US faces uphill battle to push European allies to adopt harsher line on Iran

Experts say Poland summit will measure Trump administration's success at building global pressure on Iran

Secretary of Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence will lead the US delegation at the Warsaw conference on Iran (Reuters)

By 

James Reinl

 in 

New York City

Published date: 11 February 2019 20:49 UTC | Last update: 1 hour 22 min ago

A meeting in Warsaw later this week will be a make-or-break moment in ongoing efforts by Donald Trump's administration to line up Washington's allies against Tehran, according to analysts and former US officials.

The experts say the two-day conference, set for 13-14 February in the Polish capital, will showcase just how effective the White House has been at bringing together its Israeli, Arab and European allies.

But that's easier said than done, said Daniel Fried, former US ambassador to Poland.

"The US and the EU just have a different take on Iran," Fried told Middle East Eye.

A hardline stance on Iran has been a key component of Trump's foreign policy to date, but the US president's administration has largely failed to get others on board.

Already, several European nations have skirted re-imposed US sanctions on Tehran's key industries and European leaders have repeatedly voiced their disappointment over Trump's decision to withdraw from a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

Fried said the US's pullout from that multilateral accord may make it even more difficult for US Vice-President Mike Pence and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to exert their influence on European countries.

Both Pence and Pompeo will attend the conference, which is being co-hosted by the US and the Polish government, which backs Brussels in maintaining the 2015 nuclear deal.

"I'm sorry we went out of the [nuclear deal]," Fried said.

"The question is now how do we manage that without blowing up [the relationship]? I wish Secretary Pompeo and the vice president all the best in building as much of a coalition as is possible under these circumstances."

The US and the EU just have a different take on Iran

- Daniel Fried, former US Ambassador to Poland

The gulf between Washington and Brussels has widened in recent weeks, with the creation of a European-backed mechanism - the so-called special purpose vehicle (SPV) - to facilitate non-dollar trade with Iran and circumvent US sanctions.

The SPV, devised chiefly by Britain, France and Germany, aims to keep the nuclear deal alive by enabling Iran to barter oil and gas exports for European Union (EU) goods in transactions that Washington cannot blacklist.

While Tehran has largely adhered to the 2015 deal and not ramped up uranium enrichment, the US says the mechanism gives Iran the means to invest in ballistic missiles, cyber warfare and proxy forces such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Yemen’s Houthi rebels.

US officials have also pointed to Dutch, French and Danish allegations that Iranian spies plotted and carried out assassinations in Europe as further reasons for Brussels to get behind its "maximum pressure" campaign on Iran.

For Behnam Ben Taleblu, an analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a right-wing think tank, the meetings in Poland are a chance for trans-Atlantic powers to publicly air their differences and hash out a common strategy on what both sides view as an Iranian threat.

"The Warsaw conference is not a bludgeon for the US to wield against Tehran; It’s a way to iron out a lowest common denominator position that gets the Europeans on board," Taleblu told MEE.

Many notable no-shows

US officials have said 80 countries were invited to the conference and that about 40 will attend.

However, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Federica Mogherini, the EU's foreign policy chief, have said they are skipping the event. Russia also won't be attending, while some European states will send envoys, but not foreign ministers.

EU adopts resolutions in support of Iran nuclear deal

Read More »

While the US insists that the summit is not aimed at Iran, the topics on the agenda - illicit finance, missile development and proliferation, cyber security, energy sector threats, proxy groups and maritime security - closely mirror Washington's repeated criticisms of Tehran.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the US was forced to backtrack on its initial plan of an "anti-Iran circus" because the event was not drawing a big crowd.

Despite this, a senior White House administration official said the US is "not disappointed with the turnout".

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be there and as it stands, he appears to be the most senior attendee.

Broadening out the discussions, Trump's son-in-law and senior White House adviser, Jared Kushner, is planning to travel to Warsaw to field questions about his plan for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, which has seen repeated delays. 

"It’s a case of who shows up that tells you how successful it's been," Sigurd Neubauer, an independent analyst, told MEE.

'Handshake moments' for Netanyahu?

Iran and Middle East peace are top agenda items in Israeli foreign policy, but Netanyahu is also battling corruption allegations and campaigning for re-election at home.

Ahead of national polls on 9 April, Israeli billboard advertisements play up the Likud leader's statesmanship credentials, showcasing him alongside Trump and a slogan that he is "in a different league" than his rivals.

The US, Israel and [the] Arab world are clearly in the minority on how to handle Iran, but the US is - for now - the most important player

- Jonathan Cristol, Adelphi University

In recent months, Gulf countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have been increasingly willing to make public what is understood to be their increasing security cooperation with Israel over Iran.

In November, the Israeli, Emirati and Bahraini ambassadors to Washington sat together at Joint Base Anacostia as the US envoy on Iran, Brian Hook, presented evidence of missile parts that Tehran had allegedly supplied to Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Israeli ministers have also made several recent trips to Gulf countries, including Miri Regev, who made an official visit to the UAE in October, and Netanyahu himself, who made a surprise stop in Muscat that same month to meet with Omani leader Sultan Qaboos.

Against that backdrop, Neubauer said he would be watching for "handshake moments" between Netanyahu and officials from Gulf nations in Warsaw.

That would be the "fruition" of Trump’s push for Israeli-Arab unity and lay a "strong foundation" for forcing Iran to rehash the 2015 deal, he said.

Jonathan Cristol, a scholar at Adelphi University in New York state, raised doubts that would happen, however, saying he is "deeply sceptical about the Gulf Arab-Israel fantasy rapprochement".

But that doesn't mean Iran has much to cheer for as it watches the conference unfold in Poland, he said.

"The US, Israel and [the] Arab world are clearly in the minority on how to handle Iran," Cristol said, "but the US is - for now - the most important player."

When Britain leaves the European Union

by Victor Cherubim- Feb 10, 2019

Feb 10, 2019

A No Deal Brexit is on the cards. But not everyone is ready for it. Many believe it is no longer a remote possibility. The implications of leaving the EU without an agreement has always been contemplated, contingency planning has started late, but it does exist.

If you really known Britain, you will understand that nothing has come to Britain without prior thought and planning, but it is most often under the radar, without much ado or boast.

If Britain leaves the EU without ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, trade between the two would revert to rules under the WTO (World Trade Organisation Rules).

The flow of goods and services would most likely slow down. In some cases, goods may be blocked, perhaps denting business and consumer confidence and in worst case scenario, slowing down economic growth.

But, Britain is accustomed to varying rates of growth over years, if not decades. Contingency measures have been in place all along. They could well be activated at short notice.

What are the Contingency Arrangements?

Businesses have been factoring contingency arrangements in their pricing calculations, over months. In normal times, this process is called Risk Assessment. They prioritise the potential risks which are most significant, or most likely. Markets always discount bad news well ahead of time.

There are four areas of risk and they are:

1. Contractual Risk
2. Employment Risk
3. Data Availability and Access Risk
4. Intellectual Property Risks.

Contractual Risk is very likely to be a priority issue in business dealings with the EU. As Britain has been over 40 years accustomed to European Union Law, longstanding contracts would unlikely have taken account of a Brexit eventuality or a possibility. The pricing of goods and services and the obligations on delivery schedules may still apply. It is no comfort for a business in Bremen to be told that deliveries may be delayed through no fault of the supply chain, but frustrated by “force majeure”.
In simple language, contract performance is beyond the ambit of business decisions, legal minds and Courts will have to be resourced, causing disputes, unavoidable expense and business frustration. Cross border dispute resolution will become more complicated.

Employment Risk will have also been taken into consideration in contingency planning. A No Deal Brexit might put thousands of UK jobs at risk, the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) has warned, with GDP shrinking by up to 8%,particularly noticeable in the Car industry. Besides, farmers warn they could be hit by a six month export ban to the EU.

Contingency Measures not explained

Nobody has ever mentioned, how much Paris and Frankfort have enticed British businesses to move to their countries, with inducements hidden “under the carpet.” British business also wanted to move abroad to get cheaper labour to be more competitive and Brexit was a blessing in disguise.

Among the Contingency measures, we are not told about, are how the Bank of England will inject liquidity into the banking system and establish swap lines with other Central Banks for the rights of UK and EU citizens to remain protected.

Air transport contingency will probably operate unhindered and lorries and rail continuing to “mask” and transport goods and people, on a pre-ordained plan.

Both the UK and the EU have said they will activate some, if not all of these contingency measures in case of a “No Deal Brexit.”

Data Risk is also likely to be a heartache, if not a headache for business. Once UK leaves the EU without a deal from the EU, UK will become a third country and transfers of personal data from EU to UK could be restricted. UK will have to obtain “Adequacy Decision” from EU which would allow the free flow of personal data from EU to UK. This exchange of Data is the lifeblood of business.

But, in today’s world the right to restrict and manage effective data flow and comply with regulations like GDPR, are already in place. HM Government Paper “The Exchange and Protection of Personal Data” is already coded. Besides, supported technologies like Manta Flow already crunches programming Code, safeguarding shared interests and values.
Should anyone doubt that Data Flows are important for both the UK and EU economies? Restriction on Cross border Data Flows could harm both economies?

Intellectual Property Rights may well be restricted. Intense regulation is a constant in IP rights. The owners of most EU IP rights will however not lose protection when the UK leaves the EU. Businesses will file for both UK and EU regulations with UK giving EU applicants a nine month grace period.

Last but not the least are Contingency Plans for the movement of People across EU borders. The Chapter in the Withdrawal Agreement on Citizens Rights will not take effect and there will be no Transition Period. British citizens residing across the EU will have to regularise their Immigration Status under the domestic Immigration laws of the country in which they are residing. Each EU country has its own rules, thus it could get complicated.

Of course business confidence has hit a 10 year low in Britain. But we live in a world full of uncertainty. We have managed to live despite all this turbulence. Business are poised to prioritise cutting costs and boosting cash flow with defensive balance sheet strategies. People have also psychologically accepted a “No Deal Brexit” as a possibility and are making plans to adjust to reality.

Explained: what Brexit could we get? Norway? Canada? WTO?

11 Feb 2019

The Norway model? Canada+++? Singapore? What on earth does it all mean?

Politicians have been bickering about Brexit for the past two years, but everything that has happened so far is just figuring out how we leave the EU – we still have to sort out what kind of relationship we have once we have actually left.

Confused about Norway+? The Switzerland model? Our explainer cuts through the jargon and has all the answers you need.

When European Countries Retreat From Democracy, How Should the U.S. Respond?

The question looms large during Pompeo’s visit to Central Europe.

U.S. President Donald Trump (left) and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban stand at a NATO summit in Brussels on May 25, 2017. (Danny Gys/AFP/Getty Images)

BY ROBBIE GRAMER

| FEBRUARY 11, 2019, 5:31 PM
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit to Central Europe this week highlights a long-standing dilemma the United States faces with countries accused of democratic backsliding, including Hungary and Poland.

Actively engaging with these countries, as the Trump administration has chosen to do, could potentially enable their retreat from democracy. But refraining from engagement leaves a vacuum that Russia and China appear eager to fill. 

 

Pompeo addressed the issue head on during a visit Monday to Hungary, where he met with Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto at the start of a five-country tour of Europe.

“Too often in the recent past, the United States was absent from Central Europe,” Pompeo said during his Monday visit. “That’s unacceptable. Our rivals filled those vacuums.”

The approach contrasts with the one taken by the Obama administration, which restricted its interactions with Hungary and publicly admonished Orban for curbing political rights and dismantling parts of the country’s democratic institutions.

Champions of the engagement policy include outgoing Europe envoy Wess Mitchell, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, who will leave his post this month.
During his visit to Budapest, Pompeo pointed to strides in the U.S.-Hungary relationship, including a new defense cooperation agreement and discussions on arms deals.

Daniel Fried, a retired career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia, said the United States “tended to fall back to a scolding, finger-wagging mode” in the past. “It didn’t do much good.” Fried cited Poland, where he said concerns about democratic backsliding had abated somewhat in the past 18 months, thanks in part to Washington’s engagement.

Damon Wilson, the executive vice president of the Atlantic Council, pointed to the fact that Budapest joined its Western allies in expelling Russian diplomats following the poisoning of a former Russian spy in the United Kingdom and backing EU sanctions regimes against Moscow—despite being viewed as increasingly close to Moscow.

Pompeo touted increased U.S. engagement in the region as a way to push back on Russian influence. “We’ve now had 14 senior-level U.S. visits throughout Central Europe in just the first two years of this administration. I won’t tell you how many there were in the previous administration, but it starts with a ‘Z,’” he said. (Though the last secretary of state visit was, in fact, in 2011.)

Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Hungary twice last year, while the last visit by a U.S. president to Budapest was in 2006.

But others say the Trump administration has little to show for engaging with Orban over the past two years.

“That engagement appears to have led nowhere. … It looks like enabling policy,” said Constanze Stelzenmüller, a Europe scholar at the Brookings Institution. “They already are deeply engaged with both Russia and China, and it’s not apparent to me that what this administration calls its engagement policy has changed that.”

The right-wing governments in Hungary and Poland are embroiled in political fights and disciplinary proceedings with the European Union, as their governments are accused of rolling back democratic institutions and cracking down on free media. The Hungarian government has touted Pompeo’s visit as proof of its pro-Western credentials—and a rebuff to its critics.

The organization Freedom House, which scores countries worldwide on political freedom and civil liberties, for the first time downgraded Hungary to “partly free” in its 2019 report, citing the Orban government’s “sustained attacks” on democratic institutions and restrictions on opposition parties, academia, the judicial system, and the media. It is the first EU member to receive such a downgrade.
In some cases, when the United States has pressed Budapest on an issue, “the Hungarian government has done the exact opposite repeatedly,” said Heather Conley, an expert on the region and a former State Department official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

She cited several examples: the Hungarian government’s decision to close Central European University—a private university funded by the billionaire George Soros—in the face of U.S. pressure to keep it open; Budapest’s ongoing feud with Ukraine over the treatment of its Hungarian-speaking minorities, which has blocked up some NATO-Ukraine cooperation; and Hungary’s decision last year to refuse a U.S. request to extradite Russian arms dealers, sending them to Moscow instead.

Mitchell, the senior U.S. diplomat on Europe, expressed frustration over Budapest not working with the United States, according to a Hungarian diplomatic cable leaked to the Hungarian news site Direkt36.hu. “Support is starting to dissipate for those who believe in U.S.-Hungarian relations, we have to show results,” he told a senior Hungarian diplomat during a meeting in December 2018, according to the leaked cable.

Meanwhile, Chinese state-backed companies have made inroads in Central Europe, alarming U.S. officials who fear the business ventures could be exploited by Chinese intelligence agencies and used as geopolitical leverage by Beijing.

Senior officials point to Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant, currently embroiled in a criminal indictment in the United States over bank fraud and sanctions violations. Last month, Poland arrested a Huawei employee on suspicion of espionage, and the Czech Republic’s cybersecurity agency has pushed the government not to use equipment or software from Huawei or ZTE, another Chinese technology company.

Pompeo said he raised “the dangers of allowing China to gain a bridgehead in Hungary” with his Hungarian counterpart during their joint press conference.

His European tour—which includes a stop in Brussels and an expected meeting with the EU’s foreign-policy chief, Federica Mogherini—also highlights growing fissures in the trans-Atlantic relationship. While the Trump administration has ramped up military support for NATO (even amid the president’s own tirades against the alliance), it has spurned engagement with the European Union following spats over the Iran nuclear deal and trade issues.

In July 2018, Trump called the European Union a “foe,” putting it on par with Russia and China. Later in the year, the Trump administration downgraded the diplomatic status of the EU mission in Washington without bothering to tell the EU.

Brussels is still reeling from a speech Pompeo gave during a visit in December, in which he berated Trump’s EU critics and panned multilateralism.

The speech had a “serious impact” in Brussels, said Stelzenmüller, the Brookings scholar. “That’s one of the worst European speeches a secretary of state has ever given. The reverberations are still being felt.”

Catalan leaders go on trial in Madrid over independence bid

FILE PHOTO: Catalan Foreign Affairs chief Raul Romeva holds a news conference in Brussels, Belgium October 18, 2017. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir -/File Photo

Joan Faus, Jose Elías Rodríguez-FEBRUARY 11, 2019

MADRID/BARCELONA (Reuters) - Twelve Catalan politicians go on trial on Tuesday for their role in Catalonia’s failed 2017 independence bid, putting the spotlight back on Spain’s biggest political crisis in decades which could make it flare once again.

To the dismay of much of the rest of Spain, Catalonia defied a judicial ban by carrying out a referendum and subsequently unilaterally declaring independence in October 2017.

There was shock at home and abroad when police used batons and rubber bullets on protesters on the day of the vote. Some of the Catalan separatist leaders were later arrested or fled the country.
The start on Tuesday of the trial will refocus attention on the region’s push for secession which so rattles Spain’s political and cultural identity.

The trial will decide if Catalan nationalist leaders stay in jail. The public prosecutor is seeking prison terms of up to 25 years on charges of rebellion and misuse of public funds. At stake are Spain’s stability, the future of Catalonia’s independence movement as well as the region’s and the central government’s image abroad.

“It’s the most important trial we have had in democracy”, Supreme Court president Carlos Lesmes told reporters on Feb. 1, referring to the return to democracy in Spain after dictator Francisco Franco’s death in 1975.

Raul Romeva, one of nine defendants jailed without bail since late 2017 facing the charge of rebellion, has made clear his view that it should end only with an acquittal.

“A (prison) sentence would weigh forever on history and on Spain’s future,” Romeva told Reuters in an interview conducted by email from jail.

At the time of his arrest, Romeva was foreign minister in Catalonia’s regional government and a member of the European Parliament.

Fellow defendants include veteran Catalan politicians Oriol Junqueras and Carme Forcadell. Notably absent from the list is former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont, who is in self-imposed exile in Belgium and thus cannot be tried in Spain.

The dozen’s fate has been a rallying cry for separatists ever since 2017, said Federico Santi, analyst at political risk consultancy Eurasia, adding that he expected, like other observers, that the trial will re-ignite tensions.

Pro-Catalan independence protests had quieted down over the past months but separatist groups have called a series of protests in Catalonia and in Madrid to coincide with the trial.

Their supporters say they are political prisoners, while Madrid accuses them of breaking the law.
Among the many witnesses will be Mariano Rajoy, who was Spanish prime minister at the time of the independence vote and its aftermath.

RIFT

Lluis Orriols, a political science professor at Universidad Carlos III in Madrid, thinks the trial will reinvigorate the separatist debate ahead of end-May local and regional elections.

“The Catalan question is activating a nationalistic and identitarian confrontation not only in Catalonia but also in all of Spain,” Orriols said.

The trial starts as the Socialist government, which controls less than a quarter of seats in parliament, faces a key vote on the 2019 budget on Wednesday. A failure to approve the budget proposal could prompt a snap parliamentary election this year.

Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez relies on smaller parties, and in particular Catalan nationalists, to get the budget adopted. These have said they would block the bill, citing their dissatisfaction with Sanchez’s policy towards the region, despite his efforts for dialogue..

On the other hand, Spain’s right-wing parties accuse Sanchez of being too soft with Catalan separatists. On Sunday, thousands gathered in Madrid to protest Sanchez’ Catalan policies.

 

In Catalonia, support for the twelve is not unanimous. The population is largely split in two between those who favour remaining part of Spain and those wanting to secede.

After imposing direct rule on Catalonia in October 2017, Madrid called fresh regional elections that December in a bid to curb the independence movement. But the move backfired and the secessionists retained a slim majority in the Catalan assembly.

The last time a trial for rebellion was held in Spain was in 1982 after a failed military coup attempt. Its leader, found guilty of rebellion by a military court, was sentenced to 30 years of prison.

Additional reporting by Belen Carreno; Editing by Ingrid Melander and Raissa Kasolowsky

The simple reason why Venezuela collapsed

When foolish socialists goof, enemies make hay while the sun shines

Kumar David-February 9, 2019, 8:05 pm 

The scale of the collapse is staggering; hyperinflation at over one million percent per year with prices doubling every 19 days, three million people fleeing on foot to neighbouring countries, crisis proportion shortages of food and medicine - on average two-thirds of the population has lost 25 pounds in weight during the economic collapse. The root of the catastrophe cannot be laid at the door of US sabotage though Washington is crowing with delight and plotting covert military intervention given that Nicolas Maduro’s government is reeling. The root of the crisis is home-grown; economic mismanagement; nay unbelievable folly. Literally it is beyond belief that any government, left, right or centre, could be so inane.

Hugo Chavez (1954-2013) was elected president in 1998 on a populist platform. Rising oil prices in the mid-2000s flushed the country with money and Chavez launched the "Bolivarian programme" to improve economic, cultural, and social conditions of the poor and intended to stabilise political power through mass welfare. Thousands of free medical clinics were started and food and housing subsidies provided. There were achievements in literacy, skills enhancement, social inclusion and poverty reduction; the quality of life of the poor improved. Chávez’s popularity was anchored in the urban population, the working class and the poorest of the poor. So far so good, and this is the reason Maduro and the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (USPV) still enjoy a degree of support. The opposition is not ill-fed and dressed in rags, it is the middle and upper classes who feel threatened by the Chavismo project of social justice. They are now joined by a broader spectrum of society.

Then, the price of oil collapsed from above $140 a barrel in June 2008 to below $40 a barrel in January 2009 and Chavez’s programme was in tatters. Before 2010 of every $100 of state revenue $90 came from oil and its derivatives and what made the country tick was massive transfer of oil profit to the poor - some oil also went at below-market prices to allies like Cuba. The USPV had no plan other than taking oil profits and using it on subsidies for the poor. It had no growth perspective, no interest in investment in industry, agriculture, technology or services - Western or Chinese. From a long-term perspective this was a doomed economy. Just eat current revenue! When revenue dried up it was a colossal blunder to keep spending as before. It was folly to continue to spend instead of cutting expenditure when the revenue-stream dried-up. The USPV made excuses like imperialist interference and capitalist speculation and refused to accept the plain fact that good days flush with oil money were gone. The crux of the matter was a refusal to look reality in the face and hoping that the oil price would pick up again as it did somewhat in four years. But the root of the bungling was an obsession with oil and comprehensive neglect of economic development.

And why was it not possible for the regime to face the truth and explain it to the people? That was because the regime had built its fame on populism pure and simple. "Look we are giving you all these good things. Enjoy, you don’t really need to understand the inner workings of our oil economy". And later "the plunge in prices is only temporary". Regimes built on superficial populism cannot face the masses when the good times end. Chavez erected his glory on handing out goodies and feared what would happen if hard times came.

Was Chavez not a Marxist; aren’t Marxists hard materialists; how come he couldn’t see the obvious? Marxist or plain politician, I cannot understand how Chavez and the USPV could not see so obvious a reality; nor does it make sense that no economic development activity was initiated when there was money. This foxes me as it should you, ideology aside. Chavez was not a serious Marxist; at times he called himself one, at other times he said "I am not a Marxist and I am not anti-Marxist". His self-projection was as a "Twenty-first Century socialist" by which he meant a populist who cared for the poor and thought populism sans hard materialist decision-making would allow him to muddle through. He did declare an economic emergency in 2010 but was stricken with cancer in July 2011 and died in March 2013 and was probably ineffective in his last two years.

By then the economy was in distress with inflation and shortages were going out of control. In the five years since Chavez under a Maduro presidency Venezuela has become an economic failed-state and descended close to political anarchy. US intervention, direct or indirect seems likely and could spark a civil war because though 35% answered ‘yes’ when asked if they would like to see American tanks roll down the streets of Caracas, there is also a big reserve of support for the Chavist legacy; these people will fight back. The military will split and Russia (and China?) will not sit by idly. Two Russian bombers have already arrived in Venezuela in a tit-for-tat for American overflights of the pro-Russian zone in the Ukraine.

Russia versus the United States

Washington has decided to drive Maduro from power while Putin has vowed to support him and warned of "catastrophic" consequences if the US gives military support to the opposition or to neighbouring anti-Maduro countries. Trump has blocked Venezuelan access to foreign currency and to $US7 billion in PDVSA (state-owned oil company) assets in US banks. In a similar confrontation in Syria the Russians won hands down. Russia used the Security Council recently to warn the US against intervention in Venezuela and accused it of attempting a coup. It has offered to mediate between Maduro’s "legitimate" government and the opposition. Putin will prevent regime change unless compatible with Russian interests and he has proved to be cleverer than Trump and Bolton.

He has re-established Russia as a key player in the Middle East, a dealer in Asia and a global supplier of sophisticated weaponry. Now he mocks Trump in order to restore Russia’s reputation in the eyes of his domestic clientele. Nevertheless, condemning outlandish US interference - Juan Guaidó declared himself president after US Vice President Mike Pence advised him to do so by phone – cannot be taken by those opposed to Rajapaksa dictatorship to the extent of supporting Maduro.

What does Moscow stand to lose if it bungles the end game in Venezuela? Putin does not care two-bits for Maduro but Russia needs to protect its global vantage and its interests in Latin America. As a military ally Venezuela is peanuts but the returns on Moscow’s investment there is priceless. In exchange for loans and bailouts Russia now owns parts of five oil fields which include the Orinoco Belt, the world’s largest reserve. It is also entitled to 30 years of output from two Caribbean natural-gas fields.

Venezuela has signed over 49.9 percent of Citgo, its US company which owns three Gulf Coast refineries and a web of US pipelines to Russia’s state-owned Rosneft for $1.5 billion in cash. What the Chinese are doing to us, the Russians are doing to Venezuela.

A Russian-US direct conflict is only a distant possibility, but right-wing governments in Brazil and Colombia could be instigated by the US. There has been no interstate war in South America for eight decades and one would be bloody and unpredictable. War between Colombia and Venezuela would be devastating – both have enough air power to bomb infrastructure and cities.

The domestic dynamics

Though international competition is of significance, domestic dynamics is more important. To survive Maduro has to keep the military onside, and that means finding a way to keep the top brass comfortable. He has rewarded senior officers with positions in government and PDVSA but the rank and file and their families suffer the impact of the crisis. Jonathan Velasco, Venezuelan ambassador to Iraq and Gen Francisco Yanez, air-force head of strategic planning have defected to the opposition. There have been defections by junior officers including the military attaché to the embassy in Washington DC and the consul in Miami.

Maduro was elected for his second term in a sham election and lacks majority public support. Opposition leader Leopoldo López was arrested and barred from running for office and five years on still remains under house arrest. Opposition candidates have been barred from running for office, others languish in jail many have fled the country. Elections in Venezuela are neither free nor fair. Maduro’s re-election was not recognised by Venezuela’s opposition-controlled National Assembly. On January 23 the leader of the legislature, Juan Guaidó, declared himself acting president and said he would assume the powers of the executive branch from then on. This was a direct challenge to Maduro who had been sworn in to a second six-year term in office just two weeks previously. So, who’s the president? This would not be an unusual question to ask in Sri Lanka where an eccentric president precipitated chaos and the country had two prime ministers at the same time till the Supreme Court disciplined the dummy and set things right.

Guaidó can mobilize mass support and has the backing of a chorus of US led countries but he has no influence over the levers of state power. The attorney general put Guido under investigation despite a practice that members of parliament are immune, then the courts froze his bank accounts and imposed a travel ban. Stalin would have winked at this skill in manipulating all the organs of state from legislature to Supreme Court simultaneously – shades of Rajapaksa.

Maduro should go

Maduro has twice survived challenges to his power. After mass protests in 2014, he targeted opposition leaders and threw them into prison. Unrest broke out in 2017 when Maduro side-lined the National Assembly when it switched to the opposition. Protesters were attacked, 120 killed and hundreds injured but Maduro succeeded in retaining power despite international condemnation. Whether he will survive the current challenge depends as much on international factors as domestic – the US, Russia and South American Countries, especially Columbia.

A change of regime to dump Maduro and avoid a civil war by placing leaders sympathetic to the social gains made under Chavez in office is the best compromise. In Syria this way out proved too difficult to pull off. More bad times lie ahead for Venezuela since the economic disaster will persist, the political standoff is unlikely to be resolved since Guido has not undertaken to protect Chavist social reforms and the big powers have their own agendas. Nor have Washington and Moscow built the nuances needed to work out a compromise.

END

Employment: Despite progress, for many women it still feels like the dark ages

Ran Namise, 24, a firefighter belonging to the command squad, posing in front of a fire engine at Kojimachi Fire Station in Tokyo. February 23, 2018. Source: Kazuhiro Nogi/AFP

@EmmaRichards85-Feb 04, 2019

Feb 10, 2019

We take a look at the problems still facing women in the workplace, the old-fashioned laws still holding them back, the lack of access to resources, and the stigma many still face just for working.

It’s easy to get complacent when it comes to gender equality in the workplace. It feels like society has come on leaps and bounds towards levelling the playing field, especially for many workers in the city with socially-conscious employers are now taking measures to ensure work life is not a daily battle for recognition.

Many women are now able to choose a career path with little resistance, taking advantage of education and opportunities available, as is proven by more women than men now attending university in many Southeast Asian countries.

SEE ALSO: Asia needs more than just quotas to get women into parliament

But while progress has undoubtedly been made, figures – and day-to-day experience – show there is still a lot of work to be done. While some women have the choice and opportunity, Asia-Pacific as a region is still way behind when it comes to universal equality.

Extreme cases of discrimination

In extreme cases, women are outlawed from taking up certain position for reasons ranging from the pathetic to the downright bizarre.

According to the World Bank, women are barred from certain jobs in 104 countries. The 2018 report Women, Business and the Law, shows these countries have lists of professions that are deemed unsuitable for women.

After surveying 189 economies, these were the key findings globally:

• In 40 percent of the all economies examined, women are restricted from working in certain industries (including mining, construction and transportation).
• In 30 percent, they are not allowed to work in jobs that are deemed hazardous, arduous or “morally inappropriate.”
• In 15 percent, women are restricted from working the same night hours as men.

In four countries women cannot register a business. In 18 a husband can stop his wife working. Some laws group women in with children when it comes to vulnerability to exploitation and ability to make valid choices.

Up until 2011, the Philippines had a law banning women from working at night. Similarly, in Mumbai, India, female shopkeepers cannot work as late as male ones.

While many of these laws are a hangover from former colonisers and legislators have not got around to changing them, others are a surprisingly recent invent, such as those in Vietnam.

One of the fastest growing economies in Southeast Asia introduced a law in 2013 that banned women from driving tractors over 50 horsepower.

While the region is slowly changing with the times – 40 to 50 percent of economies in South, East Asia and the Pacific implemented at least one reform in the last year – cases like those in Vietnam are a reminder that women are far from viewed as equal, not just in the workplace, but in the eyes of the law.

Women work on the production line at Complete Honour Footwear Industrial, a footwear factory owned by a Taiwan company, in Kampong Speu, Cambodia, July 5, 2018. Source: Reuters

Women are still on the back foot

Those are extreme examples of workplace discrimination, and while its easy to scoff at the ridiculous notion that women can’t work in cold water while they’re menstruating – as is the case in China – even beyond these extremes, women in Asia-Pacific are frequently on the back foot.

Globally, women’s labour force participation has stagnated and indeed fallen from 51.3 percent in 1990 to 48.4 percent in 2018. Women remain half as likely as men to have full-time wage jobs. Those who have paid work earn up to one-third less than men.

According to the Economist, in 2018, just 7 percent of government leaders, 15 percent of board members and around 3 percent of chief executives were female. Of America’s Fortune 500 companies, 23 were led by women; in Britain, the leaders of the FTSE 100 included more men called David (8) than it did women (7).

SEE ALSO: Is Malaysia ready for 30 percent female representation?

In East and Southeast Asia (excluding China), women only account for 34 percent of GDP despite (obviously) making up half of the population. That’s below other developing regions, such as Sub-Saharan Africa at 39 percent and Eastern Europe and Central Asia at 41 percent.

A report from management consultant McKinsey & Company predicts that advancing women’s equality in Asia Pacific could add a whopping US$4.5 trillion to the region’s collective GDP annually. To put that in perspective, that’s equivalent of adding an economy the combined size of Germany and Austria each year.

Change is needed – but how do we make it happen?

While that sounds undeniably great, making it happen will take some time as it involves changing some deep-seated biases, ones that society has exhibited a stubborn unwillingness to relinquish.

To achieve the impressive sounding boost to GDP, McKinsey & Company recommend tackling the issue with a three-pronged approach.

One, increase women’s labour-force participation rate; two, increase the number of paid hours women work (part-time versus full-time mix of jobs); three, raise women’s productivity relative to men’s by adding more women to higher-productivity sectors.

Easy, right? Well, yes, in theory. But in reality to achieve this gender parity at work, countries must first achieve gender parity in society, and that is where it gets tricky.

Women’s March, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. March 10, 2018. Source: Twitter

McKinsey used 15 indicators of gender equality in work and society to measure how close a country was to reaching complete gender parity, and the results weren’t great.

While some in the region stood out for commendable progress – namely the Philippines, New Zealand and Singapore. Others did not, with Bangladesh, India, Japan, Nepal, Pakistan, and South Korea being furthest from gender parity.

In many of these countries there is still the cultural perception that women stay at home while the men earn the money. Women are seen as carers and homemakers left to look after young and often elderly family members. In some places, just leaving the house is restricted.

That’s not to say governments haven’t tried to bridge this gap. Many have but with varied degrees of success. These attitudes are well ingrained and shifting them, no matter how good a government’s reasoning, can be hard.

Shifting millennia of gender bias

Let’s take Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who launched a “womenomics” movement in 2014 to redress Japan’s deep-rooted gender inequality and lift the country out of decades of economic stagnation.

Abe desire to create a “Japan in which women shine,” to achieve this he’s working to fix childcare shortages, and pushing companies to be more accommodating of mothers returning to work. His aim is to have 30 percent of leadership positions filled by women by 2020.

While there has been some improvement, the country’s entrenched culture of sexual discrimination has proven a formidable opponent.

According to the World Economic Forum, there has been an increase of two million women in the workplace since 2012, a major contributing factor in Japan’s economic growth.

SEE ALSO: Understanding youth unemployment and its impact on Asean

Despite this, Japan has actually slipped in the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) global ranking of the gender gap – falling from 111th in 2016 to 114th in 2017.

Only a paltry 3.7 percent of managerial positions in public companies are women. While this is more than triple the ratein 2012, it is still dismally short of the 30 percent target set (and quickly abandoned) for 2020. Sensing failure, the target has been reduced to 10 percent.

The figures in Japan are disappointing, especially when you consider it was one of the first developed countries in the world to outlaw gender discrimination. The slow progress doesn’t bode well for those lagging behind.

Women’s involvement in the workforce is a metaphorical pot of gold for many countries looking to boost their GDP whilst struggling with a shrinking workforce. These days, that constitutes most countries as an ageing population threaten a country’s very ability to function.

Women could prove the untapped resource that holds the solution.