Categories
Audio Review - South Caucasus News

German lawmaker calls for EU sanctions against Azerbaijan


Member of Bundestag Michael Roth fears the exodus of ethnic Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh is not enough and Azerbaijan could again resort to military force to rigorously enforce its interests:

“The EU should now prepare a sanctions package against Azerbaijan, Chairman of the German Bundestag’s Foreign Relations Committee Michael Roth said in a post on X (formerly Twitter).

“The EU must take the lead with the support of France and Germany to find a sustainable diplomatic peace solution,” he said, calling for free access for international observers in Nagorno-Karabakh,” the lawmaker said.

He called for stronger solidarity with Armenia through massive economic support and EU visa liberalization, expansion of the EU mission and increased international presence.


Categories
Audio Review - South Caucasus News

4 850 forcibly displaced persons have entered Armenia from Nagorno Karabakh as of midday


As of September 25, 12:00 pm, 4 850 forcibly displaced persons entered Armenia from Nagorno-Karabakh, the government reports.

The registration of 3 900 people has been completed, the need assessment for 950 is still in process.

The Government provides accommodation to all those, who have no place to live.


Categories
Audio Review - South Caucasus News

Bank CEOs Have Their Heads In The Clouds – OpEd


Bank CEOs Have Their Heads In The Clouds – OpEd

By Douglas French

Bank CEOs always have their heads in the clouds. First, pessimists never earn a seat in the corner office. Plus, it takes a good-sized ego to climb to the top of a bank bureaucracy. A person running a bank believes they can sail the ship through any stormy economic weather.

Take John Allison. He’s the chairman of a bank holding company, Home BancShares. He told the Wall Street Journal about a time when the regulator of Home BancShares, the Federal Reserve, was badgering him to slow down on real-estate lending in 2019. “They’re telling us the construction lending space is going to blow up . . . and the world is coming to an end,” Allison recalled. “And I said, ‘You know what? I don’t see it.’”

A CEO I worked for was pithier when the regulators sang the same tune about his bank’s growth. “What do you want me to do, close at noon?” he said. A decade later his bank failed.

Mr. Allison’s Home BancShares is the holding company to Centennial Bank, based in Conway, Arkansas, which is a “big funder of developers building luxury skyscrapers in New York and Miami. Construction loans are among the riskiest types of real-estate lending,” report Shane Shifflett and Konrad Putzier for the Wall Street Journal. “If the big, bad wolf shows up it will hurt a lot of banks, but it won’t hurt Home BancShares,” Allison said in a recent interview.

It’s hard to imagine a bank in Conway funding big deals, or at least pieces of big deals on tall buildings in places like New York and Miami. But how much loan business can there be in Conway? And you can tell from Allison’s quotes that he’s a guy who wants to grow his business, so his bank went where the loans were. This isn’t It’s a Wonderful Life, and Allison isn’t George Bailey.

Shifflett and Putzier tell us banks smaller than $250 billion in assets held about 75 percent of all commercial real-estate loans as of the just completed second quarter of this year. These banks (like Allison’s) accounted for nearly $758 billion of commercial real-estate lending since 2015, or about three-quarters of the total increase during that period. That loan volume pushed up commercial real estate prices by 43 percent from 2015 to 2022, according to real-estate firm Green Street.

While Mr. Allison figures his bank is bulletproof, commercial property sales in July were down 74 percent from a year earlier, and sales of downtown office buildings hit the lowest level in at least two decades, according to MSCI Real Assets. “When deal volume picks up, deals will be made at far lower prices, which will shock banks,” said Michael Comparato, head of commercial real estate at Benefit Street Partners, a debt-focused asset manager. “It’s going to be really nasty,” he told the Wall Street Journal.

And then there’s coming maturities. Each of the next five years has $400 billion to $500 billion in loans coming due, with many of these projects being uneconomic (or underwater) at current interest rates, not to mention higher rates.

Of course, Mr. Allison may not be aware of, or refuses to believe, this bad news because real estate developers are as optimistic as bank CEOs, or more so. The developer tells his loan officer everything is going to be okay and talks about leases that will never be signed and other rose-colored vignettes. The loan officer relays to his or her department manager the happy news, which trickles up to the bank CEO who wants to believe everything he or she touches will turn to gold. No big, bad wolf is gonna blow CEO Allison’s bank door down.

But as Murray Rothbard wrote in the Mystery of Banking, “Fractional reserve bank credit expansion is always shaky, for the more extensive its inflationary creation of new money, the more likely it will be to suffer contraction and subsequent deflation.”

A bank’s loans may be on big, tall buildings, but fractional reserves make any bank a house of cards.

About the author: Douglas French is President Emeritus of the Mises Institute, author of Early Speculative Bubbles & Increases in the Money Supply, and author of Walk Away: The Rise and Fall of the Home-Ownership Myth. He received his master’s degree in economics from UNLV, studying under both Professor Murray Rothbard and Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Source: This article was published by the Mises Institute


Categories
Audio Review - South Caucasus News

Of Moats And Search Engines: The DOJ’s Coercive Case Against Google – OpEd


Of Moats And Search Engines: The DOJ’s Coercive Case Against Google – OpEd

By Kimberlee Josephson

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has officially taken Google to court. This trial, initiated under the Trump administration and now being brought to fruition via Biden’s bidding, is poised to be one of the biggest antitrust cases in history – and all business owners should be concerned.

According to prosecutors, Google has entrenched itself as the dominant search engine, which many of us would say isn’t an accusation but rather a cold hard fact, and a good one at that. Any entrepreneur, business educator, or admirer of Warren Buffett knows that economic moats matter and Google’s gully is quite a feat.

The concept of an economic moat gained prominence when Buffett noted in a 1999 interview that companies worth investing in are those with a safeguarded competitive advantage. Essentially, firms should be proactive in protecting their profits, sustaining market share, and keeping any potential rivals at a distance. And for Google search, the fortress has been secured.

Google.com is the most-visited website in the world and has upwards of 90 percent of search engine market share. History, however, has proven that even the mightiest of kingdoms aren’t devoid of vulnerabilities and, given the dynamism of market mechanisms, economic moats are hard to hold on to. Just ask AOL, TimeWarner, Compaq, AltaVista, Napster, or Netscape. For Google, developments in AI and AI assistants may make the need for search engine sites soon obsolete.

Google is well aware that it is at the mercy of consumers given the many flops and failures it has had over the years. Google Wave, Google Hangouts, Google Buzz, and Google + are just a few examples of Google initiatives that were rejected by the marketplace for simply not being good enough.

Nevertheless, the FTC, for some unknown reason, feels the time is now to go to battle with Google. And the fight, via court filings, will be a cost borne by all through tax payer dollars.

Forget the fact that the Google brand serves as a verb in our daily lives, and that the ability to just “Google it” has enabled advancement in a variety of ways. The benefits of accessibility and the impressive capabilities of Google search are being sidelined for criticizing the status it has achieved since launching in September of 1998. If only the founders knew that in just 25 years their success would be met with government scorn.

Google conveys its mission as being “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” – and it has. Google search has proved itself as both efficient and effective thanks to the superiority of its algorithms and its marketing savvy. Small business owners are better off for Google’s accuracy when people need to find a plumber or florist “near me.” Parents desperate to know the hours and location for the closest urgent care facility when their child needs medical attention can feel confident in fast and precise results derived from a Google search. And it should be pointed out that Google’s algorithms are reliant on our queries, and search success is dependent on the relevance of the results. Essentially, we all fed the beast.

If the performance of Google search were to become subpar, consumers could and would switch to Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, or Startpage. And soon, search engines powered by AI, such as You.com, or privacy protected search sites, like Brave, may result in users switching sooner rather than later. The DOJ could simply take a step back and wait to see what the future holds, particularly given that the government is not known for either efficiency or effectiveness in anything it does.

All of this is not to say that Google is not without fault when it comes to consumer issues or data concerns, but that is not what seems to be the main premise of the DOJ’s case. In fact, one of the DOJ’s main criticisms is how Google established itself early on as the default search engine for Apple and Android products, yet doing so was simply shrewd business strategy. Anyone with the opportunity to do so would have done the same.

To put this in perspective, here’s a sample illustration:

Let’s say different hotel chains were approached by the Lindt Chocolate company and received compensation for featuring Lindt’s Lindor truffles in each hotel room. Patrons of the hotel receive a free product which they can enjoy or discard as they see fit; the hotel receives revenue for improving the in-room customer experience; and Lindt, despite already being known as the best brand choice for chocolate across the globe, sees its brand equity and economic moat further secured.

In this fictitious scenario, the situation is unfortunate for other chocolatiers who are unable to outbid Lindt’s hotel contracts, but perhaps there are other opportunities outside of the hotel sector that they could capitalize on instead. Hershey’s chocolate, for example, will dominate when it comes to campsites rather than hotel rooms given that nothing beats a Hershey bar on a s’more. And Hershey’s partnering with marshmallow makers and graham cracker companies helps secure its status as king of campfire treats.

This situation is what Google is being berated for. Google is the best search engine in the world, and it paid to have its site featured as the default option for consumers. This not only benefited Google, but also Apple and Android customers. We live in a market that demands frictionless products, and when we turn on a new smart device, we want it to be preloaded with all the best options and features – and if Google is the best, then that should be the default. In fact, it would be odd for products to feature subpar defaults or no default at all.

Returning to the chocolate example, if hotel patrons were ever to complain about the chocolates, or if the desire for healthier snacks were to become trendy options for hotel chains, Lindt might find its position compromised or even rejected. And the same is true for Google. Search may not always need to be done via a search engine site, and new smart technology may no longer feature defaults for Google, or any of the other existing search engines for that matter – making the DOJ’s case a complete waste of time, effort, and expense.  

Given that I have previously written on why supposed monopolies, like Google, can actually be of benefit to society, why government interference in business matters can create opportunity costs for consumers and for companies, and why antitrust is anti-progress when it comes to bullying Big Tech, I leave you with this question to consider. When industry leaders become whipping boys for political pundits, and government dictates determine the standards and practices to adhere to, what will become of the ability for small producers to have a say in their operations management and the seizing of competitive advantages? Companies in a market economy amass wealth via value creation through voluntary exchange, but politicians amass power via subjugation through enabling and emboldening a command economy. Consider carefully which beast is worth feeding. 

About the author: Dr. Kimberlee Josephson is an associate professor of business at Lebanon Valley College and serves as an adjunct research fellow with the Consumer Choice Center. She teaches courses on global sustainability, international marketing, and workplace diversity; and her research and op-eds have appeared in various outlets.

Source: This article was published by AIER


Categories
Audio Review - South Caucasus News

Canada-India: Nijjar Affair Poses An Existential Dilemma – OpEd


Canada-India: Nijjar Affair Poses An Existential Dilemma – OpEd

The raging controversy over alleged involvement of the Indian government in the killing of Sikh plumber-cum-religious activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in faraway Canada is snowballing. Sensing that our elites are ultra-sensitive about western criticism, Canada, with firm American backing, is rapidly widening the gyre of the controversy in a spiral that expands outward as it goes up.

The three new elements that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau introduced during his riveting press conference on the margins of the UN General Assembly session in New York on Thursday dominated by the ramifications of Nijjar’s killing, are: 

  • one, he has dragged the Indian prime minister into the eye of the storm by referring to his “direct and frank conversation” with Modi;
  • two, his assertion that Canada is “standing up for the rules-based order”; and, 
  • three, the analogical reasoning that Trudeau introduced (for the first time) on finding a common relational system between India’s alleged violation of Canada’s sovereignty under international law and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Trudeau has left much food for thought. Principally, Ottawa and Washington are acknowledging publicly that they are moving in tandem. (Of late, Trudeau has neatly slipped into the shoes of Boris Johnson as the strongest advocate of the US’ proxy war in Ukraine.)

Not only that, the US envoy in Ottawa David Cohen has since disclosed that “shared intelligence among Five Eyes partners” prompted Trudeau’s offensive allegation last Monday about Indian agents’ involvement in the killing of Nijjar. 

Cohen added: “There was a lot of communication between Canada and the United States about this… We have been consulting throughout very closely with our Canadian colleagues — and not just consulting, coordinating with them — on this issue. And from our perspective, it is critical that the Canadian investigation proceed, and it would be important that India work with the Canadians on this investigation. We want to see accountability, and it’s important that the investigation run its course and lead to that result.”

We should carefully weigh the implications of the calibrated remarks by the White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken on successive days following Trudeau’s press conference.  

One significant aspect of Sullivan’s press conference was that he was asked to comment on Modi government’s approach to the Nijjar case being of a kind with recent Indian policies, viz., that Delhi is challenging America’s vital interests — “economic aggression… they [Modi government] made a deal with 18 countries to not use dollars to trade… India has — is on a U.S. watchlist for intellectual property theft of US companies. India has been — is part of BRICS.” 

Sullivan responded that “where we have concerns with India, whether it comes to issues related to the very watchlist that you’re describing or otherwise, we make those concerns clear. And we defend US interests, as we do with every country in the world.

“Now, India is not Russia, and China has its own set of challenges that we deal with in its own context. So, of course, there is going to be differences in how we deal with countries one by one.

“But the idea — the North Star of this administration is: If you represent a threat to the American people’s security, prosperity, or basic sense of fairness, we will take action to defend that. I think our record on that — across multiple countries … is quite clear… Regardless of the country, we will stand up and defend our basic principles. And we will also consult closely with allies like Canada as they pursue their law enforcement and diplomatic process.” 

Simply put, the Biden Administration is indeed taking a holistic view of the Modi government’s foreign policy. 

Blinken also confirmed that the US is “coordinating” with Canada and sought “accountability,” while stressing that “it’s important that the investigation run its course and lead to that result.” Interestingly, Blinken called this a case of “transnational repression” which is something the US takes “very, very seriously,” and also concerns the “international system”.

Blinken was speaking after a meeting earlier in the day in New York with his QUAD counterparts, including External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar. This becomes important for two reasons. First, there is a (self-serving) misconception among Indians generally that given the US’ keenness to get India on board its Indo-Pacific bandwagon, Washington will not displease India, which, in turn, would isolate Canada. Thus, our cheerleaders have been hammering away at Canada. 

On the contrary, what the Biden Administration has now done is to ensure that the entire Five Eyes security alliance — Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the US — is on the same page with Trudeau. This is a harsh message and highly consequential. 

Second, Blinken’s press conference followed his “candid and constructive discussions with China’s Vice President Han Zheng – showing that we [US and China] will continue to seek ways to work together on issues where progress demands our common efforts, while managing our competition responsibly.” 

Evidently, Delhi’s simplistic assumption that the US regards India as “counterweight” to China, blah, blah, is a deeply flawed estimation of big power politics, bordering on naiveté, albeit encouraged by the Western commentators. The naiveté reached its apogee in our clumsy move to appease Washington by inviting Biden as the chief guest at the Republic Day celebrations in January, and on holding a QUAD summit in Delhi at the same time as the icing on the cake! 

We cannot be anymore dumb-witted than that. The Biden Administration is nowadays courting China with a view to get President Xi Jinping to visit the US and agree to a summit meeting with Biden, which the latter is keenly seeking with an eye on the November 2024 election.

It’s a desperate attempt to get China to persuade Russia to agree to a dialogue process in Ukraine so as to stave off the military defeat of NATO during its 75th anniversary celebrations in July next year in Washington, which the White House is choreographing as a triumphal moment for the Biden presidency’s transatlantic leadership. 

All in all, the Nijjar affair takes the lid off the acute contradictions in India’s foreign policies. The assumptions driving the foreign policy’s China-centric thrust turn out to be delusional; the “westernist” trajectory has landed in a cul-de-sac; the assiduously propagated larger-than-life global image of India turns out to be a mirage; foreign policy built on personality cult and opportunism rather than rational and consistent principles attuned to the world in transition got battered; and, most important, the hubris in India’s diplomacy boomeranged. 

The Nijjar affair poses an existential dilemma. Surrendering to the US  diktat will make India look a surrogate state and a laughing stock in the Global South. Indians won’t approve of it. 

On the contrary, ignoring the diktat will be hugely consequential. Make no mistake, Five Eyes had a gory history against the Soviet Union; in the post-cold war era, it all but destabilised Hong Kong, and is today an active player in Myanmar and Thailand in India’s neighbourhood. Its entry in the subcontinent is ominous.

In a week’s time already, what appeared to be an investigation into a murder case has got entangled with the “rules-based order” and the working of the “international system” — and the BRICS. That is a dramatic escalation signalling  discontent with the government. 

In effect, what the US expects by “accountability” is nothing less than a dismantling of the national security state that India transformed into through the past 9-year period. 

This article was published at Indian Punchline


Categories
Audio Review - South Caucasus News

Ottawa’s Folly: A Travesty Of Statecraft – Analysis


Ottawa’s Folly: A Travesty Of Statecraft – Analysis

By Vivek Mishra

There has been a consistently malicious pattern in Canadian domestic politics that has now spilt over uncontrollably to impact its relationship with India, primarily due to the incubation, political patronage and deliberate denial of such activities in Ottawa. This has been particularly characteristic of the Liberal Party in Canada.

Probably, the strongest diaspora connect between any two countries in the world, which otherwise could have been used for building a cultural and economic bridge, is now being withered away for immediate domestic political sustenance and future gains. This diaspora in Canada, though diverse, includes a section that identifies with the anti-India Khalistan movement. With political support behind them from the very top, various factions of the Khalistan movement have now found a political foothold and the agency to voice their concerns against India while mobilising funds and human resources, often with substantial organisational and institutional support, a phenomenon hitherto unseen in the Canadian domestic landscape.

The influence of this evolving Canadian political landscape has manifested in various ways even outside Canada. Notably, pro-Khalistan groups across different countries such as the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Australia have now surfaced by means of political assertion. The two most prominent groups include the “Sikhs for Justice” and the “Khalistan Tiger Force” both of which have a strong presence in Canada. What is notable is that there has been an uptick in the pattern of funding, institutional support, and mobilisation. Regular referendums held in support of the secession of an imaginary Khalistan also point toward a certain degree of state complicity in Canada.

Justin Trudeau’s political survival is also closely tied to the support of the New Democratic Party (NDP)—led by Jagmeet Singh, which adds a layer of complexity to the situation. Given the delicate political margin that Trudeau’s Liberal Party holds over the Conservative Party since the last election, maintaining this support is crucial for Trudeau’s political future.

It’s not surprising that the New Democratic Party (NDP) of Canada has openly supported Khalistan elements, as have elements within the Liberal Party. While this political manoeuvring may serve certain domestic interests, it does no good to Canada’s relations with India. The growth of anti-India activities is closely linked to increasing financial mobilisation, facilitated by individuals like Hardeep Singh Nijjar using dubious financial structures and institutions, often operating without proper oversight and audit. This situation makes it challenging to control the agendas and motivations of these groups.

The current crisis between Canada and India over the alleged involvement of India in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a known Khalistani element, has highlighted a few critical aspects which go beyond just the threats to India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Firstly, it has underscored the shortcomings of Canada’s immigration system, allowing individuals with controversial backgrounds to become citizens and exploit that status to target other countries. This poses a significant challenge to maintaining strong bilateral relationships in today’s interconnected world.

Secondly, Canada’s stand on the current issue is seeking to legitimise and even normalise the fact that it is the state’s discretion to give secessionist space to elements from outside in the garb of preventing the core values of liberal democracy. In this regard, Ottawa should wait for its own province of Quebec to catch up on the list of strong domestic political agendas inside Canada. The rise of the Bloc Québécois, a party seeking the largely French speaking province Quebec’s sovereignty, is worth noting which is akin to a subdued form of national secessionism in Canada’s own backyard. Imagine if India allowed a group supporting a provincial secession in Canada. Such a scenario would not be conducive to maintaining positive bilateral relations. On the contrary, India has prioritised external relations over narrow domestic political gains, even with China in the past.

Furthermore, these anti-India activities, justified under the banner of freedom of expression, are, in reality, a distortion of this fundamental democratic principle. Freedom of expression, while important, comes with the caveat of a certain degree of reasonableness in most democracies, which inherently include safeguards to ensure that unfounded and escalatory rhetoric does not harm the nation’s internal cohesion and external relations. It is for the leaders to show statecraft when exercising these powers bestowed in democracies.

The ongoing tension between India and Canada underscores that the stability of seemingly strong and stable ties in international relations are often only poised on the balance of delicate and sensitive issues in bilateral relationships. It is the leadership and statecraft which is obligated to maintain poise and yet convey own deepest concerns to the other party in a way which doesn’t disturb the equilibrium. Clearly, the opposite was on display even as the Canadian Prime Minister put the horse before the cart in deciding to not just allege the involvement of India in Nijjar’s assassination but also evicting an Indian diplomat. If anything, it should have been India taking pre-emptive steps to close its embassies and consular offices and leave Canada when its diplomats across Canada, UK, and the US faced death threats. India acted with the necessary poise.

It is surprising that Trudeau’s political decisions seems wanting of a lesson in traditional statecraft, despite a generational advantage over others in his country in state leadership—his father Pierre Trudeau having served as the prime minister of Canada between 1968 to 1979 and from 1980 to 1984. As Harold Nicolson has pointed that statecraft needs more than just diplomacy. It combines construction of strategies with their implementation to secure national interests. In one fell swoop, Trudeau exposed himself as severely lacking of these qualities.

Finally, the bilateral crisis with Ottawa poses a test for India’s diplomacy as well. Expelling diplomats by Justin Trudeau was an unfortunate move that necessitated a response from India. While these extraordinary circumstances challenge India’s decision-making, New Delhi should take it in its stride. As India grows in economic power and political influence; the fractures of the current world order becomes more gaping and the path to hedging becomes narrower than before, the frequency of these tricky decisions which push the notional boundaries of India as a ‘soft state’ is likely to grow.


About the author: Vivek Mishra is a Fellow with the Strategic Studies Programme at the Observer Research Foundation


Categories
Audio Review - South Caucasus News

ASEAN’s First Joint Military Exercise: Upholding AIOP Vision For Peaceful And Prosperous Indo-Pacific Region – Analysis


ASEAN’s First Joint Military Exercise: Upholding AIOP Vision For Peaceful And Prosperous Indo-Pacific Region – Analysis

The first ASEAN joint military exercise of 2023 has taken place in the North Natuna Sea, the southernmost waters of the South China Sea, off the coast of Indonesia. The exercise did not involve any combat operations training and focused on maritime security, disaster response, and rescue operations.

The exercise involved all 10 ASEAN member states, which are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. In addition, Timor-Leste, which recently applied to join the Southeast Asian bloc, also participated in the exercise. This is the first joint military drill that ASEAN has conducted on its own, without any external partners. The purpose of the exercise was to strengthen “ASEAN centrality” and demonstrate the bloc’s unity and solidarity in the face of rising tensions and challenges in the region.

The ASEAN joint military exercise in the South China Sea is a way of upholding ASEAN’s AIOP. The AIOP is a document that outlines ASEAN’s vision and principles for promoting peace, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region, which encompasses both the Asia-Pacific and the Indian Ocean regions. The AIOP identifies four key areas of cooperation: maritime cooperation, connectivity, sustainable development, and economic cooperation.

The ASEAN joint military exercise is aligned with the first area of maritime cooperation, which aims to enhance maritime security, safety, and freedom of navigation and overflight, as well as to address common challenges such as piracy, terrorism, illegal fishing, marine pollution, and climate change. The exercise has focused on maritime security, disaster response, and rescue operations, which are essential for ensuring the safety and well-being of the people and the environment in the region. This shows ASEAN’s openness, inclusivity, and willingness to engage with external partners on common interests and challenges.

The ASEAN joint military exercise is also consistent with the second area of connectivity, which aims to enhance physical, institutional, and people-to-people connectivity among ASEAN member states and with other regions. The exercise would enhance the interoperability and coordination among the ASEAN armed forces and foster mutual trust and confidence among them. The exercise will also strengthen the existing ASEAN-led mechanisms and platforms for security cooperation, such as ADMM-Plus and the EAMF.

The ASEAN joint military exercise is also supportive of the third area of sustainable development, which aims to promote social development and environmental protection. The exercise will enhance the capacity and readiness of the ASEAN armed forces to respond to natural disasters and humanitarian crises in the region, which are becoming more frequent and severe due to climate change.

The ASEAN joint military exercise is also relevant to the fourth area of economic cooperation, which aims to promote trade, investment, innovation, and the digital economy among ASEAN member states. The exercise will contribute to maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea, which is a vital sea lane for global trade. The exercise will also create opportunities for economic collaboration among the participants in areas such as the defense industry, maritime infrastructure, logistics, tourism, and education.

The ASEAN joint military exercise in the South China Sea is a message to China that the Southeast Asian countries are united and determined to uphold their sovereignty and rights in the disputed waters. The rising tensions and challenges in the South China Sea, where China has been asserting its claims and conducting unilateral actions that violate the sovereignty and rights of other claimant states, such as Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei, these actions include the creation and militarization of artificial islands, the imposition of a fishing ban, oil exploration activities, and the enactment of a new Coast Guard law that authorizes the use of force.

ASEAN has been calling for the peaceful resolution of disputes by international law, especially the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the early conclusion of an effective and substantive Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.

Also, transnational crimes and non-traditional threats have affected the security and well-being of the people in the region, such as piracy, terrorism, insurgency, human trafficking, undocumented migration, illegal fishing, environmental degradation, climate change, natural disasters, and pandemics. ASEAN has been enhancing its cooperation and coordination on these issues through various mechanisms and initiatives, such as the ASEAN Centre for Combating Transnational Crime, the Malacca Straits Security Initiative, the Regional Agreement on Cooperation Against Armed Piracy, the ASEAN Maritime Forum, and the Expanded ASEAN Maritime Forum. ASEAN has also sought to engage with external partners and stakeholders to address these common challenges.

The exercise also shows that ASEAN is capable of conducting its security cooperation without relying on external powers, such as the United States, which China views as a threat to its interests. The exercise is a way of demonstrating ASEAN’s centrality and solidarity in the face of rising tensions and challenges in the region. However, the exercise is not intended to provoke or antagonize China but rather to enhance mutual trust and confidence among ASEAN members and with China. This is part of a larger initiative called Aman Youyi (Peace and Friendship), which aims to foster cooperation and dialogue between China and ASEAN on non-traditional security issues.

Nevertheless, the exercise was announced three weeks after Beijing released a new map including Taiwan and practically the entire South China Sea. However, Southeast Asian countries and Taiwan rejected the map. ASEAN does not want to be seen as siding with either China or the United States, which have been engaged in a strategic rivalry in the Indo-Pacific region. Therefore, the ASEAN joint military exercise is a message that ASEAN values its autonomy and independence but also seeks constructive engagement. It is a message that ASEAN hopes to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea through dialogue and adherence to international law.

In conclusion, the ASEAN joint military exercise is a significant step towards realizing the AIOP’s vision and principles for a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region. The exercise is a manifestation of ASEAN’s centrality, unity, solidarity, autonomy, independence, complementarity, and cooperation in shaping the regional security order.


Categories
Audio Review - South Caucasus News

Dispatch – September 24: Family Value Crises


Several weeks ago, the EU Enlargement Commissioner told Georgians that “every minute counts.” Mr. Várhelyi tried to incite Georgians to do their best as the final weeks ahead of the EU’s second decision on candidacy kicked in. But in their post-vacation hangover, Georgians have taken the commissioner’s words to heart and turned every minute of the past month into a fresh, unmitigated disaster. Some would say, “The election campaign chaos starts earlier each time, doesn’t it?!” Others would (again) warn that the end is nigh. And they will have a point – all the usual signs of the apocalypse are there: the security agency, our ever-fallible Pythia, foretold the coup. The National Bank was dismembered (literally), and the government and the president exchanged notes of impeachment with a blissful abandon of Christmas Cards. The earthquake even struck to complete the impending drama of the rapture.

But let us hold off the irony, even if this is hard to do in the present climate. The turmoil left many of our citizens fearing the repeat of their worst-lived nightmare – the banking system collapse and currency crisis of the 1990s, bringing back the images of misery. But while the Georgian Lari is still struggling, the inflation is not yet galloping (thank you, Russian immigrants!). Yet, something else lost value in the meantime, a currency on which the government has heavily relied in its trade with the country’s fate. That currency is Family, with that politically capital F.


Here is Dispatch and Nini, talking about family values and the high price the country has to pay for them. Subscribe to Civil.ge newsletters here.


Family, Devalued

The concept of the family has long been the favorite sanctuary of the Georgian Dream government. Corruption scandals? Well, who wouldn’t favor their family members?! Harassments and physical attacks? What else to expect when someone disrespects their (or their patron’s) family? Flawed reforms? But the families are doing better. West-bashing?! It’s to protect from Western-imposed degradation of families.

There was always a charming family trait to fall back on for each controversy and every flaw. Everything was fine, and every sin was forgivable as long as the family’s honor was protected, a woman was a mother, a man was a father, and none of that new-fangled gender business.

The line held until the Georgian Prime Minister took his family to a place so distant that the rest couldn’t follow anymore. In its decade-long rule, the ruling Georgian Dream party survived so many corruption scandals that it appeared to become immune. But then the reports about Irakli Garibashvili’s private flight broke, and things changed.

Early in September, official sources confirmed that Garibashvili’s father had paid a wad of cash (34 thousand Euros) for the prime minister to fly his adult son on a government plane to the U.S. for the start of his term at UPenn. More precisely, the Garibashvili family must have used the plane to reach Munich, from which they continued their onward journey to the land of the free on a regular commercial flight.

The news drew much rage and many questions. How could Garibashvili’s father’s pension, or PM’s modest official salary, ever pay for such a luxury? That was merely a rhetorical question – the wealth of the prime minister’s close circle has long been no secret, and sources of his fortune have often been scrutinized. The new question here was the “why” question. WHY would he want to do such a thing in the first place? No answer that came to mind was good in the ethical sense of this word.

And there were, of course, follow-up questions: how many immediate problems an average Georgian would solve if they also had EUR 34K lying around? Or how many years of hard work would it take them in this country to save enough for the Garibashvili family’s extravagant private trip?

Even Garibashvili’s supporters wouldn’t escape such questions. After all, they also live in a country where ever more outlandish stories circulate about people taking incredible risks to reach the U.S. illegally and stay in the hope of generating some cash for their families. And who could judge those escapees when many who stayed in the country can barely afford to send their kids to modest local universities, let alone fly them privately to a fancy American college?

Silence is golden…

The ruling party must have felt something was off in how people (perhaps their own family members?!) reacted. But they made things worse in a clumsy effort to manage the damage. First came tone-deaf defenses from Garibashvili’s similarly well-off allies. “They’ve been working their whole lives, not freeloading,” MP Beka Odisharia said as he tried to explain the wealth of PM’s family. “He’s a prime minister, or do you think he’s some factory worker?” Tamaz Gaiashvili, the controversial boss of Georgian Airways, the flag carrier that operated the scandalous flight, jumped in Garibashvili’s defense. (Perhaps forgetting – somewhat too carelessly – that the big boss Bidzina Ivanishvili started as a factory worker…)

Then came a massive crackdown on drug dealers, the Georgian government’s standard operating procedure whenever it tries to salvage its reputation. Garibashvili tried to make further amends by unveiling long overdue social initiatives, including student-oriented ones. And when the internal polls did not improve, the party stuck to the tried-and-tested strategy of arguing that ex-president Saakashvili did worse things.

Saakashvili, whose rumored overindulgence in earthy pleasures has continued to live both in urban legends and prosecution files, is an easy target. But again, the tactic backfired: the ruling party only ended up identifying themselves with someone whose similar practices cost him both his career and freedom – and rightly so, as many Georgian Dream’s hardcore supporters would agree.

Dangerous liaisons

Family ties once (almost) cost Garibashvili his career before. When he abruptly quit as PM back in 2015, his own mentor and the country’s informal ruler, Bidzina Ivanishvili, recalled warning the young padawan that “his relatives would become a problem.” Ivanishvili pointed transparently to mounting allegations of nepotism in favor of his father-in-law at the time. For a moment, it felt that history might be repeating itself.

And history did repeat itself, but this time as a different kind of farce: now Ivanishvili’s relations became a problem – and a much bigger problem. Just as Garibashvili struggled to rectify his reputation, the United States sanctioned Otar Partskhaladze, a former prosecutor general and Ivanishvili family’s close associate, for allegedly trying to influence Georgian society on Moscow’s behalf. 

Partskhaladze, who allegedly had a banal robbery run-in with the German justice in his younger years, became a shadowy fixer of the GD government and, having burned himself during the sole attempt to bring him into the limelight, featured in every kind of possible violent political scandal. He then found a new homeland in Russia and – journalists suspected – acted as a facilitator and a go-between for those wealthy Russians who wanted to evacuate some of their capital. The U.S. Treasury – arguably the authority on such matters – had just confirmed those suspicions. The shadowy man, with a physiognomy that does not precisely identify him as an altar boy, hardly has any fans in Georgia. Even fewer people are willing to sacrifice their financial well-being for him. Yet this is what the GD (or Ivanishvili personally?!) expects the country to do.

To spare him the sanctions, the National Bank – now seemingly under the ruling party’s thumb – went above and beyond to tailor the rules to him – just like one does for getting the family member out of trouble. Four high-ranking bank officials resigned in protest, and the hullabaloo dynamited confidence in the Georgian banking system – one of Georgia’s most stable institutional sectors. Some fear that if the National Bank forces the commercial banks to shield Partskhaladze, they are at risk of being sanctioned too. And the U.S. seems to confirm that view. The exchange of the Georgian Lari slid, and the National Bank had to burn reserves (USD 56 million) to prevent the rout.

The craze continues, with new layers and puzzles added to it every day. The stress is far from over. And the “why” question, too, remains: with every passing week, it gets harder to make sense of shocks, sacrifices, and losses that could have been avoided, that seem to be made solely to save Partskhaladze and shield “the family.” And thus, the concept that the ruling party keeps obsessing about slowly turns from a unifying concept of the Family, into an exclusive and alienating one of “la famiglia.”

Perhaps, sooner or later, more Georgians will realize that family and family values could indeed stand in the way of their aspired future with the EU and their future in general. But not their own families, and not their values, either.


Categories
Audio Review - South Caucasus News

All citizens willing to move to Armenia will have the opportunity – Artsakh InfoCenter


All citizens willing to move from Artsakh to Armenia will have the opportunity, Artsakh’s InfoCenter says.

According to the agreement reached, there are no deadlines for relocation, but privelege is given to those who have been displaced from their homes as a result of mitary operations.

The authorities of Artsakh will continue to remain in place and carry out state administration until they fully ensure the transfer of citizens who wish to travel to Armenia.

The InfoCenter says heavy traffic on Stepanakert-Goris highway make it possible to organize the transportation of seriously injured people, the import of necessary medical supplies and humanitarian goods.

People are therefore urged to refrain from violence and disorder.


Categories
Audio Review - South Caucasus News

France’s Macron accuses Baku of threatening Armenian borders


France is keeping a close eye on the territorial integrity of Armenia after Azerbaijan’s offensive to take full control of Nagorno-Karabakh, President Emmanuel Macron said Sunday, accusing Baku of “threatening” Armenian borders, AFP reports.

“France is right now very vigilant concerning the territorial integrity of Armenia. Because that’s what’s at stake,” Macron said in a televised interview, adding that Russia was now “complicit” with Baku and Azerbaijan is now “threatening the border of Armenia.”