மொறீசியஸ் மற்றொரு உலக மறுபங்கீட்டுத் தீவு!

PIC Added ENB

====================================================

23.10.2017 Author: Dmitry Bokarev

India, China, and the USA: the Situation around Mauritius

An island state, the Republic of Mauritius is not a frequent news item. The republic consists of the two large islands – Mauritius and Rodriguez, and a number of small islands and reefs in the Indian Ocean, 900 km east of the island of Madagascar. The state is well known as one of the best resorts in the world. However, in addition to its perfect climate, Mauritius is strategically located on the Asia-Africa sea route. This makes it quite attractive to China, which hopes to turn Mauritius into an important point on its 21-st Century Maritime Silk Road, which is the sea sub-project of the One Belt One Road Initiative (OBOR). However, the major traditional partner of Mauritius is India, which does not welcome the growing Chinese dominance and does not approve of the OBOR. Quite possibly, the island state could become the next arena of the Indian-Chinese confrontation.

Under Water Mauritius

In June 2017, for the first time during quite a long period, Mauritius attracted the attention of themedia by submitting territorial claims to Great Britain. These concerned the Chagos Archipelago located in the Indian Ocean halfway between Africa and Indonesia. In 1965, Great Britain separated the archipelago from its colony in the Indian Ocean, which included Mauritius. Thus, when Mauritius gained independence in 1968, the Chagos Islands remained in British possession. According to Mauritius authorities, this was a violation of the UN Declaration No. 1514 “On the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Nations” accepted in 1960, which prohibited the partitioning of colonies before their independence. All the indigenous citizens of the islands that remained the property of Great Britain were deported. In 1971, a strategic air base of the United States was placed on Diego Garcia Island, one of the largest islands on the Chagos Archipelago.

As a result of the claims by Mauritius, the situation with the Chagos Islands was considered by the UNO in June 2017. During the voting in the UN General Assembly, 94 countries out of 184 supported the desire of Mauritius to address the Hague International Court to establish the legal status of the archipelago.

As expected, the USA, its ally Japan, and South Korea opposed this decision and supported the right of Great Britain.

The air base in the center of the Indian Ocean is vitally important for America, as it guarantees its military presence in South Asia, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region. Up to 70% of the world crude oil transportation and up to 50% of all container traffic are carried out through the Indian Ocean. Control over these sea routes has a huge impact in the entire Asia. Therefore, the American air base on Diego Garcia Island is extremely important both for the USA and for its allies such as India, Japan and South Korea. These countries are the world’s largest importers of hydrocarbons, and get most of the fuel from the Middle East through the Indian Ocean. They are interested in making provisions for the Americans to ensure the security of these supplies. They are also interested in US military presence holding back the spread of the influence of China, which India, South Korea and Japan fear.

In its turn, the People’s Republic of China would be pleased with the withdrawal of the Americans. China also receives most of its energy through the Indian Ocean. Being a competitor of the USA, it perceives the American military presence as a threat to the security of its energy supply.

So far, nothing threatens the base. After the vote in the UN General Assembly, the representative of Mauritius to the United Nations, Jagdish Koonjul, announced that Mauritius would propose that the US prolong the presence of its air base on Diego Garcia in case of the transfer of the Chagos Archipelago to his country. However, America does not have such a close interaction with Mauritius as with Great Britain. This means that Mauritius may allow the American military forces to remain on its territory on other terms and conditions that are not so favourable as before. In the event of the relations deterioration, Mauritius would be able to demand that the United States leave Diego Garcia Island, which would be virtually impossible during the period of the British control over it. Thus, if the Chagos Archipelago is transferred to Mauritius, the US status in the Indian Ocean will be less stable. As was mentioned before, this fact should exhilarate China and worry India, Japan, and South Korea.

However, curiously enough, India voted for the submission of the issue of the ownership of Chagos to the International Court. This is probably due to India’s fear of relations with Mauritius deteriorating. As is known, most citizens of Mauritius are ethnic Hindu, the descendants of workers who were brought here by the British in the colonial period. This fact ensures the good relations of the island state with India.

However, a Chinese expatriate community also lives on the island. Although smaller than the Hindu population, it is very powerful. Large financial assets are concentrated in the pockets of the Mauritian Chinese. Chinese Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi visited Mauritius in February 2017. The participation of the island state in the 21-st Century Maritime Silk Road project was among the major issues that he discussed with Mauritius Prime Minister Anerood Jugnauth. If Mauritius joins OBOR, the Chinese influence in this state may increase multiple times.

Such a development of the situation should worry India, which is actively competing with China for dominance throughout the Indian-Pacific territory. Mauritius is strategically important to India due to its strategic location as mentioned above, as well as due to the fact that the Indian radio electronic intelligence base is located there. Mauritius is also important because of its proximity to Madagascar, where an Indian Navy base is being built and the second Indian foreign radio electronic intelligence base is located. These two bases allow India to monitor events on the entire territory to the east of Africa. In addition, Seychelles, located near Mauritius, is host to another Indian Navy base. Thus, the growing presence of China on Mauritius is not favourable for India. Perhaps, to keep Mauritius in its sphere of influence, India is ready to make concessions and even weaken the position of its US ally on the island of Diego Garcia.

This is one of the versions explaining the vote of India at the UN General Assembly in June. However, an unambiguous interpretation could be given only to a few events in the world politics. It cannot be excluded that the transfer of Diego Garcia Island to Mauritius does not threaten the future of the American base on the island. Surprisingly, for many experts, China, which is interested in the US position weakening, abstained from voting in the UN General Assembly. Perhaps this is because China does not feel confident enough in Mauritius. In fact, the most influential power in this state is the rapidly-developing and rich India, which will do everything to preserve the US base, while the United Kingdom is rapidly losing its weight on the international arena.

This explains the position of the abstaining China. However, in this case, the question arises as to why the USA voted against submitting the Chagos Islands issue to the International Court if India is its ally and will preserve the base on Diego Garcia. Perhaps, because the US prefers to deal with allies that depend on it, but not with those on which it depends. America wishes to be the head in any alliance, and the transfer of Chagos Islands to Mauritius may result in its falling under the influence of India. This would lead to the strengthening of India’s position in the America-India relations and the weakening of the US role.

Thus, it can be summarized that the situation around Mauritius and Chagos Islands is quite complicated, and it is difficult to predict its impact on the power balance between India, China, and the US. Apparently, this matter is a great success for Mauritius: being at the intersection of the interests of such rich states, it can exploit the situation to receive various benefits from each of them.

Dmitry Bokarev, political observer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

https://journal-neo.org/2017/10/23/india-china-and-the-usa-the-situation-around-mauritius/

The Mladic Case: A Stain On Civilization

28.11.2017 Author: Christopher Black
The Mladic Case: A Stain On Civilization

General Mladic 

“All that is a lie. This is a NATO-style trial.”

The defiant words of General Mladic to the judges of the NATO controlled ad hoc war crimes tribunal for Yugoslavia rang out loud and clear the day they pretended to convict him. He could have added ‘but history will absolve me” and a lot more but he was thrown out of the room by the chief judge, Orie, in his condescending style, as if he was dealing to a truant schoolboy, instead of a man falsely accused of crimes he did not commit.

The Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, echoed the general’s words on November 23,

“We have again to state that the guilty verdict, delivered by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia against Mladic, is the continuation of the politicized and biased line, which has initially dominated the ICTY’s work.”

Both General Mladic and the Russian government are correct. The document called a “judgement” proves it for it reads like a propaganda tract instead of a court judgement. In just over 2500 pages the trio of “judges” recite the prosecution version of events nonstop, from the first paragraph to the last. The defence is mentioned only in passing.

The ICTY rejects claims that it is a biased court, a NATO court but they proved it with the very first witnesses they called to set the stage for what was to follow. A man named Richard Butler was called to testify on general military matters and the political structure in Bosnia and the Republic Srpksa. He was introduced as a “military analyst” which he is, but not an independent one. No, at the time of his testimony he was a member of the United States National Security Agency, seconded to the ICTY as a staffer. So, the first witness against General Mladic was biased on two counts. He worked for the American intelligence services that supported the enemies of General Mladic and Yugoslavia, and he was part of the prosecution staff. It is as if the NSA and the prosecutor had, at the same time, stepped into the box to testify against the accused. Butler’s testimony plays a large role in the trial; the same role he played in the trial of General Krstic.

Another military analyst expert then appears, Reynaud Theunens, also working on the staff of the prosecution. Experts in criminal trials are supposed to be completely neutral. But not only was he acting on behalf of the prosecutor, he was at the same time a Belgian Army intelligence officer. So there we have it right at the opening of the trial. The stage is set; NATO is in charge of the case. NATO officers work inside the tribunal. It is a NATO tribunal in UN disguise. Accordingly, throughout the judgement NATO crimes, and the crimes of the opposing Bosnian forces are never referred to. The context is deliberately constricted to give a very narrow and distorted picture of events.

The judgement continues with detailed recitations of prosecution witness testimony. Defence witnesses, on the few occasions they are referred to, never have their testimony set out in like detail. One line is devoted to a witness and all of them are dismissed as biased if their testimony is at odds with the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

And of what does the prosecution evidence consist? It consists of some oral testimony of NATO military officers involved in events and who were working in the UN forces against General Mladic and his forces, the testimony of opposing Bosnian Army soldiers or their families, and witness statements and “adjudicated facts,” that is “facts” held to be so by another set of judges in another case no matter whether true or false. A number of times, the judges state something to the effect that, “the defence claims X did not happen and relied on certain evidence to support that claim. Where this evidence conflicts with the adjudicated facts we reject it.”

There are many instances of reliance on hearsay. Time and again, a paragraph in the judgment begins with the words, “The witness was told…” Thanks to corrupt jurists like Canadian former prosecutor Louise Arbour, the use of hearsay, even double hearsay was allowed in as evidence in these trials when it is forbidden in the rest of the world because hearsay testimony cannot be verified or checked for reliability and accuracy.

I was not able to observe much of the trial and only by video from time to time so, I am not able to comment on all the factual findings of the trial judges set on in their long judgement in which they condemn General Mladic and his government in page after tedious page. Those who are aware of the real history of events will realize that every paragraph of condemnation is neither more nor less than the same NATO propaganda put out during the conflict but made to look like a judgement.

For it is not a judgement. A true judgement in a criminal trial should contain the evidence presented by the prosecution, the evidence presented by the defence, and the arguments of both sides about the evidence. It must contain references to witness testimony both as witnesses testified in chief and in cross-examination. Then there must be a reasoned decision by the judges on the merits of each party’s case and their reasoned conclusions. But you will be hard pressed to find a trace of any of the defence evidence in this document. I could find none except for a few references in a hand full of paragraphs and some footnotes in both of which testimony of a defence witness was briefly referred to in order to dismiss it and to dismiss it because it did not support the prosecution version of events.

Even more shocking is that there is little reference to verbal testimony, that is, witness testimony. Instead there are references to “experts” connected to the CIA or State Department, or other NATO intelligence agencies who set out their version of history, which the judges accept without question. There is no reference to any defence experts.

Consequently, there are no reasoned conclusions from the judges as to why they decided to accept the prosecution evidence but not the defence evidence. From reading this one would think no defence was presented, other than a token one. That is not a judgement.

But there is something even more troubling about this “judgement.” It is not possible to make out if many of the witnesses referred to testified in person because there are few references to actual testimony. Instead there are countless references to documents of various kinds and “witness statements.”

This is an important factor in these trials because the witness statements referred to are statements made, or are alleged to have been made by alleged witnesses to investigators and lawyers working for the prosecution. We know from other trials that in fact these statements are often drafted by prosecution lawyers as well as investigators, and then presented to the “witnesses” to learn by rote. We know also that the “witnesses” often came to the attention of the prosecution by routes that indicate the witnesses were presenting fabricated testimony and were recruited for that purpose.

At the Rwanda tribunal, we made a point in our trial of aggressively cross-examining these “witnesses” and they invariably fell apart on the stand, since they could not remember the scripts assigned to them. We further made a point of asking the “witnesses” how they came to meet with prosecution staff and how the interviews were conducted and how these statements were created. The results were an embarrassment to the prosecution as it became clear they had colluded with investigators to manipulate, pressure and influence “witnesses” and that they were complicit in inventing testimony.

Further, it is important for anyone reading this “judgement” to be able to refer to the pages in the transcripts at which the witnesses testified, what they testified to, and what they said in cross-examination, because a statement is not testimony. It is just a statement.

A statement cannot be used as evidence. That requires the witness to get in the box and to state under oath what they observed. Then they can be questioned as to the reliability as observers, their bias if any, their credibility and so on. But in this case we see hundreds of references to “witness statements.” This indicates that the judges based their “judgement” not on the testimony of the witnesses (if they were called to testify) but on their written statements, prepared by the prosecution, and without facing any cross-examination by the defence.

It is not clear at all from this judgement that any of the witnesses referred to in the statements actually testified or not. If they did then their testimony should be cited, not their statements. The only valid purpose the statements have is to notify the lawyers what a witness is likely to say in the trial, and to disclose the prosecution case to the defence so they can prepare their case and then use the statements in the trial to cross examine the witness by comparing the prior statement with their testimony under oath in the witness box.

The formula is a simple one. The prosecution witness gets in the box, is asked to state what he observed about an event and then the defence questions the witness,

 “Mr. Witness, in your statement dated x date you said this, but today you say that. …Let’s explore the discrepancy.”

That’s how it is supposed to go. But where is it in this case? It is nowhere to be found.

It would take a book to recite the problems with the “trial” as exposed by this judgement. But there is one example which highlights the rest relating to Srebrenica and concerns a famous meeting that took place at the Fontana Hotel on the evening of July 11, 1995 at which General Mladic meets with a Dutch peacekeeper colonel to arrange the evacuation of the civilians in the Srebrenica area and the possible laying down of arms of the 28th Bosnian Army Division. There is a video of that meeting available on YouTube. I paraphrase but it shows General Mladic asking why NATO planes were bombing his positions and killing his men. He asks why the UN forces were smuggling weapons to the Bosnian military. He asks why the UN forces tried to murder him personally. To each question he receives an apology from the Dutch officer. He then asks the Dutch officer if he wants to die and he says no. Mladic replies, nor do my men want to die, so why are you shooting at them? No answer.

The rest of the video concerns discussion of a plan to evacuate the town during which Mladic offers the UN men cigarettes, and offers some wine to ease the tension. For me, as a defence lawyer, it is a crucial element of the defence to the charges concerning Srebrenica. But no reference to this video is made in the judgement. Instead the judges refer to the testimony of several UN-NATO officers who were at the meeting in which they totally distort and twist what was said. There is no clue that the defence cross-examined those liars using the video; “Sir you state that this was said, but here in the video it shows that you are wrong. What do you say?” It is nowhere. Was it used and ignored by the judges or not used? I have no idea. But it is clear that the prosecution chose not to use it because it would mean the collapse of their case. For even on the prosecution evidence it is clear that the men of the 28th Division refused to lay down their arms and fought their way to Tuzla. Most were killed in the fighting on the way. Many were taken prisoner. A handful of Bosnian witnesses claim these prisoners were massacred. But their testimony is of the “I was the lone miraculous survivor of the massacre” variety they tend to use in these trials.

I won’t enter into the heavy use of the bogus legal concept of joint criminal enterprise to attach criminal liability to the general, guilt by association and without intent. That they used it shows they know they had no case against him.

In summary this document contains within it little sense of the defence case or what the facts presented by the defence were, what the defence arguments were on the facts, nor their full legal arguments. But most importantly we have no idea what the testimony was of most of the prosecution witnesses and no idea what the testimony was of defence witnesses. It is as if there was no trial, and the judges just sat in a room sifting through prosecution documents writing the judgement as they went. We must suppose that this is not far from the truth.

This “judgement” and the trial are another humiliation of Yugoslavia and Serbia by the NATO alliance since it is clear from its creation, financing, staffing and methods that the ICTY is a NATO controlled tribunal. This is confirmed by the statement of the NATO Secretary-General, who said,

“I welcome the ruling…. the Western Balkans are of strategic importance for our Alliance…”

In other words, this conviction helps NATO to consolidate its hold on the Balkans by keeping the Serbs down and out. General Mladic is a scapegoat for the war crimes of the NATO alliance committed in Yugoslavia, which the ICTY covers up and so assists NATO in committing more war crimes, as we have seen since.

The ICTY has proven to be what we expected it to be, a kangaroo court, using fascist methods of justice that engaged in selective prosecution to advance the NATO agenda of conquest of the Balkans as a prelude to aggression against Russia. NATO uses the tribunal as a propaganda weapon to put out a false history of the events in Yugoslavia, to cover up its own crimes, to keep the former republics of Yugoslavia under its thumb, and to justify NATO aggression and occupation of Yugoslavian territory. It is a stain on civilization.
===================

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

https://journal-neo.org/2017/11/28/the-mladic-case-a-stain-on-civilization/

How the Catalan crisis helps Spain's far right

How the Catalan crisis helps Spain's far right
by Creede Newton
28 Nov 2017

Catalan independence makes the Spanish far-right 'more organised', analysts say [Pablo Blazquez Dominguez/Getty] 

Barcelona - As the Catalan independence crisis enters its fourth month in December, the intended outcome of an independent Catalonia remains elusive.

But the push for independence has had an unintended consequence; it has invigorated Spain's far-right movements unlike any event since the country's transition to democracy in the 1970s, according to Jordi Borras, a Catalan photojournalist and author who monitors the Spanish far right.

In the years before the crisis, the far right's impact has been negligible both on the Spanish streets and in parliament, even as similar movements flourished in France, the Netherlands, Austria, Hungary and elsewhere, Cas Mudde, a professor and scholar at the University of Georgia who specialises in European far-right politics, told Al Jazeera.

Scholars say it is a combination of the mainstream conservative ruling People's Party "capturing the nationalist vote" and "regionalist division" between Spain's minority regions that has put the far right in the spotlight, Mudde commented.

"Their importance is overplayed in the media. They are much more visible than relevant," Mudde said.

But the political turmoil that has resulted from Catalonia's declaration of independence is bringing these groups, of which there are dozens, together. Borras told Al Jazeera that things have "changed quickly" in Spain, perhaps faster than many observers can track.

Borras explained that the Spanish far right was previously a "constellation" of ultranationalist groups. Some are Neo-Nazis, some are "Falangists" or the remnants of the foremost paramilitary group under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco, who ruled Spain as a right-wing conservative, Catholic nation from 1939 until 1975. Others exist in their own groups.

Though these groups have a history of infighting, Catalan independence has given the far right a reason to unite, Borras said.

Increased attacks
Catalonia's police force, the Mossos d'Esquadra, finished investigating four incidents of politically motivated violence, spanning from September 22 to October 27, according to a statement delivered to Al Jazeera.

All of these attacks are believed to have been committed by the far right.

The perpetrators of one attack, which took place on October 8, were identified by photographs wherein the suspects were giving "Hitler salutes". The Mossos' statement says these attackers were "Spanish nationalists".

After Catalonia held its disputed independence referendum on October 1, Spanish courts declared the vote illegal and ordered the national police and the Civil Guard, a military unit tasked with domestic policing, to stop the referendum while "respecting co-existence".

Spanish law enforcement was filmed executing a violent crackdown on voters that rights groups called "excessive". The violence bolstered Catalonia's resolve for independence.

After a month of political back-and-forth where Catalan President Carles Puigdemont called for dialogue and Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy of the centre-right People's Party reneged the offer, the Catalan parliament voted for independence On October 27.

Spain responded by enacting Article 155, a never-before-used provision of the constitution that allows the central government to dismiss the Catalan government and directly administer the breakaway region.

Puigdemont and four of his former ministers fled to Belgium, while nearly a dozen pro-independence legislators and organisers, including former Catalan Vice President Oriol Junqueras, were imprisoned on charges of rebellion and sedition.

While far-right violence is on the rise, the attacks are encouraging a response from the activist community in Catalonia, Borras noted.

It was visible at one protest on the evening of Monday, October 30. Roughly 500 anti-fascist protesters dressed in black with covered faces stood directly across from a smaller group of far-right activists.

Unlike recent protests in Barcelona, the Antifa group did not take to the streets for the sake of nationalism, but for safety.

Holding flags of workers' syndicates, a trademark of the anarchist, anti-fascists forces that fought in Spain's Civil War, the protesters made it clear to both the police and far-right protesters that these attacks would not go unanswered.

Chanting "the streets will always be ours," a slogan popular with pro-independence demonstrators, they ran past police barricades to confront members of the "Last Bastion," an ultranationalist group active in Catalonia.

A chase over several blocks ended with the Catalan police breaking up an altercation between Last Bastion members and an anti-fascist protester.

The Mossos' statement concluded by saying a further eight cases of political violence were being investigated.

'Identitarian' movement

"The Catalan situation makes it so that we are more organised [to prevent] Catalan independence from being achieved," a spokesperson of Spain's Generation Identity (GI), a movement which doesn't consider itself to be a right-wing movement, but a "movement of identity" that respects "the Christian history of Europe", told Al Jazeera in an email.

Spain's GI was founded in Barcelona in 2016. It started as a small group of older people, the spokesperson, who did not give their name, said. The group is growing, thanks to Catalonia's secessionist bid, and new members are in their late teens early 20s.

Spain's GI said Franco's dictatorial legacy has been an obstacle for the Spanish far right. Though there is no official number, Franco's government killed an estimated 50,000 to 125,000 from 1939 to 1950.

Franco also attempted to homogenise Spain by outlawing minority languages and public displays of minority cultures.

Catalonia, along with other regions with minority cultures, such as Galicia and the Basque country, were most affected by these policies.

Spain's GI belongs to a network of ethno-nationalist groups that are gaining prominence throughout Europe and the US under the banner of white identity.

These groups wish to preserve the cultural purity of white-majority regions and are sometimes considered Islamophobic.

The first goal of Spain's GI group is "is shining a light on the real problems of massive, uncontrolled immigration" and "the dangers of Islamic invasion", the spokesperson said.

This "massive" immigration is putting a strain on the Spanish economy, the GI spokesperson said. They want "national preference - social security and job placement for Spaniards first," to be Spanish policy.

According to Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, Spain was 13th in Europe for refugee acceptance. That year, Spain accepted 14,780 refugees, as compared with Germany's 476,510 or Hungary's 177,135 asylum seekers.

Borras, the Catalan author and researcher, while it is true they want fewer immigrants, it is not what has united them.

Fear of an independent Catalonia has given the far right - and mainstream right - a "greater good" for which to fight, he concluded. 

Historical Events in Kashmir History

Historical Events in Kashmir History

https://youtu.be/vRlckKuqmaQ

ENB Poster ஊழலுக்கான அடிப்படை லெனின்

Govt. swallowed IMF advice to increase tax

Amateurish Govt. swallowed IMF advice to increase tax

Former Central Bank Governor Ajith Nivard Cabraal in an interview with the Daily Mirror spoke about the Government’s Budget and its implications.

 The interview done with Cabraal follows.  2017-11-30 

Q As the former Governor of Central Bank how do you view the Budget which the Government claims is futuristic and is earmarked to be implemented over a period running up to 2025?

Budget 2018 is certainly not a futuristic Budget, but a hotch-potch budget with various conflicting strategies. It is bound to fail just like the previous two Budgets presented by this Government. That is sad because it will be the people of our country who would suffer as a result, since there will be no development carried out nor new jobs created. There is also hardly any special thrust or priority sectors earmarked and accordingly there will be very little investment that’ll flow into the country. Although a few people, who have been given positions by this Government, have expressed some positive comments regarding this Budget, you could see by the reaction of markets, that deep down, the private sector isn’t convinced that this Budget would deliver any beneficial results. This Budget also doesn’t contain any measures which would ensure stable prices, a strong financial system, regular job creation, healthy investment flows, robust forex turnovers, moderate interest rates and stable exchange rates. Without such a focus on the macro-economy, Budget making will not be of any value or relevance. 

However, this Budget is strong in one aspect. That is, it focuses heavily on increasing revenue. It is all about how to extract more taxes across more sources, on more occasions, from more people. The Government obviously thinks that when they tax the people more, the more successful the Budget will be. Perhaps, that is what the IMF has told them, and this amateurish Government seems to have swallowed that advice. But very soon, they, as well as the people, will realize that they have made a huge mistake because investment streams will dry up, business activity will falter, growth will stagnate, and the debt burden will rise to unmanageable levels. These pressures will, in turn, increase inflation, enhance interest rates, cause job losses and place the economy in serious jeopardy. 
When reading through the Budget speech, it is also observed that, uncharacteristically for a Finance Minister, nothing has been said about the progress of the economy. That silence was obviously because he had nothing positive to say, about the progress under their watch and I am sure the situation in the coming year will be much worse. 
========================

* Growth will stagnate and the debt  burden will rise to unmanageable levels* During our term,we were able to improve the Debt to GDP ratio substantially* Businesses will falter* As we all know, the total taxes charged from the people in various forms have been doubled in absolute Rupee terms, from 2014 to 2018* People will realize its repercussions soon* This Government in its initial period has increased the Public Debt by Rs. 2,777 billion

=========================
Q The previous Government under which you served is blamed for the debt burden. How do you counter that?

In any country, the ‘debt burden’ is measured technically and professionally, by the ratio of the amount of the debt, expressed as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product of the country. In that context, the Debt to GDP ratio which, at the beginning of 2006 was a very high 91%, was systematically reduced to a more comfortable 71%, as a result of the Rajapaksa Government’s prudent economic and debt management. Therefore, it will be seen that during our term,we were able to improve the Debt to GDP ratio substantially and ensure that there was absolutely no debt crisis, with Sri Lanka having a stronger re-payment capacity, quite unlike to what is now being falsely claimed by the Government, ad nauseam, that Sri Lanka was in a debt trap at that time.

That feat was achieved even while undertaking massive infrastructure development, which increased the debt in absolute terms by Rs. 5,169 billion (in 9 years) from Rs. 2,222 billion at the beginning of 2006to Rs. 7,391 billion by end 2014.  In sharp contrast, this Government, in its initial period in office of 2 ½ years, has increased the Public Debt by Rs. 2,777 billion, although there has been hardly any increase in the GDP and nothing to show as development on the ground, as a result of such borrowing. Worse still, the Debt to GDP ratio has now shot up to 85% from 71%, and has undoubtedly pushed the country into the debt danger zone. 

Q The Government claims that debt payment for the next couple of years is much higher as a percentage of the state revenue. How fair is that statement?

What is most relevant and important about debt repayment is the Government’s ability to meet its debt. From the time this Government assumed office, it has been managing the Public Debt in a foolish, hap-hazard and irresponsible manner. First, they announced to the world that the country is in a “debt crisis” and that they are finding it challenging to re-pay the debt, when it was not. Do you know of any company chairman who announces to the markets that his company is finding it difficult to pay its debts? Second, when the foreign investors got frightened and rushed to withdraw their investments from the Government securities, they squandered our foreign reserves, but yet had to let go of the exchange rate which depreciated significantly, causing massive increases of about Rs. 427 billion (nearly 3 times what the Government will get from selling the Hambantota Port) in the Public Debt in Rupee terms. Third, the Government carried out the now infamous Bond Scam which caused all interest rates to rise and remain at elevated levels since, which has made the raising and repayment of debt much costlier: in fact, Sri Lanka must be the only country where interest rates were increasing at a time when inflation was decreasing! 

Those occurrences have shown that the so-called economic osthars of this Government have not only been terribly corrupt, but also downright imprudent and foolish. As a result of these misadventures, the Prime Minister’s reckless prophecy has come true, and ironically Sri Lanka is today in that self-created Debt Trap. Sadly, this situation is becoming worse and it doesn’t appear likely that these self-proclaimed financial wizards would be able to do anything that would arrest this deteriorating situation. 

Q The economic viability of the Hambantota Port and the Mattala Airport are always questioned by the Government. How do you view these two projects?

All persons knowledgeable in shipping and ports, recognise that strategically-located ports play a very important role in shaping an economy of a country. In that context, people the world over, have been speaking about the merits of locating a port in Hambantota for a long time, because Hambantota is directly the path of the East-West sea route. Accordingly, such a port is bound to have tremendous potential and in the long term, the Hambantota Port will be one of the greatest assets that Sri Lanka would have in its economic growth story. At the same time, it must be recognised that no port, however well located it may be, can deliver results in its first few years. In fact, the Colombo Port took almost 200 years to realize its full potential, although it had been providing a massive impetus to the economy of Sri Lanka. 

The new Hambantota Port, in a very short period of time, had been able to make a significant impression in the global shipping arena, while servicing its loans without any default. It was gradually picking-up in its operations in a satisfactory trend, even while its detractors were condemning the project. All knowledgeable businessmen know that large scale projects have fairly lengthy gestation periods. For example, a large new hotel won’t be filled to capacity in 2 or 3 years, but over 5 to 10 years it will generally start showing positive results and perhaps substantial profits too, with its shareholder value and goodwill appreciating significantly over the longer term. Similarly, a large port also will usually yield substantial profits, massive capital gains and other ancillary economic benefits over the long term, if it is nurtured and positioned during its first decade of operations, given the location is strategic. Ask yourself the question; why is it that the Chinese are so eager to pay over a billion US dollars to assume a 80% stake of the Hambantota Port?Are they crazy to do so? Obviously not. If so, isn’t it this Government that is crazy or corrupt or reckless to alienate this highly valuable asset for a mere pittance which doesn’t even take the value of the vast tracts of land that forms part of this Port project, into consideration? 

In the same manner the Mattala Airport too owns a huge tract of land, adjoining the airport, and was constructed at a comparatively modest cost thereby enabling this international airport to be of great significance and value in the future. Unfortunately, that asset too is to be frittered away for a pittance by this short-sighted Government to India, probably to settle an ‘election’ debt. It is now clear that what this Government is able to do properly, is criticise and find fault with the former Government’s projects. They are unable to do anything of any value on their own. Even worse, they are hell-bent on selling national projects with the best future prospects, under the guise of getting out of a debt trap, which they themselves created. Their actions can be likened to that of a drunkard or drug-addict who periodically sells his household goods to have the money for his next drink or drug-dose. By these actions, our current leaders are actually depriving our country’s future generations of realising their true potential, while also destroying the foundations for the future progress and prosperity of our country. 

Q The Government has proposed to increase its revenue more through direct taxation. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has commended the measures for increasing tax revenue in this manner. From what angle are you looking at this?

This Government is in so much trouble, it is not in a position to argue with the IMF. It will have to do whatever the IMF says, and even if that means the entire country will be destabilized, it will have to obediently carry out IMF orders. As we all know, the total taxes charged from the people in various forms (direct and indirect taxes, customs duties, and excise levies) have been doubled in absolute Rupee terms, from 2014 to 2018. Total taxes that were about Rs. 1 trillion in 2014,will increase to over Rs. 2 trillion in 2018. As a result of these additional burdens, people will be unable to carry on with their businesses, and more jobs will be lost. Very soon, it will be unbearable for small and medium scale businesses since interest rates have already increased by over 50% now, from the rates prevailing as at end of 2014. As a result,thousands of cheques are being returned daily, and people are finding it very difficult to even exist. On top of that, when the new taxes imposed actually take effect, it will kill enterprise and industry, and it will only be through various manipulations that this Government will be able to show some economic growth, in much the same way, that it manipulated the growth figures last year to show a growth of 4.4%,when it was actually 2.2%. I pointed out this manipulation in May this year, with facts and figures, and no one from the Government has yet been able to challenge my workings.

Q What is your view on the move to completely replace carbon emission vehicles with electric cars by 2040?

On the surface, it may appear fashionable to say that Sri Lanka would have only electric cars by 2040 in this designer-budget. But, it all depends on whether this Government, which can’t even satisfactorily distribute fuel to the people, can carry out an initiative like that. This Government is now famous for its adhoc decisions and its ‘stop-start’ initiatives. They regularly come up with all kinds of slogans; first, it was free Wi-Fi for all. Next it was free tabs for all students. Now it is about electric cars for all. A few days ago, it was free shoes for all. The list continues, but everyone knows nothing will happen! 

Q Your name is being dragged into the improper investment of money from the EPF during your time. What is your response to this allegation?

The EPF made its best progress during my tenure as Governor and its financial returns during that period were consistently higher. By its professional financial management, the EPF Investment Committee was able to build the EPF into a stable, long-term fund, and all investments were made prudently and professionally in Government securities and in shares. The fund’s well-diversified portfolio also made substantial profits and capital gains, as reflected in the financial statements of the EPF.

At the same time, all processes, procedures and approvals in respect of all investment decisions were followed diligently during my time. All external reviews and audits, particularly the external audit undertaken by the Auditor General, have not faulted the EPF managers in relation to their investments, to the best of my knowledge. In stark contrast, what happened in the Bond Scam? The time-tested and well-designed systems of the Central Bank were changed arbitrarily and suddenly on political orders, and massive losses were caused to the EPF at the expense of connected parties. The EPF was stopped from bidding for treasury bonds at the primary auctions, and the state banks were ordered to bid low.These corrupt practices have led to huge increases in the interest rates in our country, causing further serious losses to all stakeholders in our economy. 

Q There is an allegation that you issued the licence for Perpetual Treasuries at that time. It is currently held responsible for the bond scam. What is your response?

It is correct that the licence for Perpetual Treasuries was granted by the Central Bank and the Monetary Board during the time I was the Governor. However, if someone critically examines and reviews the processes applied in the grant of such licence, it will be seen that the correct procedures and processes had been followed by the Central Bank and the Monetary Board in issuing that licence, as with all other approval processes during my tenure of office as Governor. I can also assure you that, during my time, there weren’t sudden changes to processes nor systems to provide an advantage to any selected party, at any time.

All systems and processes were followed diligently and professionally in all regulatory actions and approval processes, and there hadn’t been a single instance where the Auditor General or any other review body had stated that there has been any wilful and deliberate departure from process to provide an advantage to anyone. That is why, other than some UNP politicians, no other stakeholders have complained about the Central Bank’s actions during my time. Even in the case of the investment in the Greece Government Bonds, the Supreme Court clearly ruled the Central Bank and Monetary Board had diligently followed due process, and that there was no irregularity whatsoever, even though a tolerable business loss was incurred in that investment while the Central Bank recorded its highest-ever profit from reserve management, during that year. 

Q What is your response to the allegation that irregularities took place regarding bond issues during your time as well? 

That is a blatant untruth, which was initiated by the Prime Minister in March 2015, immediately after the fraudulent Treasury Bond issue of February 27 2015, probably to deflect public attention from that scam that was hitting the headlines. That highly irresponsible allegation was obviously made to implicate the former administration and thereafter, the Auditor General was also requested by the then Finance Minister to conduct a detailed examination into all the Treasury bond issues during my time. In response the Auditor General reported that there were no improper issues during my time. This report caused much heartburn to the best Finance Minister in Asia, who has been attacking the Auditor General, ever since. You may also remember that recently, when a UNP MP demanded that I be summoned by the Presidential Bond Commission, I immediately issued a statement that I would be happy to give evidence before the Commission. In fact, I wrote to the Commission clarifying certain matters which arose during the Commission sittings, while also informing them that I would be very happy to answer any question that the Commission may have at any time. In response, the Commission asked me to send my submissions in writing, and I did so.   

Sri Lanka's bond inquiry scandal leaves top leaders shaken

November 30, 2017 10:00 am JST
Sri Lanka's bond inquiry scandal leaves top leaders shaken
External debts some calling as country's reputation takes a hit

MARWAAN MACAN-MARKAR, Asia regional correspondent

Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe speaks to the media after giving evidence before the Bond Commission in Colombo on Nov. 20. © Reuters

COLOMBO Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe made unwelcome political history on Nov. 20, appearing before a presidential commission of inquiry into a 10 billion rupee ($65 million) bond scandal that is shaking his government and damaging the country's economic prospects.

"I have disclosed everything, as we have nothing to hide," Wickremesinghe told supporters as he emerged from the commission hearing after becoming the first sitting prime minister to be questioned at a presidential corruption inquiry.

Wickremesinghe's stance was mirrored on the streets of the capital, where posters quickly appeared describing the leader of the United National Party, the senior partner in Sri Lanka's nearly 3-year-old coalition government, as a "fearless premier." But the coalition may need more than political spin to escape from the bond revelations, which have exposed murky dealings within Colombo's incestuous financial sector.

Details of the scandal have dogged the UNP since it became public in March 2015, two months after the coalition's shock victory in a presidential election. The coalition, which successfully fielded Maithripala Sirisena as its candidate for president, campaigned on a platform of good governance and accountability to defeat the authoritarian and corrupt regime of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa.

But the scandal also has broader business implications, not least because it reinforces a global impression of Sri Lanka as a country where corruption remains rampant. It was a factor in Sri Lanka's fall of 12 places in the 2016 Corruption Perceptions Index, released annually by Transparency International, a global anti-graft watchdog, and analysts say it has complicated the government's struggle to finance foreign debt repayments.

The $87.5 billion economy faces a challenging external debt schedule, according to Fitch Ratings, a ratings agency. Sri Lanka has just $7 billion in foreign currency reserves, and is due to pay more than $5 billion in maturing foreign loans and interest starting in 2019. A "prolonged drought of foreign direct investment," as one economic analyst put it, has not helped. FDI amounted to just $450 million in 2016, down by 54% from 2015.

The bond scandal has shaken international confidence, according to financial analysts, who say foreign investors are unimpressed by the Sri Lankan government's claim that the prime minister and other senior ministers are appearing before the commission as a mark of good governance.

SUDDEN DECISION Sirisena appointed the commission to investigate the sale after opposition lawmakers demanded an independent inquiry, claiming that the bond issue had raised government borrowing costs by more than $1 billion over the two years.

The Central Bank of Sri Lanka rejects those claims, but the government's credibility began to fade after it emerged that the bank had suddenly decided in late February 2015 to raise 10 billion rupees from a sale of 30-year government bonds with a coupon (fixed interest rate) of 12.5%. It had initially advertised an offer of 1 billion rupees with a 9.5% coupon.

Bonds worth 7 billion rupees were snapped up by Perpetual Treasuries Limited, a primary dealer owned by Arjun Aloysius, a son-in-law of Arjuna Mahendran, the then-governor of the central bank. Mahendran, a Sri Lankan-Singaporean banker, was chosen for the top banking job by Wickremesinghe.

Sri Lanka to probe biggest Rajapaksa pyramid scam: PM

Sri Lanka to probe biggest Rajapaksa pyramid scam: PM
By Our Political Correspondent
Nov 30, 2017

ECONOMYNEXT - Sri Lanka will investigate the sale of over five thousand billion rupees in treasury bonds by the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said describing it as the "biggest pyramid scam" in the country.

Making a special statement to parliament on Thursday, the Prime Minister said over 90 percent of the 5,147 billion rupees worth of bonds had been sold privately without going through a transparent tender or auction system.

 "There had been no decision of the Monetary Board (of the Central Bank) to go for such private placements, but nevertheless they did that from 2008 to 2014," Wickremesinghe said.

"This is the biggest 'pyramid scam' perpetrated on the country," he said referring to outlawed network marketing schemes where investors or participants are falsely promised high returns without a tangible business.

The Prime Minister said the former Rajapaksa regime had also raised loans without informing parliament and he intended to probe the extent of such transactions through the finance committee of the House.

The investigation into the bond sales between 2008 and 2014 will begin soon after the current bond commission completes its work, Wickremesinghe said.

He said the government will also investigate share market manipulation which saw worthless stocks dumped on the Employees' Provident Fund during the Rajapaksa regime.

Some of the closest allies of Rajapaksa have been accused of "pump and dump" scams, but there have been no prosecutions.

He formally informed the House about testifying before the bond commission last week and that he disclosed facts that were not previously known to the authorities.

He had told the commission that the former regime had kept big-ticket government expenditure out of the budget to project a robust balance sheet to the International Monetary Fund.

He said about 500 to 600 million dollars had been obtained outside the budget by the former government and warned that failure to meet those debts could cause severe stress in the banking sector.

The Presidential Commission of Inquiry to Investigate and Inquire into the Issuance of Treasury Bonds wound up its sittings after Wickremesinghe's testimony last week.

(COLOMBO, November 30, 2017) 

Is the Israeli-Saudi Alliance Planning to Wage War On Iran?

Is the Israeli-Saudi Alliance Planning to Wage War On Iran?
By Dr. Ludwig Watzal
Global Research, November 29, 2017


Israel, the USA, and Saudi Arabia are doing everything to lay the foundations for war against Iran.

That is why Iran and its people must be demonized and dehumanized. The Israeli government has  been doing this since the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979 by the Iranian people.

In general, all Sunni Muslim countries get along well with Iran, except Saudi Arabia and those Arab regimes that succumb to their financial pressure.

In a flattering interview with the New York Times, the Saudi crown prince and future king, Mohammed bin Salman, called the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, the “new Hitler of the Middle East.”[1] And he continued with a skewed comparison, saying:

“But we learned from Europe that appeasement doesn’t work. We don’t want the new Hitler in Iran to repeat what happened in Europe in the Middle East.”

The same rhetoric was used by Netanyahu when he agitated against the nuclear deal with Iran.

Besides the silliness of such comparisons, it’s an incredible insult to the highest Shiite authority by a Sunni Muslim, who is going to be the next “King of Saudi Arabia.” The Iranian clerical elite will never forgive and forget. They rebuked this insult elegantly saying:

“No one in the world and the international arena gives credit to him [MBS] because of his immature and weak-minded behavior and remarks.”

As an old deep-rooted people, the Iranians gave bin Salman a good advice:

“Now that he has decided to follow the path of famous regional dictators … he should think about their fate as well.”

A regime that can only survive thanks to the “American and Zionist sword” not to mention their financial tribute in the form of large weapons purchases and mercenary pay for terrorist fighters should have not future.

But there is a sneaky plan behind bin Salman’s slander. It started with Donald Trump‘s silly speech he delivered during his visit to Saudi Arabia in which he called Iran “the top state sponsor of terrorism.” And Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu called Iran “the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.” Both leaders cooperate very closely in deranging the nuclear deal signed under the Obama administration. Now, Mohammed bin Salman has thrown himself into the fray.

At least for the time being, President Trump is not jet willing, despite his anti-Iranian bias and rhetoric, to go to war with Iran for Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s sake. To sacrifice American lives for two rogue regimes would be politically very unwise.

That is why an image cultivation of the Saudi regime has already started in the United Kingdom and the US. In the case of Israel, the reporting in the US and the UK are one-sided and incredibly biased. Hence, the Saudis have to catch up.

The Guardian and the leading newspaper of the US Empire, the New York Times,  have started to paint the new Saudi strongman, Mohammed bin Salman, as a kind of visionary reformer, although he has been spreading terror and blood since he took office.

That Saudi Arabia has been fighting a brutal war against the people of Yemen, supports the different terror groups in Syria and stirs up tensions against Iran is not of object of concern by Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times. Even bin Salman’s crackdown on large parts of the political and economic elite and his bloody purge against political opponents is portrayed by the NYT as a fight against “corruption.” Nobody should be surprised that the US and its major media outlets are embracing this brutal strongman because he serves US interests.

While the Guardian was full of praise for bin Salman throughout the year, the NYT reported more cautiously until Thomas L. Friedman took over. In a kind of press release, the Guardian was full of praise for the future Saudi King. He did arrest not only 11 peopled but also sidelined 20 billionaires. That several people died in an organized helicopter crash was not worth reporting by the Guardian.

Friedman didn’t want to be in no way inferior to the Guardian’s uncritical reporting. He even topped it writing:

“The most significant reform process underway anywhere in the Middle East today is in Saudi Arabia.”

All the other Arab Spring movements failed miserably happening from bottom up; the Saudi one is led from the top down by bin Salman. That the Crown Prince wants to reform a degenerated Saudi version of Islam seems worth reporting. Time will tell. Reading all these articles, one can ask who paid for these base flatteries.

Why didn’t Friedman ask bin Salman about his 500 million US-Dollars worth yacht? Or the cost of the last vacation in Morocco, where he and his father’s royal household spent 950 million US-Dollars. So much to combat corruption, Mr. Friedman.

Bin Salman also maintains an unconventional and rough diplomatic contact with other heads of states when they are on a Saudi drip-feed.

When Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri visited Saudi Arabia, he was forced to announce his resignation via Saudi TV. Apparently he feared for his life. For a few days, he stood under house arrest. Due to the speech of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, the whole Lebanese leadership rallied behind Nasrallah and called for Hariri’s return to announce either his resignation or to stay in office.

The President of France, Emmanuel Macron, also intervened on behalf of Hariri. Finally, Hariri could leave Saudi Arabia via France from where he returned to Lebanon to celebrate the country’s independence day. Bin Salman’s farce failed miserably. Almost the same happened to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The Saudis ordered him to Riyadh and presented him an outline of the American Israeli “peace plan.” After returning to Ramallah, Abbas rejected the US Zionist document of surrender.

It’s an open secret that Saudi Arabia and Israel are cultivating intensive diplomatic contacts not only on security issues. A rare interview by the head of Israel’s armed forces to a Saudi owned news outlet confirms  close links between the two countries. Despite the denial of the Saudi foreign minister Adel el-Jubeir, these rumors won’t disappear.

“There are no relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel,” Jubeir said.

Formally, he seems correct, but what about the informal contacts. Hasn’t Mohammed bin Salman visited Israel in camera?

According to Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Israel enjoys “warm relations” with many Arab countries despite the fact that these nations officially refuse to recognize Israel diplomatically. Prime Minister Netanyahu has been boosting for quite some time about close contacts with several Arab countries.

The Israeli Saudi US American alliance aims at Iran. They want to push back Iran’s influence in Iraq and Syria. For the time being, bin Salman’s plan to assist Israel in waging war against Lebanon to crush Hezbollah has failed. Hariri was not the Saudi stooge bin Salman thought.

What these three rogue states have in common is the destruction of Iran like they did with Iraq, Syria or Libya. Netanyahu has warned President Bashar al-Assad not to allow Iran to build military bases in Syria.

It remains to be seen whether the new (alleged) “Axis of Evil” or the Russian Iranian Turkish alliance will prevail in the Middle East.

So far, the US-Israel-Saudi “alliance” have brought devastation to the region.

Note

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-arab-spring.html

The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright © Dr. Ludwig Watzal, Global Research, 2017

The North Korea dilemma and the lesson of Pearl Harbor

The North Korea dilemma and the lesson of Pearl Harbor

Stephen BryenBy STEPHEN BRYEN NOVEMBER 29, 2017

If North Korea launched a missile with a nuclear weapon toward an American city or military installation, how much warning time would the US have? It remains unclear, but with the latest North Korean launch, we can be sure that warning time is decreasing and the threat of war is increasing – perhaps in tandem, as North Korean technological prowess grows.

This is the high-anxiety situation that faces the US President, Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is not new.

The North Korean problem evokes the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 (December 8 in Japan). In a few days, the United States will remember those who perished on that fateful day 76 years ago. But beyond the memorials, it is worth examining the situation prior to the war and consider lessons that might relate to today’s problem.

In the 1930s, the US was not the dominant force in the Pacific. Our land forces were small and dispersed, and our naval force was made up mostly of old ships that were no match for Japan’s fleet. As the ‘30s and the Japanese threat progressed, Americans became more – not less – isolationist and willing to turn a blind eye to our westernmost holdings.

Congress and the administration, however, were not. In 1934, Congress passed the Vinson-Trammel Act, providing emergency appropriations to build 65 destroyers, 30 submarines, one aircraft carrier, and six cruisers.  In 1937 and 1938, naval expansion received another boost with additional authorizing legislation, and in 1940 Congress passed the Two-Ocean Navy Act – also known as the 70 Percent Act because it increased the size of the navy by 70%. At the very height of the influence of the isolationist America First Committee, Congress nonetheless approved seven new battleships, 18 aircraft carriers, 29 cruisers, 115 destroyers and 42 new submarines. By then, America was expecting big trouble on two fronts and was ready to get ready. But Congress was late – most of these ships would not come online until 1943.

At present, there is no strong Congressional activity, or any proposal from the administration that would upgrade the design of an area-wide explosive vehicle to knock down enemy missiles
If there is an analogy, it is that the United States can see the missile threat from North Korea rising – as it saw the threat from Japan rising – but has not even reached 1934 in planning to meet it.

The US has not developed defenses that can be considered sufficiently reliable or capable against a multiple North Korean missile launch. The US is heavily invested in hit-to-kill technology, meaning the enemy missile would be destroyed by a high-speed projectile that rams it directly. This compares to an area-wide explosion designed to be used against aircraft, exploding relatively near the threat, releasing hard pellets (often made from tungsten carbide) with explosive force that rip up the incoming aircraft.

The benefit of hit-to-kill is that it would cause less collateral damage than using an area-wide explosion in space. The downside is that hit-to-kill is a largely unproven and possibly inadequate missile defense array that does not cover all possible targets and may not work.

At present, there is no strong Congressional activity, or any proposal from the administration that would upgrade the design of an area-wide explosive vehicle to knock down enemy missiles.

There has long been a debate whether Roosevelt “let” the Pearl Harbor debacle happen to provide him with the political room to declare war on Japan, knowing the Axis would also be obliged to declare war on the United States.

Recent research shows that the US government certainly had a plan to be provocative, definitely had enough intercepts to know an attack was coming, and that one of the targets was Hawaii and Pearl Harbor.  

The admiral in charge of the fleet in Hawaii, RA Husband E. Kimmel, and LTG Walter Short, were held accountable, relieved of duty and demoted in rank on December 16, 1941. 

While there is evidence that important intelligence was not shared with them, it is also true that both failed to prepare Pearl Harbor for a possible attack and did nothing to move ships out of harm’s way, or even man anti-aircraft systems and pay attention to radar scans that showed the Japanese air armada heading for them.

The US cannot afford the same failures when the threat is nuclear.

Because of the shortcoming of missile defense and the fact that North Korea seems unresponsive to persuasion in the form of three aircraft carrier task forces and sorties by B-1 bombers off the North Korean coast, President Trump’s options are bleak: wait for a real North Korean attack with the risk of something far worse than Pearl Harbor, or preempt if preparations look threatening. No matter how you look at it, the threat is circa 1941, while our preparations are stuck in the mid-1930s.

Taking a lesson from history, meanwhile, Hawaii is restarting regular tests of its air raid siren system, last heard from during the Cold War.

Stephen Bryen and Shoshana Bryen co-authored this article. Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center and has more than 30 years experience as a defense policy analyst.

Asia Times is not responsible for the opinions, facts or any media content presented by contributors. In case of abuse, click here to report.