attempt against Chávez.

The president survived the putsch, but his popularity plummeted — especially inside PDVSA. By the end of 2002, opposition to Chávez had solidified, and big labor groups called for a national strike in hopes of pressuring him to leave office. Oil workers backed the effort, setting the stage for what would turn out to be the critical step in PDVSA’s road to ruin.

During the two-month work stoppage, PDVSA’s output plummeted as field workers stopped pumping and tanker crews refused to leave port. Venezuela’s oil production fell from close to 3 million barrels a day before the strike to levels as low as 200,000 barrels a day in December 2002.
Crucially for Chávez, however, the international oil companies refused to join the protest. “The multinationals kept producing during the strike,” said Monaldi of Rice University. “That is what saved him,” by blunting the economic impact of the protest.

Chávez immediately fought back. During the strike, he axed scores of senior executives, including Juan Fernández, one of the organizers of the protest. In the months that followed, the pink slips kept coming, and by the time the smoke finally cleared, Chávez had fired more than 18,000 workers. With them went most of the managerial expertise and technical know-how PDVSA had managed to preserve during the earlier purges.

This evisceration of the PDVSA’s human capital would prove the most damaging of Chávez’s many moves against the company. Even his own government soon realized the harm it had done. Accidents and spills began to proliferate, and in 2005, a top energy ministry official admitted privately that it would take at least 15 years to rebuild the technical skills lost by the mass firings. Another energy ministry official even asked U.S. diplomats in Caracas to help arrange training in the United States.

And in the years since, the situation has only worsened. Conditions at the company (and in the economy) are now so bad that employees take home a pittance — just a handful of dollars a month — and face political pressure to support the regime. Such treatment has led to the large-scale flight of skilled workers: more than 25,000 since last year, union officials say. According to Reuters, the exodus has grown so big that some PDVSA offices have begun refusing to let their workers resign.
“PDVSA was one of the best. They really knew how to operate,” said one executive at an international oil company with long experience in Venezuela. “The purge massively screwed them over, bled them of guys who knew what they were doing on so many levels. And they’ve never recovered.”


While some of his underlings clearly understood the havoc he was causing, Chávez either didn’t know or didn’t care; determined to finance his ongoing socialist revolution and use cheap exports to buy friends abroad, he kept turning the screws on the oil industry. Using legally questionable methods, he started siphoning off billions of dollars in PDVSA revenue to pay for his social programs, including housing, education, clinics, and school lunches. While this strategy may have paid off politically in the short term, it was extremely dangerous: for the more cash the government took out of PDVSA, the less money the oil company had to invest in maintaining production or finding new resources. Since oil fields gradually produce less oil over time as they get tapped out, countries constantly need to dig new wells and rejuvenate shrinking reservoirs with injections of water or gas. Thanks to their geology, Venezuela’s oil fields have enormous decline rates, meaning the country needs to spend more heavily than other petrostates just to keep production steady. But as Chávez channeled more income into other areas, PDVSA was forced to mortgage the future to pay for the political present.

In 2005, Chávez once again turned on the foreign firms. He raised royalty rates yet again and billed the companies for billions of dollars in bogus back taxes. Then he began forcing foreign companies to cede the bulk of their operations to PDVSA, a process U.S. Embassy officials described at the time as “creeping confiscation.” Every year, “Chávez systematically did something” to the international firms, “whether raising their taxes or forcing them to sell oil for local currency,” Monaldi said. These provocations exasperated foreign executives; even officials from the China National Petroleum Corporation grumbled to U.S. officials about Caracas’s interference. ExxonMobil and Conoco threw in the towel and left. (This spring, Conoco finally won a $2 billion arbitration award against PDVSA for the expropriation of its assets.) Yet many others, such as Chevron, found Venezuela’s gargantuan potential so tempting that they accepted the punishing new terms.

Despite the presence of these holdouts, Chávez’s increasingly erratic behavior further reduced the investment needed to get the heavy oil out of the ground. So did the government’s use of PDVSA’s revenue to fund social programs and to pay off Venezuela’s sovereign debts. “During the highest oil boom in history, when every other country in the world increased investment, Venezuela did not, and production kept declining,” Monaldi said.

For all Chávez’s abuses and mistakes, Venezuela’s oil industry managed to stagger along for a surprisingly long time. Production held virtually steady from 2002 (just before the strike) to 2008, when global oil prices peaked at almost $150 a barrel. That year, Venezuela earned about $60 billion from oil. (These production numbers come from OPEC; the government’s own estimates are higher and viewed skeptically by the rest of the industry.)

The higher prices more than made up for the slight decline in production — between 2002 and 2008, Venezuela’s output fell from 2.6 million barrels a day to 2.5 million — allowing Chávez to keep spending and masking the need for a major overhaul of the industry. But even high crude prices couldn’t hide the deeper economic dysfunctions caused by Chávez’s efforts to build what he called “21st-century socialism.” Shortages of common consumer goods became endemic. A country that was once an exporter of agricultural products had to start importing lots of government-subsidized food — another common feature of the resource curse. “In 2007, there were already intermittent shortages,” said Patrick Duddy, who served as U.S. ambassador in Caracas from 2007 to 2008 and again from 2009 to 2010. “There was, at times, no milk of any sort on the store shelves, not fresh, not powdered, not condensed — and this was when oil prices were soaring. It was startling.”

Increasingly desperate, the government soon found yet another way to strip-mine PDVSA: by using whatever management expertise it had preserved to run other parts of the economy that were breaking down. By 2007, for example, PDVSA had been dragooned into producing and distributing milk; later, the firm began importing other basic foods, from cooking oil to rice and beans. The company’s work in these areas may have provided the country with some short-term relief, but it further distracted PDVSA from what should have been its core business.

Caracas’s bid to nationalize the oil industry and assert its sovereign rights to the country’s black gold has all but ensured that less and less of that wealth will be left for Venezuelans.

Reality finally came crashing down in the summer of 2014, about a year after Chávez died from cancer and was succeeded by Maduro. Oil prices collapsed from a high of more than $100 a barrel in the summer to less than half of that by January 2015. By the end of that year, Venezuelan oil was selling for less than $30 a barrel, even as the budget was predicated on prices of $60 a barrel. By this point, Venezuela had become nearly wholly dependent on oil revenues, which made up about 95 percent of its export earnings. Cheaper oil tipped the economy into recession in 2014 and a full-blown crisis in 2015, with GDP shrinking by almost 6 percent and inflation exploding. And because Venezuela had neglected to diversify its economy, the country was out of options.

The one relative bright spot in Venezuela’s oil industry today is the superheavy Orinoco fields, jointly operated with foreign firms since the 1990s-era opening of the sector. Crude production in the Orinoco actually grew during the first half of this decade, and even now production declines have been modest. That’s a sharp contrast to steep output declines at traditional oil fields solely operated by PDVSA. But even the superheavy fields are struggling to keep production levels close to steady.
 Before it can export the heavy bitumen, PDVSA needs to blend it with light oil, and since at least 2010, Venezuela’s own light oil production has been falling. That forces the state energy company to spend much-needed cash importing light oil. Venezuela also imports gasoline — which it gives away to consumers for a paltry 4 cents a gallon. And it loses money when purchasers reject its cargoes of crude oil for their poor quality, an increasingly common problem. In other cases, it doesn’t even get paid: While the country now sends China 400,000-odd barrels a day, for example, Beijing considers them repayment for Caracas’s debts. Meanwhile, despite the collapse of its oil industry, Venezuela continues to buy foreign oil to ship, at a loss, to the regime’s ideological cousins in Cuba — a bitter legacy of Chávez’s plan to use Venezuela’s oil riches to buy friends in the neighborhood.

All these problems cost PDVSA — and Venezuela — huge amounts of cash. Selling oil at a discount, shipping it off to China (and Russia) to pay off the national debt, and subsidizing Venezuelan drivers cost the company, and the country, more than $20 billion a year, Monaldi estimated. Among other things, this massive shortfall has made it increasingly difficult for PDVSA to pay service companies such as Halliburton and Schlumberger, which help it drill for oil. Last year, the two companies wrote off more than $1.5 billion in unpaid bills owed by PDVSA. And since they’re not getting paid, they’ve slowed their work on the mature oil fields that were once Venezuela’s livelihood. That means even less light oil — which makes all the industry’s other problems even harder to solve.

That toxic mix collided last year, when production suddenly collapsed by 30 percent, marking a net decline of 2 million barrels a day since Chávez launched his plan to use Venezuela’s huge oil endowment to build a socialist paradise. The oil ministry now is reportedly bracing for a further fall during the rest of this year, to as low as 1.2 million barrels a day.

The only way Venezuela, which is broke and stripped of talent, can possibly fix its oil industry today is by relying more on foreign companies. Even if they were given a free hand, however, it’s not clear that international firms could turn things around anytime soon; the lack of investment in recent years hasn’t helped the health of Venezuela’s oil fields. “If you messed up the reservoir by overproducing or underinvesting, then you just can’t pick up where you left off,” the international oil company executive said. “They’ve probably done some long-term damage to the reservoirs.”

But Caracas seems unwilling to even test the proposition and continues doing everything it can to alienate the very businesses it needs so badly. In April, for example, government agents arrested two Chevron executives who reportedly refused to cooperate in overbilling for oil supplies. The two were held for months while facing possible treason charges, which carry a prison sentence of up to 30 years.

Real reform would require a wholesale change in the country’s economic management: getting hyperinflation under control, establishing a stable and realistic exchange rate, and building an enforceable legal framework that could offer foreign investors some semblance of predictability and protection. Of course, it’s impossible to imagine Maduro doing any of those things, especially after recently winning (or stealing) another term. And his re-election carries additional short-term risks for the tottering Venezuelan oil sector. The United States is considering additional sanctions that could limit exports of U.S. crude and refined products to Venezuela or even ban the purchase of Venezuelan crude by U.S. refineries. Either move, or both, would deal yet another body blow to an industry already on its knees. What likely can’t be put back together again is the state oil company. “There is no money in the world that can bring that back,” Burelli said. “You might be able to rebuild an oil sector full of private players but not PDVSA.”

Ultimately, Caracas’s bid to nationalize the oil industry and assert its sovereign rights to the country’s black gold has all but ensured that less and less of that wealth will be left for Venezuelans. With no other vibrant economic sector, the only way to fund the government is by increasing oil production — which would require investing up to $10 billion a year for a decade, Burelli suggested — and the only way to attract that kind of investment is by offering international companies favorable terms. That means a bigger cut for them and a smaller cut for the state.

As Burelli put it, “To resurrect the oil sector, somebody will have to invest in it on their terms, not our terms, and that will not generate revenue. So, what will we live off?”

This article originally appeared in the July 2018 issue of Foreign Policy magazine.

Keith Johnson is Foreign Policy’s global geoeconomics correspondent. @KFJ_FP