New shipping route to change world trade
The maiden voyage to Europe by a Chinese merchant ship through the "Northeast Passage" will help the world's biggest exporter speed goods to market and is a symbol of Beijing's strategic ambitions in the Arctic.
The emerging Arctic Ocean shipping route north of Russia has been opened up by global warming and cuts thousands of kilometres (miles) and many days off the journey from China to its key European market.
A vessel owned by Chinese state shipping giant COSCO left the northeastern port of Dalian last week bound for Rotterdam in the Netherlands, on a 5 400-kilometre (3 380-mile) voyage which state media said would take just over 30 days.
That is up to two weeks faster than the traditional route between Asia and Europe through the Suez Canal, according to COSCO.
"It's potentially going to change the face of world trade," said Sam Chambers, editor of SinoShip magazine.
"The Chinese will use the Arctic route in a very big way. It's all about having options, having alternatives in case of emergency," he said.
But China is also eyeing the Arctic for better access to resources to fuel the world's second largest economy, such as the natural gas reserves held by political ally Russia in the region.
China which does not border the Arctic and has no territorial claim to any of it also recognises the area's potential for scientific research and its strategic value as what one Chinese analyst who did not want to be named called "military high ground".
The commercial shipping route is currently only open for about four months a year as polar ice melting as a result of global warming makes it more accessible.
Three months ago, China gained observer status in the Arctic Council, a group of nations with interests in the region which is believed could hold rich mineral and energy resources.
The council's eight full member states are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States.
"The opening of the new shipping route indicates China is participating more in Arctic Ocean affairs," said Zhang Yongfeng, a researcher at the Shanghai International Shipping Institute.
The European Union is China's biggest export destination with 290 billion euros ($385 billion) in goods sold last year and COSCO, China's largest shipper, described the new service in purely commercial terms, saying it will slash shipping times, thus cutting costs and fuel consumption.
"The Arctic route can cut 12-15 days from traditional routes so the maritime industry calls it the 'Golden Waterway'," COSCO said in announcing the journey.
The company's 19 000-tonne ship Yong Sheng which is carrying a mixed cargo, including heavy equipment and steel is expected to pass through the Bering Strait later this month and dock in Rotterdam in September, it said.
"It will change the market pattern of the global shipping industry because it will shorten the maritime distance significantly among the Chinese, European and North American markets," Dalian Maritime University professor Qi Shaobin told state media.
But analysts said developing the route would take time - while lack of infrastructure raised worries over contingencies for potential emergencies.
"In the near term, the economic value for shipping is definitely not big," said Zhang, of the Shanghai International Shipping Institute. "The navigable period of the passage is relatively short... while the port and pier infrastructure along the route is incomplete."
China is seeking to grow markets in southeast Asia and Africa, so more trade might flow to the south, lessening the importance of the Arctic route, he added.
China's total foreign trade volume was $3.87 trillion last year.
But some Chinese estimates claim between five and 15% of the country's international trade could use the Arctic route within a mere seven years.
Mining setback impacts oil project
Mongolia's oil reserves are on a scale with Britain's and Argentina's, but finding investors brave enough to exploit them is proving tough, and cracks appearing in the country's mining industry could make it tougher.
The sparsely populated and landlocked country bordered by Russia and China has proven reserves of 2.4 billion barrels, but shortcomings in infrastructure mean the vast wealth has yet to be exploited.
Australian-owned Wolf Petroleum is hoping to showcase Mongolia's potential to foreign investors, but it is up against concerns over the ongoing Oyu Tolgoi copper mine saga, where Rio Tinto's expansion plans have stalled in recent weeks.
Mongolia has raised concerns about the costs of the Oyu Tolgoi expansion and the potential that rising expenditure will delay when it starts receiving its share of profits.
But Wolf's management is upbeat.
"Mongolia is one of the last onshore frontiers where multibillion barrels of oil can still be discovered and produced," said chief executive Bataa Tumur-Ochir.
"Lately the government of Mongolia and the people are starting to really feel and understand the importance of foreign investment."
But investors are not so sure.
"As it stands, Mongolia simply does not have the infrastructure to support any kind of significant oil discovery," said Svetoslav Varadzhakov, Vice President at London-based Collabrium Capital.
"Big oil companies looking to buy up any discoveries are going to look at what's happened (to Rio Tinto's project) and draw their own conclusions."
Foreign investment in the Mongolian mining, exploration and petroleum industry fell by 32% in the first six months of 2013, said the Ministry of Economic Development on Thursday, leaving oil companies frustrated by the silhouette of major producing oil fields just over the Chinese border.
A country where cattle outnumber people fifteen to one, Mongolia has only 3 000 kilometres of paved road and just one oil refinery, owned and operated by PetroChina.
Hoping to build on the success of PetroChina and fellow Chinese group Sinopec, which are exporting about 4.5 million barrels a year to China by road, Wolf Petroleum is Mongolia's largest exploration company with 74 400 square kilometres of exploration licences. China, now the world's second biggest oil consumer, represents a ready market.
Analysts believe the experiences of global miner Rio Tinto , which said on Wednesday it would axe up to 1,700 jobs on its Mongolian operation, will have a knock-on effect.
"But big risks can also mean big rewards," said Varadzhakov. "I think now could be the right time to go to Mongolia. Go now, while everyone else is scared."
Aussie tycoon eyes Japan casino
Australian tycoon James Packer said Friday he wants to expand his gaming empire into the lucrative Japanese market in the form of resort-casinos to tap the country's love of gambling.
The mogul, who already operates casinos in Melbourne, Perth and Macau and is planning complexes in Manila, Sydney and Sri Lanka, said Japan was his next big hope.
"I hope Japan comes up," he told The Australian newspaper.
"If Japan comes on it will be the second-biggest gaming market in the world. It has 100 million people who are all mad gamblers but they are all doing it through horse racing and pachinko.
"Japan is looking at the Singapore story," he added.
"Done wrong, gambling can be parasitic. But done right (through integrated resorts) it can be hugely additive.
"With integrated resorts done well, the good outweighs the bad. Singapore is proof of that."
Japan has long been viewed as the Holy Grail of Asian gaming because of its wealthy population, proximity to China and appetite for other forms of legal gambling, including horse racing and pachinko, a slot machine-style game.
A bill is expected to be submitted to the Japanese parliament later this year that, if passed, would pave the way for tie-ups with big name firms to build casinos in the country.
Brokerage firm CLSA said in a report earlier this year that should casino legislation pass, Japan could become one of the largest gaming jurisdictions in the world, surpassed perhaps only by Macau.
CLSA estimated that just two gaming resorts in Tokyo and another in the smaller city of Osaka could generate revenues of US$10bn annually.
"Japan is two to three years before it all gets serious, which is perfect for us because we will have Macau Studio City open and the Philippines open," Packer said.
"Crown Perth will be finished and Crown Sydney should be well under way, approvals pending. It is just going through the political process at the moment in Japan."
Since his father Kerry's death in 2005, Packer has moved the family business away from its traditional media operations in Australia and focused on creating Crown, a worldwide gambling empire.
UK hits offshore gambling with levy
Online betting companies based in offshore havens to sidestep Britain's gambling taxes will be hit with a new levy that could cost the industry £300m under rules unveiled on Friday.
The British government is to impose a 15% tax rate on operators in the £2bn remote gambling market and the rules state that from December 2014 gambling must be taxed according to where customers are based rather than where the online operator is registered.
"It is unacceptable that gambling companies can avoid UK taxes by moving offshore. The government is taking decisive action to ensure this can no longer happen," economic secretary to the Treasury Sajid Javid said.
"These reforms will ensure that remote gambling operators who have UK customers make a fair contribution to the public finances."
The shift will affect some of the industry's largest players. Ladbrokes, Bwin.party, William Hill and Betfair all have online operations based in Gibraltar, where taxes are levied at 1% and capped at £425 000.
Shares in the companies did not move significantly on the news.
The proposed 15% rate, which the government said will be confirmed in its Budget statement next March, would mean that offshore operators are taxed at the same level as domestic internet betting companies.
The government estimates that the new rules will bring in £300m a year in additional tax revenue.
Plans to bring offshore gaming companies under the British tax system were outlined in the government's 2012 Budget, but the industry had been waiting for the detail most crucially the rate at which they will be taxed.
William Hill, which has the largest share of the UK's remote gambling market, has previously suggested that it could challenge the changes on the grounds that they breach European Union competition law.
Huge donation for UK - but there's a hitch
An anonymous half-million pound bequest to Britain has mushroomed to £350m since it was made 85 years ago, trustee Barclays Bank said on Saturday but London lawmakers cannot get their hands on it.
The donor left the money in 1928, but said it should only be handed over once Britain had amassed enough funds to pay off its entire national debt, which now totals £1.2 trillion.
News of the current size of the potential payout came weeks after Britain's government struggled with the terms of another half million pound donation, in the will of retired nurse Joan Edwards.
A Barclays spokesperson said the bank had been trying unsuccessfully to get permission through the courts either to use the 1928 bequest to make charitable grants or to hand it all to the Treasury.
"We've been working ever since we became the trustee (in 2009) to change the original objects, which say the funds can be used only to pay off the entire national debt," he added.
National circumstances
The Financial Times newspaper said the donation was probably inspired by Conservative Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin who in 1919, as financial secretary to the Treasury, urged the rich to help pay off Britain's debt from World War One.
It noted that the donor had stipulated the trustees could use part of the funds to pay down the debt if, in their opinion, national circumstances merited a payment.
Neither World War Two nor any debt crises since have moved the trustees to pay out.
Barclays said it would continue working with the Attorney-General's Office and the Charity Commission to find a solution.
"It's a unique set of circumstances and heightened awareness of the national debt has occasionally generated interest in the Fund," said the spokesperson.
This year, Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservatives and their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, initially divided Joan Edwards' money between them, saying it had been left to "whichever party" was in power when she died.
But they decided to hand the money to the Treasury after protests from newspapers and MPs who said Edwards had intended to help the nation, not political parties.
In a copy of the will seen by the Daily Mail newspaper, Edwards, 90, left her wealth to "whichever government is in office at the date of my death for the government in their absolute discretion to use as they think fit".
Judge finds Manning 'wanton and reckless'
The military judge who will determine how long US soldier Bradley Manning will spend in prison for the biggest breach of classified data in the nation's history on Friday said she found that his acts were "wanton and reckless."
Judge Colonel Denise Lind last month found Manning, 25, guilty of 20 criminal counts, including espionage and theft, for handing over some 700 000 secret US documents to the WikiLeaks pro-transparency website.
On Monday, she will begin deliberations on Manning's sentence. He could face up to 90 years in prison for his role in a case that catapulted WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange, into the world spotlight.
"Manning's conduct was of a heedless nature that made it actually and imminently dangerous to others. His conduct was both wanton and reckless," Lind said in a series of written findings issued after prosecutors finished their sentencing arguments on Friday.
Manning was working as a low-level intelligence analyst at a military base in Baghdad in 2010 when he handed over battlefield videos, diplomatic cables and other documents to WikiLeaks. He hoped the move would spark a broad debate about U.S. foreign activities, his lawyers said.
Military prosecutors argued that the breach aided al-Qaeda militants and harmed the United States.
Manning's lawyers this week presented their case for giving the defendant a mild sentence. Witnesses including military mental health specialists and members of Manning's family testified that the soldier, who is gay, showed signs that he was unsuitable for overseas deployment, including violent outbursts.
The slightly built soldier, dressed in his uniform and glasses, his hair cropped close, on Wednesday addressed the court for the first time since February, saying that he was "sorry" and understood that he "must pay a price" for his actions.
Before the prosecutors rested their case Friday, they presented a written statement from Army Criminal Investigation Command Special Agent David Shaver, who said chat logs and e-mail he found on Manning's computer in Iraq indicated he was responsible for leaking the classified documents.
Manning and his attorney said they would not dispute Shaver's statement.
Lind is expected to sentence Manning sometime next week.
On Monday, the prosecution and defense attorneys are scheduled to make their final arguments on what they believe is the most appropriate sentence for the 25-year-old Manning.
The material Manning released that shocked many around the world was a 2007 gunsight video of a US Apache helicopter firing at suspected insurgents in Baghdad. A dozen people were killed, including two Reuters news staff. WikiLeaks dubbed the footage "Collateral Murder."
UN chief urges for peace in Mideast
UN chief Ban Ki-moon called on Israelis and
Palestinians on Friday to overcome "deep scepticism" that he said
risked thwarting efforts to reach a peace agreement.
"We must overcome the deep scepticism that comes from 20 years of
stalemate," Ban said at a meeting in Jerusalem with Israeli
President Shimon Peres."I urge all parties to avoid actions that risk undermining the negotiations," a statement quoted him as saying.
"Both sides need to sustain an environment conducive for the peace process to move forward," he said speaking two days after US-brokered peace talks resumed in Jerusalem.
Wednesday's talks, the fruit of months of intensive US diplomatic efforts to bring the two sides back to the negotiating table, after a nearly three-year break, were overshadowed by a new row over Israeli settlement plans for the occupied territories.
In the run-up to the talks, Israel announced plans to build more than 2 000 new settler homes in annexed east Jerusalem and elsewhere in the occupied West Bank, infuriating Palestinian officials.
Ban himself criticised the Israeli plans at a meeting with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas in the West Bank town of Ramallah on Thursday.
The UN chief told reporters he was "deeply troubled by Israel's continued settlement activity in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem.
"Settlement activity is deepening the Palestinian people's mistrust in the seriousness on the Israeli side towards achieving peace.
"It will ultimately render a two-state solution impossible," he warned.
But Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played down the settlements issue at a meeting with Ban later on Friday.
"The root cause of the conflict was and remains the persistent refusal to recognise the Jewish state in any boundary," Netanyahu said.
"It doesn't have to do with the settlements - that's an issue that has to be resolved, but this is not the reason that we have a continual conflict.
"If we build a few hundred apartments... in urban blocks that everybody knows... will be part of the final peace map in Israel, I think these are not the real issues that we need to discuss," he continued.
"The real issue is how to get a demilitarised Palestinian state to finally recognise and accept the one and only Jewish state."
Israeli Settlements At Forefront Of Palestine Peace Talks
What's the catch? He's a West Bank settler.
The fate of Jewish settlements took center stage this week with the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks aimed at establishing a Palestinian state. In contrast to the prevailing image of settlers as gun-toting religious zealots, the majority are in fact middle-of-the-road pragmatists seeking quality of life. Many shun the settler ideology and say they will uproot quietly, if needed, for the sake of peace.
"We will not sit here and burn tires if the government will tell us to leave. We will just leave," Drori said in his quiet garden, smack in the middle of the West Bank. "When the proper solution will be found I don't believe that something will stop it like settlements. Houses can be moved ... I don't think the settlements are a problem."
For the Palestinians, though, the settlements are a huge problem. They seek a state that includes the West Bank and east Jerusalem, territories Israel captured from Jordan in the 1967 war. The Palestinians, and most of the international community, consider any settlements built beyond the 1967 borders to be illegal land grabs.
For five years, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas refused to engage in talks while settlement construction continued. As talks finally got under way this week, the Palestinians threatened to walk away again after Israel announced plans to build more than 3,000 new apartments.
In all, Israel has built dozens of settlements since 1967 that are now home to about 550,000 Israelis. Settlements dot the West Bank, the heartland of a future Palestine, and ring east Jerusalem, the Palestinians' hoped-for capital, making it ever more difficult to partition the land between two states. Jews now make up 17.5 percent of the population in both areas.
While religious Jews, attracted to the West Bank because of its biblical significance, pioneered the settler movement four decades ago, the settlements today have expanded into a more accurate reflection of Israeli society. The profile of a settler can vary from a suburban Jerusalemite to a non-partisan ultra-Orthodox seminary student to a commuting high-tech executive to a socialist farmer in the Jordan Valley.
Drori, for instance, is secular and never imagined living outside central Israel. But he has found a home in Barkan, an upscale settlement of nearly 400 families with red-tiled rooftops and a vibrant community center. From his backyard Drori has a clear view of the Mediterranean coast.
"The air is nice, the weather is good, the view is wonderful. I think this is most of the reason that people come here," he said.
About a third of all West Bank settlers could be defined as "ideological," according to Yariv Oppenheimer, director of the anti-settlement watchdog group Peace Now. He said these settlers, the driving force behind the settlement enterprise, are politically active and tend to live in the more outlying areas, often closer to Palestinian villages and ancient Jewish religious sites.
"The irony is that the believers are the ones who are more likely to be ultimately removed," he said.
The rest are "economic" settlers who take advantage of the benefits available to live a higher quality of life than they could have afforded in Israel proper. While these settlers tend to still hold hawkish political positions, they are not as hard-core over territorial compromise. Some, particularly those in and around Jerusalem, don't even realize they are settlers.
In fact, the two largest settlements, Modiin Illit and Beitar Illit, were established as a housing option for ultra-Orthodox Jews, the poorest segment of Israeli society. Some of the ultra-Orthodox may even have no other choice but to live in the settlements, Peace Now acknowledges.
Oppenheimer said the economic settlers were less combative and rejectionist, but because of their sheer growth posed an obstacle.
"If everyone behaves like them and settlements continue to expand, there will be no place for a Palestinian state, even if they are not ideological," he said.
Many of these settlers would evacuate quietly in return for fair compensation, but likely won't have to because they are within the major blocs Israel would probably keep in a land deal. In previous rounds of negotiations, the Palestinians agreed to swap some West Bank land for Israeli territory to allow Israel to annex the largest settlement blocs adjacent to its border.
Even if the current talks can reach a similar understanding, most experts believe that more than 100,000 settlers in outlying communities would have to be evacuated. It won't be easy.
In 2005, Israel evacuated all 9,000 of its settlers from the Gaza Strip. Despite months of protests by pro-settler demonstrators and widespread resistance by the settlers themselves, the pullout passed with relatively little violence.
Settlers have vowed to put up more of a fight under any West Bank withdrawal. Israelis in general are hesitant to pay what they consider a steep price more than 53 percent would oppose any peace deal that included major withdrawals from the West Bank, according to a poll of 506 released by the Maagar Mohot research institute Friday. Dividing Jerusalem, home to sensitive religious sites, would be the hardest challenge of all.
Hanan Ashrawi, a senior Palestinian official, said distinctions between settlers and their various motivations could be taken into consideration during negotiations. Regardless, she said they were all part of the problem.
"They are all illegal and people will find any rationalization to explain why they are there," she said. "If anyone has any sense of justice they would understand that they are living on other peoples' lands ... You are all contributing to sabotaging peace."
Save for a brief building showdown in 2009 and 2010, construction has continued unabated under all Israeli governments despite continued international condemnation.
Just last week, Israel announced new building plans and added more settlements to its "national priority" list of communities eligible for special government subsidies. In all, roughly three-quarters of Jewish settlements are on the priority list.
In addition to the Palestinian outcry, the plan triggered international condemnations. It also angered many Israelis who accused the government of neglecting a periphery in the south and north that does not get the benefits of the settlements and is plagued by poverty, unemployment and housing shortages.
Despite their uncertain future, Israelis continue to flock to the settlements. Government statistics show the settler population growing at about 5 percent annually, compared to 2 percent elsewhere. At this rate, the settler population will grow by more than 10,000 people during the nine months of negotiations allotted by the U.S.
While most of the surge is attributed to the higher birthrates of ultra-Orthodox and other observant Jewish settlers, there are other factors. Recent parliamentary data showed that between 2001 and 2011 the settlements gained 38,880 people, with more than 170,000 moving in and just over 131,000 moving out. The 11 percent migration spike marked the second highest in any Israeli district over that time.
Some settlers are drawn to community life in the countryside, others to cheaper housing. Some seek a spiritual connection to the land of the bible, others an escape from the density (and humidity) of central Israel.
The settlements are now an even more enticing destination, with the construction of new highways that make the commute to central Israel much quicker. Most importantly, the settlers have now enjoyed a long period of relative calm after enduring years of roadside shooting attacks and other Palestinian violence. The major violence began to subside in 2005.
When Drori's wife first suggested scoping out the settlements, he refused. But after discovering that a private home in central Israel, which can cost well over $750,000, was out of their price range, he reconsidered. First they rented and then built their own house for about 40 percent less than it would cost in Israel.
"The main decision was the community. I live here with people like me," he insisted. "We were looking for quality of life: a home, a community."
The future of Barkan is uncertain. Unlike the blocs near the border, it lies deep into the West Bank and creates an enclave that would hinder Palestinian territorial continuity.
But Drori is not concerned. He's skeptical a peace accord will be reached, and if it is, he is open to various options, including living alongside Palestinians. He says he has moved many times before, and will do so again if required.
"God is not my guide," he said. "My guide is conscience and economy and community."
Beyond Snowden and Summits: Expanding the U.S.-Russia Discourse
For the first time in a long time, the American
airways are filled with talk about Russia and its relations
with the United States. Opinions are many and varied, ranging from endorsement of President
Obama's cancellation of the summit with President Putin, to concerns about
Obama's decision; from attempts to rationalize Putin's move to grant temporary
asylum to Edward Snowden to outright outrage about him snubbing the U.S. But whatever the view
or the tone, experts, analysts, and officials are talking about Russia, and that is a good
thing. That's the silver lining in the summit's cancellation.
But, it would be even better if more and louder voices in the United States would use this latest chapter in the U.S.-Russia saga to talk about the importance and the potential of this relationship.
The prevailing media discourse highlights the negatives. The Snowden affair is the final straw, many say, in a relationship that is going nowhere... at a zero, bankrupt, with nothing to talk about. Underpinning these views is a list of disagreements that are identified, explained, and deemed insurmountable.
By now, the American people have heard loud and clear what divides the two countries. But what about what unites them? What about mutual interests and concerns? Shouldn't those be the focus of some discussions?
Let us stretch our imaginations, for the sake of expanding the current conversations.
Nuclear arms reductions are considered at a standstill after the pivotal New START Treaty that was negotiated and confirmed during Obama's first term. Perhaps this is the case. But both sides are eager to further reduce their Cold War nuclear legacy arsenals as neither country has the finances or the appetite to maintain weapons that cannot be used at their present numbers. If the stumbling block is the U.S. plan to develop a limited missile defense against a nuclear attack from Iran, or another foe, reaching a negotiated agreement on further nuclear cuts and a mutually acceptable defense system is not unimaginable. What is missing is not a common objective, but trust, confidence, and political will.
Regarding Iran, the two countries again share a goal in not seeing Iran acquire nuclear weapons. The Russians have strong economic interests in Iran, including in its civilian nuclear industry, and no desire for a nuclear-armed state in their neighborhood. Russia has put aside significant reservations to support the UN-led sanctions against Iran. The U.S. and Russia agree on the desired outcome. They differ on how to get to it. So, here too, if there is political will, trust, and confidence, finding a mutually acceptable approach to stifling Iran's nuclear weaponization program is not unattainable.
Syria is highlighted as the latest and deepest source of frustration and division. And clearly, it is. Russia's support for Bashar al Assad, along with U.S. insistence that the regime's stepping down must be part of any negotiated settlement, have contributed to the human fiasco facing the Syrian people. Perhaps the situation is now beyond repair, given the spread and the depth of sectarian conflict in the country. But, again, the U.S. and Russia share ultimate goals to contain the conflict, restore stability, and prevent Syria from falling into the hands of extremists. What's missing is not a common vision, but again, trust, confidence, and political will to move toward it.
In each of these, and other cases that are mentioned as divisive, including terrorism, post-NATO Afghanistan, North Korea's nuclear program, cyber security, energy security, and others, common ground can be found if the search is driven by understanding of mutual positions, respect for national concerns, objective assessments of reality, and, yes, trust, confidence, and political will.
So what is stopping this relationship from moving off an old and flawed pattern of two steps backward for each step forward?
Partly it is due to different worldviews, expectations, and aspirations. But, these are based more on perceptions than reality, and can be overcome through negotiations and engagements, as suggested above. A bigger obstacle is divergent political systems and values. And here, both countries need to alter their respective views of each other.
The United States must accept that Russia is not likely to become a Western-style liberal democracy in the immediate future. It is a socially conservative country, molded through a long history of authoritarian rule a sentiment that the present Russian leadership is taking advantage of by introducing policies deemed regressive by the world's democracies. Many of President Putin's policies are supported by the majority of the Russian population, including his decision concerning Snowden. For the U.S. to wish that shared values are the basis of a relationship with Russia is as unrealistic as it is impractical. And in this respect, Russia is treated as a special case, as few other countries are held to the same standards.
On the other hand, for Russia to dismiss the impact of domestic policies that are shrinking civil liberties and narrowing the space of political activism in the country is as inaccurate as it is risky. As demonstrated by the global reaction to the anti-gay legislation, the world is watching Russia's trends with deep concern. For Russia to aspire to great power status, particularly given the modest size of its population and unpredictable economy, it should be moving toward universal progressive values, not away from them. It should recognize that the United States is a guidepost for civil liberties that Russia should embrace rather than negate.
Narrowing the gaps and developing trust, confidence, and political will has to come from the top.
President Obama was initially right not to make Edward Snowden a pawn on a chessboard that advances to a queen. Yet, he did exactly that by canceling the summit. President Putin was initially right to ignore Snowden and deny him a chance to drive a wedge between the two countries. Yet, he did exactly that by granting Snowden temporary asylum. The actions of both presidents suggest exasperation with each other. Both have put effort and political capital into the relationship and neither got what he hoped for.
Starting from the presidents and going down to their advisers, the media, and the public, each country needs to accept certain realities about the other, move to narrow the gaps, and focus on what unites them rather than on what divides them. Only then can there be the kind of a paradigm shift that will enable this pivotal relationship to advance global stability rather than deepen insecurity. It is time to get this relationship right before global problems become really insurmountable.
But, it would be even better if more and louder voices in the United States would use this latest chapter in the U.S.-Russia saga to talk about the importance and the potential of this relationship.
The prevailing media discourse highlights the negatives. The Snowden affair is the final straw, many say, in a relationship that is going nowhere... at a zero, bankrupt, with nothing to talk about. Underpinning these views is a list of disagreements that are identified, explained, and deemed insurmountable.
By now, the American people have heard loud and clear what divides the two countries. But what about what unites them? What about mutual interests and concerns? Shouldn't those be the focus of some discussions?
Let us stretch our imaginations, for the sake of expanding the current conversations.
Nuclear arms reductions are considered at a standstill after the pivotal New START Treaty that was negotiated and confirmed during Obama's first term. Perhaps this is the case. But both sides are eager to further reduce their Cold War nuclear legacy arsenals as neither country has the finances or the appetite to maintain weapons that cannot be used at their present numbers. If the stumbling block is the U.S. plan to develop a limited missile defense against a nuclear attack from Iran, or another foe, reaching a negotiated agreement on further nuclear cuts and a mutually acceptable defense system is not unimaginable. What is missing is not a common objective, but trust, confidence, and political will.
Regarding Iran, the two countries again share a goal in not seeing Iran acquire nuclear weapons. The Russians have strong economic interests in Iran, including in its civilian nuclear industry, and no desire for a nuclear-armed state in their neighborhood. Russia has put aside significant reservations to support the UN-led sanctions against Iran. The U.S. and Russia agree on the desired outcome. They differ on how to get to it. So, here too, if there is political will, trust, and confidence, finding a mutually acceptable approach to stifling Iran's nuclear weaponization program is not unattainable.
Syria is highlighted as the latest and deepest source of frustration and division. And clearly, it is. Russia's support for Bashar al Assad, along with U.S. insistence that the regime's stepping down must be part of any negotiated settlement, have contributed to the human fiasco facing the Syrian people. Perhaps the situation is now beyond repair, given the spread and the depth of sectarian conflict in the country. But, again, the U.S. and Russia share ultimate goals to contain the conflict, restore stability, and prevent Syria from falling into the hands of extremists. What's missing is not a common vision, but again, trust, confidence, and political will to move toward it.
In each of these, and other cases that are mentioned as divisive, including terrorism, post-NATO Afghanistan, North Korea's nuclear program, cyber security, energy security, and others, common ground can be found if the search is driven by understanding of mutual positions, respect for national concerns, objective assessments of reality, and, yes, trust, confidence, and political will.
So what is stopping this relationship from moving off an old and flawed pattern of two steps backward for each step forward?
Partly it is due to different worldviews, expectations, and aspirations. But, these are based more on perceptions than reality, and can be overcome through negotiations and engagements, as suggested above. A bigger obstacle is divergent political systems and values. And here, both countries need to alter their respective views of each other.
The United States must accept that Russia is not likely to become a Western-style liberal democracy in the immediate future. It is a socially conservative country, molded through a long history of authoritarian rule a sentiment that the present Russian leadership is taking advantage of by introducing policies deemed regressive by the world's democracies. Many of President Putin's policies are supported by the majority of the Russian population, including his decision concerning Snowden. For the U.S. to wish that shared values are the basis of a relationship with Russia is as unrealistic as it is impractical. And in this respect, Russia is treated as a special case, as few other countries are held to the same standards.
On the other hand, for Russia to dismiss the impact of domestic policies that are shrinking civil liberties and narrowing the space of political activism in the country is as inaccurate as it is risky. As demonstrated by the global reaction to the anti-gay legislation, the world is watching Russia's trends with deep concern. For Russia to aspire to great power status, particularly given the modest size of its population and unpredictable economy, it should be moving toward universal progressive values, not away from them. It should recognize that the United States is a guidepost for civil liberties that Russia should embrace rather than negate.
Narrowing the gaps and developing trust, confidence, and political will has to come from the top.
President Obama was initially right not to make Edward Snowden a pawn on a chessboard that advances to a queen. Yet, he did exactly that by canceling the summit. President Putin was initially right to ignore Snowden and deny him a chance to drive a wedge between the two countries. Yet, he did exactly that by granting Snowden temporary asylum. The actions of both presidents suggest exasperation with each other. Both have put effort and political capital into the relationship and neither got what he hoped for.
Starting from the presidents and going down to their advisers, the media, and the public, each country needs to accept certain realities about the other, move to narrow the gaps, and focus on what unites them rather than on what divides them. Only then can there be the kind of a paradigm shift that will enable this pivotal relationship to advance global stability rather than deepen insecurity. It is time to get this relationship right before global problems become really insurmountable.
Thank You Secretary General Ban Ki-moon For Keeping Gender Equality On Top Of The Agenda
This is a welcome crucial step towards progress. Improving the status of women is central to achieving sustainable growth. From ensuring families have proper healthcare, to making certain children receive an education; from contributing to economic growth to achieving good governance, women must be included if we are to make progress in global development efforts. This argument resounds worldwide.
For example, I was recently in Tanzania with the African First Ladies Initiative discussing some of Africa's most pressing challenges including climate change, maternal health, education, violence against women, child marriage and women's economic empowerment. These issues are not unique to Africa. These are global issues that must be addressed across the world. We will have a greater chance to overcome these challenges if we engage women in the process. Likewise, a failure to address gender inequality will undermine our ability as a global community to achieve other development goals.
Ending child marriage ensures that our daughters can continue their education and grow up to be empowered women with the ability to contribute to development efforts. Preventing violence against women and girls puts us in a position where we can live and work safely and productively alongside men. Women's economic empowerment results in benefits for families and economies as a whole. When women are given the opportunity to become financially independent, they create jobs, rise up as leaders in their communities and re-invest profits in their children's welfare. Eliminating discrimination against women is a strategy that will move global development progress forward. We will fail to achieve lasting positive change if women are excluded.
Ahead of the UN General Assembly Special Event to Follow up Efforts Made Towards Achieving the Millennium Development Goals, we must redouble our efforts to build on this momentum so that gender equality remains at the forefront of the post-2015 development agenda both as a stand-alone goal and integrated across the new framework. There are mothers, wives, businesswomen, leaders, mentors, caretakers, champions for environmental sustainability and many more, ready and willing to contribute towards a fair, peaceful and prosperous world for all. Together we can seize this historic opportunity to ensure equality of opportunity for women and further progress for everyone post 2015.
Dutch Prince Friso's Funeral Attended By Royal Family, Friends
Friso, the younger brother of King Willem-Alexander and the second of three sons of former Queen Beatrix, suffered severe brain damage after being buried in an avalanche in Lech, Austria, on Feb. 17, 2012. He was resuscitated, but his brain was gravely injured and he never regained more than minimal consciousness. He died on Monday and is survived by his wife, Princess Mabel, and their two young daughters.
Because Friso gave up his place in the line of succession in 2004 in order to marry Mabel, Friday's funeral was not a state affair. It took place in Lage Vuursche, a small town on the outskirts of Utrecht, near the castle where he grew up – and where Beatrix plans to spend her retirement.
The House of Orange, which jealously guards its privacy, asked the public to stay away from the funeral ceremony, and police closed roads near the church where it took place. They also put up fences to prevent sightseers. Police allowed two Dutch news agencies to photograph and film the ceremony for distribution to media afterward.
Church minister Carel ter Linden addressed Friso's daughters, Luana, 8, and Zaria, 7, reminding them of how their father enjoyed their company, and the games they played together, such as treasure hunts.
National broadcaster NOS reported that Friso's two brothers King Willem-Alexander and Prince Constantijn along with four of his childhood friends, carried Friso's casket to his grave.
The guests included King Harald of Norway, Friso's godfather. Although Friso's death did not come as a surprise after the accident, tens of thousands of Dutch have paid tribute to the prince on social media or via online condolence registers over the past week.
Prime Minister Mark Rutte said Friso's death was painful because he was "in the prime of his life" when the accident took place.
Before the dramatic incidents in Lech, Friso had sometimes been known as "Prince Brilliant." He studied at the University of California, Berkeley, the Technical University of Delft, and Erasmus University at Rotterdam, graduating from the Dutch universities cum laude with degrees in engineering and economics. He later earned an MBA at France's prestigious INSEAD school of business.
He worked for the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. and the investment bank Goldman Sachs, among other positions.
The pivotal event of his life as a royal came in 2004, when he gave up his claim to the throne in order to marry Dutchwoman Mabel Wisse Smit, in a wedding not sanctioned by the government.
The pair got engaged in 2003. Wisse Smit worked for George Soros' Open Society Institute and was seen by the queen as an ideal daughter-in-law. But during her vetting to join the royal house, she and Friso decided not to disclose the full extent of a friendship she had when she was a college student, with a man she later learned was a drug baron.
Parliament never gave the approval for their marriage needed to sanction it under the country's constitutional monarchy. They married anyway in 2004, an act that meant their exclusion from the Royal House.
The couple remained part of the royal family and retained the honorific titles of prince and princess.
Friso rarely sought the limelight, and after the marriage he moved to England with his family. He said he would always remain available to support his mother and older brother.
In a prerecorded interview published on state broadcaster NOS Friday, Friso's friend Adam Anders eulogized him as a caring father and careful listener, with a playful sense of humor.
"I observed Friso in a similar way with his family as he was with his friends. He was the listener, with a short statement near the end, that would make everyone listen and potentially change their view," Anders said. "But often with that twist that it also makes you laugh."
