text:
ASEAN's Failing Grade in the South China Sea
Ian Storey , ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute
LIST NEXT
Since around 2008, a worrying disconnect has been readily apparent in the South China Sea. On the one hand, competing claims to ownership of disputed atolls and their adjacent maritime space has led to growing discord between China and several countries in Southeast Asia, especially Vietnam and the Philippines, and propelled the problem to the top of Southeast Asia's security agenda. In the past two years alone, China's assertive—some would say coercive or even aggressive— actions in the South China Sea have raised tensions to their highest point since the dispute first emerged as a major regional security issue in the late 1980s. In 2014, Beijing's decision to plonk down a billion dollar drilling platform, Haiyang Shiyou 981 (HYSY-981), into Vietnam's claimed 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) triggered a severe crisis in bilateral relations, one which resulted in hundreds of dangerous skirmishes between the Chinese and Vietnamese coast guards, and anti-China riots in Vietnam that resulted in several fatalities. In 2015, detailed satellite imagery made regional states sit up and realize that the massive artificial island building in which China has been engaged in the Spratly Islands since late 2013 could eventually allow it to assert dominance in the very heart of maritime Southeast Asia. Yet, the ten-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which is often cast as the arbiter, or at least the moderator, of regional security has failed to substantively engage China on the problem and get it to agree to a set of concrete measures that would roll back interstate tensions.
Tensions in the South China Sea are serious but have not brought the countries in dispute to the brink of war (though the risk that one of the growing number of "incidents at sea" could blow-up into a bloody confrontation should give regional leaders pause for thought). Nor has increasing friction among the various parties hampered the huge volume of maritime traffic that flows through the South China Sea and which lubricates the global economy. Yet, the failure of ASEAN and China to arrest and turn about the deteriorating situation in the South China Sea has created a set of acute problems. First and foremost, it fuels enmity between China and the Southeast Asian claimants (who do not, as a general rule, squabble among themselves despite overlapping claims) as well as contention between China and the other major powers, especially the United States and Japan, which feel that China's assertiveness undermines their national interests, including freedom of navigation. Indeed, it may not be an exaggeration to state that the South China Sea has quickly become the locus of geostrategic rivalry between Washington and Beijing. Second, and related, rising tensions among the principal players, and the lack of progress toward a resolution, generates nervousness, apprehension, and uncertainty about where the region is headed, and this, in turn, creates arms build-ups and security dilemmas. Third, the worsening dispute undermines ASEAN's aspiration to retain centrality in the regional security architecture it has played the leading role in creating since the end of the Cold War.
Why has the two-decade long "conflict management" process between ASEAN and China in the South China Sea yielded such meager returns? The answer is due to a combination of ASEAN's internal dynamics, and the growing conviction in China that its territorial and jurisdictional claims are superior to those of its neighbors, and that its birth right is to protect and advance them.
Flawed Declaration, Uncertain Code
The 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DoC) was meant to prevent precisely the situation in which we find ourselves today. Signed with much fanfare, and hailed at the time as a major breakthrough in the long-running dispute, the DoC shows parties pledging to promote "good neighbourliness and mutual trust" so as to create a "peaceful, friendly and harmonious environment in the South China Sea."1 Yet, the agreement was fundamentally flawed. Due to objections from China (and Malaysia), the DoC was non-binding and, therefore, included no enforcement or dispute resolution mechanisms, and no sanctions against those deemed to have violated its provisions. It also excluded one of the six claimants, Taiwan. The language of its provisions was too vague, especially Article 5 which called for the signatories to "exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability." Tensions in the South China Sea did drop significantly in the early 2000s, but the DoC was essentially a product of the prevailing climate of cooperation engendered by China's regional "charm offensive" rather than a catalyst for it. When tensions began to escalate in the late 2000s, it proved singularly unsuited to driving them down.
Since then, as competition among the claimants to advance their claims has intensified—through national legislation, submissions to international bodies such as the United Nations, and attempts to enforce administrative control on or around the occupied atolls—the DoC has been disregarded and contravened to the point where the current ASEAN Secretary General Le Luong Minh has bemoaned, "We are seeing a widening gap between the political commitments and the actual actions, the real situation at sea."2 All of the claimants—with the possible exception of Brunei which plays a very low-key role in the dispute—have accused each other of violating the agreement, especially the self-restraint clause. But as the DoC does not define what self-restraint actually entails, almost any action undertaken by one of the claimants in the South China Sea could be interpreted as an infringement of Article 5, whether it involves a physical act at sea or a political gambit. Thus, China has fumed that the Philippines decision in January 2013 to seek legal arbitration over the two countries competing jurisdictional (but not sovereignty) claims at the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) violates the DoC because under Article 4 the parties undertake to resolve their disputes peacefully "through friendly consultations and negotiations by the sovereign states directly concerned"—in China's view, the Philippines' action is an unfriendly act, and ITLOS is not a direct party to the dispute. The Philippines, however, maintains that bilateral discussions over the past two decades have led nowhere, and that the DoC provides for the resolution of disputes "in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea" (UNCLOS).
Some infringements of the DoC are arguably more flagrant than others. Many of China's recent actions fall into this category, including: the severing of towed seismic arrays on Vietnamese-chartered survey vessels in 2011 and 2012; attempts by Chinese-flagged ships to prevent the resupply of Filipino Marines on Second Thomas Shoal in 2014; the deployment of HYSY-981 in 2014 (and again in July 2015, though further from Vietnam's coast); and, since 2013, the transformation of seven submerged or semi-submerged features in the Spratlys into large man-made islands capable of hosting significant military facilities such as radars, harbors, and airstrips. None of these actions has promoted a "peaceful, friendly and harmonious" environment in the South China Sea, nor do they demonstrate even a modicum of self-restraint. The DoC also calls on the claimants not to occupy uninhabited features. For nearly a decade that prohibition was observed until 2012 when China took possession of Scarborough Shoal after a two-month long stand-off with the Philippines.
It is hardly surprising then that in this atmosphere of growing rancor and mistrust, of claim and counterclaim, action and reaction, the parties have failed to agree on a set of cooperative measures identified in the DoC in five areas: protection of the marine environment (China's reclamation activities that have destroyed hundreds of acres of coral reefs are particularly egregious in this regard), marine scientific research, safety of navigation, search and rescue, and responses to transnational threats such as piracy. A joint ASEAN-China working group continues to discuss such measures, but it is doubtful whether cooperative initiatives in any of these five areas could substantially mitigate tensions generated by competition over resources, chest beating nationalism and geopolitical manoeuvring. Probably not.
In recognition that the provisions of the DoC were too flimsy to tamp down growing friction between China and the Southeast Asian claimants, in 2011 ASEAN leaders began pushing for a successor agreement that was envisaged in the DoC, and which would include binding obligations to prevent incidents from occurring. But China pushed back, arguing that the time was "not yet ripe" for a code of conduct for the South China Sea (CoC), especially as the DoC had not yet been fully implemented and because, in its view, Manila and Hanoi were continually violating it through unilateral actions. After much cajoling from ASEAN, two years later China grudgingly agreed to begin preliminary discussion for a code, though it cautioned the member states that it was in no hurry and that they should not have unrealistic expectations of a quick deal.3
Those preliminary discussions—or talks about talks—began in 2014 at the joint working group level and have continued into 2015. Progress has been imperceptible. ASEAN as an organization has repeatedly called for an "early conclusion" to the code, and in January 2015 the member states' foreign ministers urged their senior officials to "work vigorously" to achieve that goal.4 That call has been echoed by individual ASEAN leaders, including Vietnamese prime minister Nguyen Tan Dung, Indonesian president Joko Widodo, and most recently by Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong in his keynote speech at the 2015 Shangri-La Dialogue in which he stressed that the CoC was needed to "break the vicious cycle" of tensions.5 Other stakeholders in the South China Sea, such as the United States, Japan, Australia, and the European Union have also urged a speedy resolution to the talks.
As Philippine president Benigno Aquino said in late 2014, there is no need to "reinvent the wheel" when it comes to the CoC process because "we can source the elements of the proposed [code] from existing norms and international conventions that promote good conduct."6 He was right. There are a number of conventions that codify maritime "rules of the road," and which could be used as the basis for the CoC, including the 1972 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), the 1972 US-USSR Incidents at Sea (INCSEA) agreement (and subsequent INCSEAs between the USSR/Russia and several European and Asian countries) and the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) that was signed in April 2014 by the members of the Western Pacific Naval Symposium, which include China and seven ASEAN members (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam).
Yet, as Secretary-General Minh laments, ASEAN has found it very difficult to engage China in "substantive discussions" on the CoC.7 Part of the reason is that ASEAN and China have very different expectations of when the code should be concluded, as noted by Singapore's foreign minister K. Shanmugam: "The real problem is you need both sides to agree that the Code of Conduct is worth doing and should be done at a certain pace… There hasn't been a clear agreement on the pace those negotiations should proceed."8 So what explains China's reluctance to hasten the talks and agree on a substantive code? Perhaps a more pertinent question to ask is why would China sign a credible, legally-binding, and effective code of conduct that ties its hands in the South China Sea when it increasingly possesses the naval and coast guard assets to pursue de facto control within the nine-dash line, and when the United States seems flummoxed about how to respond, and all ASEAN does is issue statements of concern (of which more later).
The CoC seems to have become an article of faith in Southeast Asia—especially for bureaucrats in the ASEAN secretariat in Jakarta—a magic bullet that will reduce the dispute to a minor irritation in ASEAN-China relations. Such hopes are unfounded. As many observers have noted, China's CoC-strategy is to play for time by prolonging the talks for as long as possible while expanding and consolidating its presence within the nine-dash line. Perhaps one or two years from now, ASEAN and China will eventually issue a code of conduct for the South China Sea. But whether that agreement contains detailed provisions that proscribe the kinds of tension-generating activities we have been witnessing over the past few years, or whether it is largely composed of high-sounding platitudes, remains to be seen. This author's bet is on the latter.
The Ebb and Flow of ASEAN Unity
ASEAN has had a bottom-line, lowest common denominator consensus on the South China Sea since 1992, when it issued its first statement on the dispute, the ASEAN Declaration.9 Put simply, the ASEAN members (six at that time) agreed that tension-generating incidents in the area "adversely affect regional peace and stability," and that until the complex sovereignty disputes were resolved—peacefully, without the use of force, and through negotiations between the claimants themselves or in an international court—the parties directly concerned should cooperate to ensure safety of navigation, protect the environment and address transnational threats, as well as work towards a code of conduct. That consensus has remained essentially unchanged since 1992.
As the membership of ASEAN expanded from six to ten members between 1995 and 1999, the 1992 consensus on the South China Sea came under strain several times, but at the annual meeting of the organization's foreign ministers in Phnom Penh in July 2012, it broke down spectacularly. During their discussions, the stand-off at Scarborough Shoal and the cable cutting incidents off the Vietnamese coast were raised. The normal practice would have been for the final statement to have reflected those discussions, but the then chair, Cambodia, refused because it argued that these were bilateral issues that did not affect ASEAN as a group; Vietnam and the Philippines protested. Cambodia's stance was at odds with the organization's three-decade consensus, given that both sets of incidents clearly adversely affected regional peace and stability. Yet, despite frantic efforts to find a set of words that everyone could agree on, Cambodia dug in its heels, and the ministers failed to issue a final statement for the first time in the organization's history. Whether Cambodian foreign minister Hor Namhong was acting at his own behest, or at the behest of China in gratitude for, and in future expectation of, economic largesse, is still a matter of conjecture. But whatever the reason, the Phnom Penh summit was not ASEAN's finest hour.
As the great powers vie for influence in Southeast Asia and use economic and other levers of power to influence the foreign policy decision making of ASEAN member states, was this breakdown in unity a "harbinger of things to come," as Barry Desker warned?10 Given that great power competition in Southeast Asia is likely to play out over the next few decades, Desker's warning remains a distinct possibility. Yet, since 2012, China's behavior in the South China Sea has not led to widening of divisions within ASEAN, but actually encouraged greater unity. That unity has been demonstrated on two occasions. In May 2014, barely a week after China had dispatched HYSY-981 into Vietnam's EEZ, ASEAN foreign ministers met in Naypyidaw. At that meeting, Hanoi requested that in the face of this unprecedented provocation, ASEAN issue a stand-alone statement that would give vent to its and other members' outrage. To the surprise of many observers, Vietnam's ASEAN partners, including Cambodia, agreed. In the ensuing statement, the foreign ministers expressed "serious concern" at ongoing developments and reiterated their call for all parties to "work expeditiously" towards the "early conclusion" of a CoC.11 The language was not very strong, and the statement did nothing to defuse the crisis, but at least the nine other members had closed ranks behind Vietnam.
The second display of unity occurred in April 2015. The Philippines, greatly alarmed by the scope and pace of China's reclamation projects, three of which lie within its EEZ, called on fellow ASEAN members to take a firmer line with China. At the twenty-sixth ASEAN Summit in April, it did, at least by the standards of ASEAN. In the chairman's statement, the members expressed "serious concerns" at the reclamations which had, in their view, "eroded trust and confidence and may undermine peace and stability in the South China Sea."12 This is ASEAN's strongest statement to date on the dispute.
While ASEAN unity may have survived the stresses imposed on it by the oil rig incident and the reclamations, they also revealed the limits of that unity, for neither statement criticized China by name nor did they call for the removal of HYSY-981 or a halt to China's artificial island-building. This problem of consensus of action is not, of course, unique to ASEAN, and many other international organizations are faced with it, to varying degrees. The EU and NATO, for instance, face a similar problem of consensus on how to respond to Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and revanchist policy in Europe; those countries closest to Russia's borders, especially the Baltic states and Poland, are more nervous, and seek more resolute measures to deal with the perceived threat from Moscow than those countries that are geographically far removed and face more immediate crises, such as Greece. And so it is with ASEAN. Members who find themselves in direct confrontation with China, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, would like to see ASEAN get tough with Beijing, while states that do not have a direct stake in the dispute and do not want to rock the boat with their largest trading partner elicit much less concern. Differing perceptions, interests, and stakes, and the desire of some members to appear strictly neutral, have meant that ASEAN has been unable to build on its lowest-common denominator consensus and agree on a set of measures to advance the conflict management and conflict resolution processes. The Philippines in particular has found little support among its ASEAN partners for a number of its initiatives over the years, including a proposal in 2011 to "segregate" the disputed islands, demilitarize them, and establish a joint development authority, and its decision in 2013 to challenge the legal basis of China's claims at ITLOS. Severe domestic political problems, of the kind currently faced by the leaders of Myanmar, Thailand, and Malaysia also distract attention away from the South China Sea.
Indonesia and Singapore: Non-claimants but Key Players
Other essays in this Special Forum examine the perceptions and policies of two Southeast Asian actors in the South China Sea dispute, the Philippines and Malaysia, and an article in the Open Forum focuses on the third main actor Vietnam. Two non-claimants, Indonesia and Singapore, play important roles in the management of regional security and should not be overlooked. As island states (albeit massively different in scale), both countries have vital economic and strategic interests in the area, were key players in the negotiations that led to UNCLOS in 1982 and, therefore, have an interest in seeing that its central tenets are upheld, and have been perturbed by negative developments in the South China Sea over the past few years.
Indonesia is invariably classed as a non-claimant (as I have done in this essay), but this is not really the case. In fact, its position is largely analogous to Brunei, which is always classed as a claimant. Although two geographical features belonging to the Spratlys group—Louisa Reef and Rifleman Bank—fall inside Brunei's claimed EEZ, they are low-tide elevations or semi-submerged features and, therefore, not subject to a claim of sovereignty. In any case, Brunei has never formally made a claim to either. However, China's U-shaped line encroaches to within 40 miles of the Brunei coast, and could cover as much as 12,600 square nautical miles of the country's EEZ.13 Similarly, the nine-dash line overlaps with the EEZ generated by Indonesia's Natuna Islands, whose adjacent waters hold significant deposits of natural gas. While China does not claim sovereignty of the Natunas themselves, it has, from time to time, suggested that the two countries have an unresolved maritime border.
Indonesia, however, categorically rejects the notion that it is a claimant country. Beginning in the early 1990s, Indonesian academics and officials quizzed their Chinese counterparts on the meaning of the nine-dash line and how they reckoned it was compatible with UNCLOS. It was not until nearly two decades later, however, that Jakarta put its position in writing. In May 2009, in reaction to submissions by Vietnam and Malaysia to a specialized UN body tasked with examining extended continental shelf claims, China had, for the first time, officially lodged a copy of the nine-dash line map attached to a note protesting the Vietnamese and Malaysian submissions. As one of the driving forces behind UNCLOS, Jakarta felt compelled to respond, and in July 2010 it sent a letter to the UN secretary-general asserting that the map had no basis in international law and was a violation of UNCLOS.14 This stance was reiterated by the Indonesian government in early 2014, when the South China Sea briefly popped up during the presidential elections.15 Having spurned the nine-dash line, Jakarta has cast itself as a neutral party in the dispute. Whether China sees it as such is open to question. However, a series of incidents since 2010 in which armed Chinese vessels have prevented Indonesian patrol boats from detaining Chinese fishermen operating illegally in the Natuna's EEZ suggests Beijing does not see Jakarta as a neutral party.
Under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Indonesia was a keen advocate of the DoC/CoC process, and indeed it was his foreign minister, Marty Natalegawa, who was instrumental in shoring up ASEAN unity in the wake of the Phnom Penh fiasco in 2012. Yet, it was also under Yudhoyono that the armed forces began beefing up their presence on the Natunas in a sign, no doubt, of increasing concern at China's behavior in the South China Sea. Yudhoyono's successor, Joko Widodo, who prefers the moniker Jokowi, has hewn pretty much to the same line: Jokowi has stressed Indonesia's neutral status, the government's position that the U-shaped line does not comport with international law, and that, because it is a non-claimant, Indonesia can play the role of "honest broker."16 Jokowi has also called for ASEAN and China to wrap up the CoC as soon as possible, and continued the military build-up on the Natunas.
Whether the new Indonesian administration can provide leadership on the South China Sea—something that would appear critical given Indonesia's status as primes inter pares within ASEAN—is unclear, for several reasons. First, as Amitav Acharya and others have observed, Jokowi seems to have downgraded ASEAN's importance in the conduct of its foreign policy.17 Second, Jokowi lacks interest and experience in foreign affairs.18 And third, Jokowi's focus is on protecting the country's maritime sovereign rights, including clamping down on illegal fishing in the country's EEZ, as witnessed by the destruction of foreign boats deemed to have been undertaking such activities. So, even as Jokowi courts Chinese investment to help improve the country's maritime infrastructure, his officials are blowing up Chinese fishing boats. If this policy continues, Indonesia's relations with China are bound to suffer and throw into sharper relief the disconnect between Jakarta's claim that it is a neutral party because it rejects the nine-dash line, and Beijing's determination to uphold its so-called "historic rights" within that line, including in the waters off the Natuna Islands.
Singapore has no conflicting territorial or maritime boundary claims with China. However, since independence 50 years ago, the city-state has transformed itself into a global maritime trading hub, and has, therefore, been long concerned at any roiling of the waters in the South China Sea, which might disrupt the flow of shipping that is its life blood. Like Indonesia, Singapore has stressed its neutrality in the dispute, but unlike its southern neighbor it has not come out formally against the nine-dash line. It has, however, called on China to clarify its claims, and some of the country's foremost legal experts, with close ties to the government, have questioned the legal basis of China's maritime claims.19 Singapore's leaders have called for the prompt implementation of the DoC, and a swift conclusion to the CoC. As a pragmatic country that thinks strategically and long-term, Singapore may not have much faith in the DoC/CoC process, and almost certainly places a good deal more emphasis on the importance of maintaining a stable balance of power in Asia undergirded by a strong US military presence, which Singapore enthusiastically facilitates at its ports and naval bases.
Upcoming Tests
It is hard to disagree with Philippine foreign minister Albert del Rosario when he argues that the failure by ASEAN to take action on the South China Sea undermines its centrality, unity, and credibility: "Is it not time for ASEAN to say to our northern neighbor that what it is doing is wrong and that the massive reclamation must be immediately stopped?"20 Unfortunately, because of the organization's internal dynamics, it seems unlikely that ASEAN will adopt language that directly criticizes China's actions any time soon. But over the next year or so, several important issues will likely test ASEAN's credibility in the South China Sea, and hence its ambitions to remain at the center of the region's security architecture.
1. Code of Conduct: Events on the water increasingly make the CoC talks look irrelevant, especially the longer they drag on. ASEAN must make a concerted effort to persuade China that it is in everyone's interests to hammer out a detailed code that prohibits dangerous behavior, freezes the status quo, and lowers tensions. If China's preference is to create a symbolic code that lacks teeth, ASEAN members should refuse to sign it.
2. Freedom of Navigation and Overflight in the South China Sea: The construction of airstrips on Fiery Cross and Subi reefs, and their ability to accommodate fighter aircraft and surveillance planes, raises the prospect that Beijing might declare an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the Spratlys. When China controversially established an ADIZ over parts of the East China Sea in November 2013, a month later ASEAN—via a joint statement with Japan to commemorate 40 years of diplomatic engagement—issued a mild rebuke to China by underscoring the importance of enhancing cooperation to ensure "freedom of overflight."21 ASEAN needs to go a step further and pre-empt a South China Sea ADIZ by telling Beijing that it would regard such a move as destabilizing and an infringement of freedom of navigation in Southeast Asia. If China goes ahead anyway, ASEAN should protest in the strongest possible terms. Similarly, if China declares 12 nautical mile territorial waters around 4 of the semi-submerged or submerged features it has reclaimed, ASEAN should reject it as in infringement of freedom of navigation.
3. The Philippine Arbitration Case: Although China has refused to participate officially (though it is participating unofficially by issuing a position paper in December 2014, and the PCA is treating it as a non-participating participant) in the arbitration case brought by the Philippines in 2013, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is currently deliberating, and a judgement is expected in mid-to-late 2016 (though it is eminently possible that it will take the judges much longer to reach a decision). ASEAN has not supported the Philippines in its legal endeavor, but if the PCA rules that the nine-dash line is incompatible with UNCLOS, it must endorse this decision, given that the DoC calls on parties to resolve their jurisdictional disputes in the South China Sea in accordance with UNCLOS. ASEAN needs to show it is on the side of international law, not arbitrary lines drawn in the sea.
By pushing China on the CoC, opposing a Chinese ADIZ over the South China Sea, and supporting the decisions of the PCA, ASEAN would surely vex China. But if it does not, its credibility will be in tatters. After twenty years of wasted opportunities, ASEAN has a chance to redeem itself over the South China Sea. For its own sake, and the sake of regional stability, it should take this opportunity.
1. Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, November 4, 2002, available at http://www.asean.org/asean/external-relations/china/item/declaration-on-the-conduct-of-parties-in-the-south-china-sea.
2. "Land reclamation further complicates East Sea issue, Vietnam says," Thanh Nien, November 13, 2014.
3. "China warms against rush to set code of conduct in the South China Sea," Xinhua, August 5, 2013.
4. Statement of YB Foreign Minister, ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Retreat, Kota Kinabulu, Malaysia, January 28, 2015.
5. "Viet PM calls for faster progress on code of conduct," Straits Times, September 22, 2014; "In Myanmar, Widodo wades into the South China Sea," The Wall Street Journal, November 13, 2014; "Keynote Address," Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore, Shangri-La Dialogue, Singapore, May 29, 2015.
6. "Go beyond diplomatic woes in sea dispute," Philippine Daily Inquirer, November 14, 2014.
7. "Asean sec-gen Minh: Urgent to engage China over sea spat," The Star, April 26, 2015.
8. "Progress on maritime code of conduct disappointing: Shanmugam," The Straits Times, June 17, 2015.
9. ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea, Manila, July 22, 1992, http://www.asean.org/3634.htm.
10. Barry Desker, "Asean integration remains an illusion," The Straits Times, March 4, 2015.
11. ASEAN Foreign Minister's Statement on the Current Developments in the South China Sea, Nay Pyi Taw, May 10, 2014, http://www.asean.org/news/asean-statement-communiques/item/asean-foreign-ministers-statement-on-the-current-developments-in-the-south-china-sea.
12. Chairman's Statement of the 26th ASEAN Summit, Kuala Lumpur and Langkawi, April 26-28, 2015, available at http://www.asean.org/asean/asean-structure/item/26th-asean-summit-kuala-lumpur-langkawi-malaysia-26-28-april-2015.
13. Ian Storey, "Brunei's Contested Sea Border with China," in Bruce Elleman, Stephen Kotkin, and Clive Schofield, eds., China and its Borders: Twenty Neighbors in Asia (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2012).
14. See http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/mysvnm33_09/idn_2010re_mys_vnm_e.pdf.
15. Evan Laksmana, "Why there is no 'new maritime dispute' between Indonesia and China," Strat.Buzz, April 2, 2014, http://thecardinal.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/why-there-is-no-new-maritime-dispute-between-indonesia-and-china/.
16. "Indonesian president says China's main claim in the South China Sea has no legal basis," Reuters, March 23, 2015.
17. Amitav Acharya, "Doomed by Dialogue? Will ASEAN Survive Great Power Rivalry in Asia," The Asan Forum 3, no. 3 (June 2015).
18. Aaron Connelly, "Sovereignty and the Sea: President Joko Widodo's Foreign Policy Challenges," Contemporary Southeast Asia 37, no. 1 (April 2015): 4.
19. See Keynote Address by Professor S. Jayakumar, CIL Conference on Joint Development and the South China Sea, Singapore, June 16, 2011; Tommy Koh, "Mapping out rival claims in the South China Sea," The Straits Times, September 13, 2011.
20. "China wants 'de facto' control of the sea: PH," Philippines Daily Inquirer, April 27, 2015.
21. "Joint Statement of the ASEAN-Japan Commemorative Summit 'Hand in hand, facing regional and global challenges,'" Tokyo, December 14, 2013.
TAGS : ASEAN unity, code of conduct, Regionalism, Spratly Islands, UNCLOS
Now Reading ASEAN's Failing Grade in the South China Sea

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Home » SHOPAMZ » First 3D printed footbridge is filled with sensors
First 3D printed footbridge is filled with sensors
The 12m long bridge was developed by Imperial College and The Alan Turing Institute, built by Dutch company MX3D, and is installed in Amsterdam's city centre. The whole process took four years.
Construction is from stainless steel using wire-and-arc printing, which is similar to conventional hand welding, but in this case the welding tip was held by a robot arm.
Conventional testing was used to answer basic questions about the material before construction – for example: How strong is it, and it is necessary to machine away weld marks before use?
Testing revealed, for example, that even after its surface is machined smooth, the material retains a directional structure and anisotropic properties.
"A 3D-printed metal structure large and strong enough to handle pedestrian traffic has never been constructed before," said Imperial engineering professor Leroy Gardner. "We have tested and simulated the structure and its components throughout the printing process and upon its completion, and it's fantastic to see it finally open to the public."
Continuous sensing will enable researchers and engineers to measure the bridge's health in real time, monitor how it changes over its lifespan and understand how the public interacts with printed infrastructure.
The accuracy of the digital twin will improve over time, and knowledge from that used to predict the long-term behaviour of 3D-printed steel in other construction projects.
"For over four years we have been working from the micrometre scale, studying the printed microstructure up to the metre scale," said Imperial engineer Craig Buchanan. "Research into this technology for the construction industry has huge potential for the future, in terms of aesthetics and optimised and efficient design, with reduced material usage. It has been fascinating."
The Imperial team's work was predominantly funded by The Alan Turing Institute, with additional funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
For more technical information, Science has published three papers:
Jadon Sancho Posts Statement About The Euros 2020 Final & The Abuse He Received
Google Pixel Buds fall to their lowest ever price at Best Buy


Empty pockets, stacks of books, the anxiety of keeping things in place. Sounds familiar? Well, the life of a student is a difficult one to fathom but nevertheless, technology, which is jumping to aid every sector on this planet is also aiding the student community. Oxfordcaps, a tech-enabled student housing company announced today that it has raised $8m in Series A funding led by Times Internet with participation from existing investors Kalaari Capital and Silicon Valley-based 500 Start-ups.
Oxfordcaps is co-founded by INSEAD graduate Annu Talreja, CEO and IIM-Calcutta alumni Priyanka Gera, COO. The aim of this student-oriented venture is to provide a hassle-free and technology-driven living experience to Gen Z students in India and Singapore. They are using machine learning algorithms to optimize the operations of properties by measuring usage of different amenities and provide a better user experience on a day to day basis. The cost of the dorms start from INR 8,000 and go upto INR 15,000.
The "PG" or paying guest concept is the most relatable concept in the life of a student. Indian students are akin to this concept more than anybody else. Migrating to cities in search of better education is the norm of the world and a thing of the past that prevails even today. Student living is, in fact, very much an expensive and cumbersome affair, moreover, the conditions under which these PGs breed cannot be called favourable.
They operate via three sub-brands and cater to students across price segments including Oxfordcaps Premium Residences, Oxfordcaps Student Residences and Oxfordcaps Dorms for the budget segment.
Gera says that the market size is estimated to be $15 billion with more than 10.4M students across India migrating to cities every year to pursue their academic dreams. Student co-living, however, is yet to see the aspect of harmonious co-existence unless the hindrances of the high level of fragmentation, lack of quality solutions, price transparency, reliability and complete lack of tech enablement of processes etc are penetrated into.
"We offer fully-fitted out and custom designed residences with full-stack service model including wifi, laundry, nutritious meals, professional housekeeping and an array of events and activities focused on career development and lifestyle for our students," says Talreja.
Oxfordcaps works directly with universities and colleges as well to build a tailored experience for the student community, both via on-campus and off-campus housing. The same can be said for Singapore which sees an array of the population from America, Europe and other parts of Asia.
Further, they aim to utilize the funding to grow their operations across education hubs in India including Delhi, Noida, Greater Noida, Dehradun, Indore, Jaipur, Pune, Bengaluru and Ahmedabad.


Hemp oil is a lot more commonly known to be in the Cannabis plant household. However, hemp does not supply the customer with high volumes of THC (like its cousin equivalent does). Instead, it shares its mass quantities of cannabidiol, or CBD, with the user.
For first time customers of CBD oil, it can be a little bit of a difficulty, as there are lots of points to think about as CBD oil can can be found in various types. There is also a huge variety of different products and brands on the market.
So as to get the CBD oil that best fits your needs, both most important things to take into consideration are the stamina and focus. Various other variables to think about consist of pureness as well as the quantity of CBD oil within the item itself.
The first thing you need to know about picking a CBD Oil item is that they can be made from removes from either Hemp Plants or Cannabis Plant Kingdoms. As well as, currently, those from cannabis plants are not legal in lots of states, neither can they be shipped throughout most state lines.
if you want to acquire cannabidiol (CBD) oil products, you have to dig deep to discover accurate as well as updated information. That's because, while CBD is increasing in appeal, reputable details is typically spread throughout the internet.
What's more, CBD is one of the most misconstrued nutritional substances offered today. Many individuals confuse it with THC, the main psychedelic active ingredient in cannabis.
Even if you're completely clear on the distinction in between CBD as well as THC, there are still many other factors to consider before buying, including brand names, concentration, sorts of items, as well as above all, your very own requirements.
One typical false impression some people have concerning hemp oil is to assume this is cannabis. Although hemp belongs to the cannabis family of species, it is very various from marijuana in lots of methods.
CBD Oil up for sale includes 0.3% THC (the lawful limitation for this product) as well as in some cases much less. Because of the reduced consistency of THC, CBD items are not psychotropic and also does not trigger any impacts in the individual in all.
Hemp additionally consists of fats which have been recognized to be fantastic for the body. Unlike its cannabis equivalent, hemp has high amounts of CBD as well as low volumes of THC for which its expanded. While cannabis is prohibited to consume in numerous states, hemp is gradually ending up being much more popular as well as more states are legislating usings hemp oil for its residents.
CBD acquired hemp oil is a natural substance grown for many objectives, amongst which are the wellness advantages attached to this plant. Produce your very own possibilities as well as learn for yourself just how CBD acquired items can benefit your daily life.
When searching for the best CBD product, you'll see two types mostly about, readily available in the market; complete range CBD as well as CBD isolate. The distinctions between the two are quite noticeable. But the technique of intake, measurable dosage, as well as time intervals can play an essential function in the efficiency of CBD. As full-spectrum CBD is more preferred, isolate has specific benefits that might not be negated.
CBD isolate clarifies its name extremely well. It describes pure CBD that has been separated from all various other substances in the cannabis plant, having nothing else. A 2014 research study additionally demonstrated that CBD isolate can be valuable as there is no chance of THC accidentally making its method into the product. Individuals who live in states where THC is strictly restricted, it might also profit them. Isolate is likewise useful for delicate to various other cannabinoids such as THC. Separate products are normally considered as having 99+% pure CBD.
Complete spectrum CBD refers to CBD products including CBD in addition to all various other energetic cannabinoids in the plant such as THC, CBG, CBN, terpenes and also all the other nutrients discovered in Marijuana plant. Usually these remain in naturally occurring proportions in the removed form, from the particular stress of the plant. They are also added intentionally into products to raise the strength. Complete Range ought to be taken with some safety measures by those who obtain their medications examined. The THC discovered less than 0.3% completely spectrum hemp products can make medication tests favorable.
Are you seeking to get CBD-rich oil? Locating the best CBD oil can be an overwhelming task, particularly if you are a newbie. There are lots of means of obtaining your Cannabinoid (CBD) oil. You can buy the item online, from physical store, co-ops, dispensaries, and natural herbalists. CBD oil products can be made from extracts of either hemp plants or Cannabis Plants. Relying on your favored setting of intake, the hemp-extracted oil is offered in a series of applications consisting of casts, topicals, vaporizers, vape pens, transdermal spots and also as infused edibles.


text:
PREMIERE: Jake Marra's Debut Single 'The Day That You Left' Is A Bop
Laura English Feb. 28, 2020
We're absolutely blessed to be premiering Jake Marra's debut single 'The Day That You Left' today. It's a serious bop, full of sincere and heartfelt lyrics, backed by an infectious beat and impressive production that almost makes you forget it's a song about heartbreak.
The strong, poppy single has a sound that'd excite the ears of Troye Sivan and Charli XCX fans.
"'The Day That You Left' is the product of all the failed relationships I've experienced in my life," explains Jake Marra.
"It focuses on the denial that floods in when somebody is no longer in your life and the harsh wave of emotions that comes with it. Whether it be a falling out with a friend, a break-up, or a death, most of us have experienced the feelings that come with losing somebody and I wanted to channel that into a dark, pulsating synth-pop track (produced and co-written by the brilliant Ben Oldand) that you can still bop along to while simultaneously crying your eyes out."
Mission definitely accomplished. Marra explains he's been musical his entire life but didn't actually know he was good at it.
"It was something I did in secret when nobody was around to hear it and eventually, I started to realise I had something to offer."
He says he got his start from YouTube, where he'd post covers and mashups he'd produced. In 2015, he had one of his mashups go viral: Ariana Grande's 'One Last Time' and Justin Bieber's 'What Do You Mean?'.
"There were articles about the mashup on Teen Vogue, Billboard and MTV, and Ariana Grande herself even said in an interview that she was 'obsessed with it' and that 'whoever did it is a genius!'," he said.
Have a listen to 'The Day That You Left' below. It's set for release Monday, 2nd March.
Paul Kelly & Missy Higgins Are Teaming Up For A Once-Off Bribie Island Show
Watch Taylor Swift Enjoy Life As A Man & Shout Out Double Standards In New Video For 'The Man'
Jake Marra
Latest on Music Feeds
Illy – The Space Between
NEW AUS MUSIC PLAYLIST: Our Favourite Tunes Of The Week
TikTokers Have Transformed Bridgerton Into A Musical
The Race For #1 In Triple J's Hottest 100 Is TIGHT
Chuck Norris Denies Attending US Capitol Riots After Photo Of Lookalike Surfaces


text:
s18-econ320
Lesson 6: Oil and Conflict in the Middle East
Exam 1 Results
Middle East geography
Oil and Conflict in the Middle East
40 Maps Explaining the Middle East
Watch Losing Iraq and The Rise of ISIS
Justin Holman is CEO of Aftermarket Analytics, where he leads efforts to develop cutting edge sales forecasting and inventory optimization technology for the Automotive Aftermarket. Prior to joining Aftermarket Analytics, Justin managed corporate consulting for the Strategy & Analytics division at MapInfo Corporation, leading major projects for retail clients including The Home Depot, Darden Restaurants, Bridgestone-Firestone, Sainsbury's and New York & Company. Before that, Justin served as Vice President of Software Development at LogicTools, now part of IBM's supply chain application software group. Justin holds a B.A. from Claremont McKenna College, a Ph.D. from the University of Oregon and an Executive Management certificate from Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management.
‹ previous	Lesson 7: Review for Exam 1 next ›	Lesson 7: Saudi Arabia and the Future of Oil


text:
Market Wrap: Bitcoin Traders Expect Big Move as Volatility Plummets
Bitcoin volatility drops to historic lows as the cryptocurrency stays just above $9,000.
By Zack Voell
Jun 29, 2020 at 8:44 p.m. UTC
Zack Voell
Bitcoin opened the week still stuck in a price range just above $9,000 Monday, moving less than 0.2% from Friday's close as of 20:00 UTC (4 p.m. ET), according to Bitstamp.
At 00:00 UTC on Monday (8:00 p.m. Sunday ET), bitcoin (BTC) was changing hands around $9,115 on spot exchanges such as Bitstamp. Despite a brief dip below $9,800 on Saturday afternoon, bitcoin did not trade above $9,200 or below $9,000 on Monday.
Ether (ETH), the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization, climbed less than 1% from its daily open Monday and traded around $226 as of 20:00 UTC (4 p.m. ET).
Exchange inflows from bitcoin miners are pouring in as bitcoin continues to trade in the low $9,000s. A seven-day moving average shows inflows from miners to exchanges have reached their highest levels all year. This might be a bearish signal, according to some analysts.
Exchange inflows from bitcoin miners since January
Miners aren't really speculators with the bitcoins held on their balance as inventory," said Austin Storms, founder of mining mobile infrastructure company BearBox They'll readily sell it for cash to reduce risk or expand operations, he added. But to infer that miners sending coins to exchanges is a bearish market signal, according to Storms, is a "big reach."
See also: Why Bitcoin Will Take a Long Time to Dethrone the Dollar
Miners make up a small percentage of daily sell pressure, he explained. Using this data to justify a bearish market thesis is "exploratory analysis that wants to be confirmatory," said Storms. "People are bored with the $9,100-$9,400 range and are looking for any reason we might depart from it soon."
Bitcoin's volatility is plummeting as it continues to trade in a tight price range. According to data from Skew, the ether-bitcoin implied volatility dropped to an all-time low over the weekend, and the Bitcoin Volatility Token (BVOL) launched by FTX earlier this year, which tracks market volatility, has fallen for nearly 20 consecutive days.
Ether / Bitcoin implied volatilty spread
With volatility at historic lows, CoinGecko research analyst Daryl Lau told CoinDesk he would "definitely not be surprised to see a big move." Sunday's brief drop below $9,000 was "bought up on low volumes," he noted. Cryptocurrency exchange volumes and the continued correlation to the S&P 500, which briefly broke below 3,000 Monday morning, seem to be signalling a "downward move" for bitcoin, Lau said.
As the market tries to decide which way to exit its current price range, some traders are increasingly frustrated. "Consolidations can be frustrating for short-term traders, particularly those who trade on leverage and attempt to catch breaks," said Matt Ficke, head of Capital Markets at OKCoin. Bitcoin has closed between $9,050-$9,820 price points for the past seven weeks, according to OKCoin weekly charts.
See also: Bitcoin Facing Greater Price Volatility Than Ether in Q3, Options Market Data Suggests
To Ficke, the market is "testing or debating whether or not bitcoin can decouple from equity performance in this macro environment."
Decentralized finance assets were some of the biggest losers on Monday, according to 24-hour price change data from Messari. Compound (COMP), which was "soaring" several days ago, is down 9.5%. Also down are nexo (NEXO) by 3.7%, basic attention token (BAT) 3.26%, and matic network (MATIC) by 2.6 percent. All price changes were as of 20:00 UTC (4:00 p.m. EDT).
In commodities, gold stayed mostly flat on Monday down less than 0.05% as of 20:00 UTC (4:00 p.m. ET). The yellow metal traded around $1,771.
See also: Crypto Long & Short: What Trends in Volatility Could Mean for Bitcoin
Meanwhile, major stock indices are mostly green on Monday.
The FTSE 100 index in Europe gained roughly 1.5% from its daily open at the time of publishing. The S&P 500 also gained nearly 1.5% Monday despite growing fears over an nation-wide increases in coronavirus cases. Only the Nikkei 225 dropped Monday, closing with a loss of more than 1%.
ExchangesVolatilityGoldBitcoinEtherMarketsS&P 500MinersOptionsNikkei 225FTSE 100


I came to realize that most of my life I have had to actively work to overcome an inherent sense of never being enough, giving enough, doing enough, loving enough, caring enough, sharing enough, serving enough, or achieving enough. Addressing "not enough" is a large part of my spiritual journey.
In today's chapter Jesus tells a parable that has grown increasingly powerful to me as the years have gone on. As with most of Jesus' parables, it is quite simple. A master gives each of three servants different amounts of his money and goes away for a long time. The master returns to find that two of the three have invested his money and earned a return on the investment. The third buried his master's money out of fear and returned just what he'd been given.
Two lessons from this parable have become quite important to me.
First, the master does not evenly distribute his money among the servants. One was given five bags, another two, and the other one. This is another reminder to me that a seemingly fair and equitable distribution of anything in this temporal world has never been part of the economy of God's eternal Kingdom. I have been given more than some and less than others. The question has never been what I've been given, but what I do with what I'm given.
Herein lies the ying and the yang of my core pain. I must learn to be content with what I've been given, but also accept that I am responsible for it. I must learn to accept that I have been given "enough" and that God knows I am capably adequate to faithfully invest it wisely.
The second lesson I take from this parable is in the master's compliment to his servants. "You have been faithful with a few things" he says. The servants were not burdened with the entirety of their master's affairs. They were given a relatively small amount and were rewarded simply for being faithful with what they'd been given.
Sometimes my feelings of "not enough" grow to epic disproportion in my heart and mind, fueling all sorts of unproductive thoughts and paralyzing fears (much like the third servant in the parable). I quite literally blow everything up in my mind until its completely out of proportion to the truth of the situation. In these moments the master's compliment helpfully reminds me to boil things down to the simplicity of being faithful to the tasks right in front of me.
This morning, that means serving my client well in a day full of meetings. If you'll please excuse me, I have a few things to which I must faithfully attend. And, that will be enough for today.


Enveis reise Euro 23,00 - Tur/retur reise Euro 42,00 - (Barn 30,00) ● Only with reservation.
Måndag / Onsdag / Lørdag - Euro 22,00 (Barn 16,00) ● Only with reservation.
avgang fra Ischia 14:45, Casamicciola 14:55, Lacco Ameno 15:05, Forio 15:30.
hverdagslig - [Full Day] - Euro 50,00 (Barn <10 år € 35,00) ● Only with reservation.
avgang fra Forio 10:00 ➜ tilbake fra sjø 16:30.
avgang fra Ischia 9:20, Casamicciola 10:00 ➜ tilbake fra sjø 17:00.
Tirsdag - Euro 45,00 - Barn Euro 35,00 - Enveis reise Euro 23,00 ● Only with reservation.
Euro 54,00 - Tirsdag / Torsdag (Guide: Italian - German) ● Only with reservation.
Euro 55,00 - Onsdag / Søndag (Guide: Italian - German) ● Only with reservation.
Euro 18,00 - Tirsdag / Fredag (Trasferimenti A/R + Ingresso + Maschera) ● (Guide: Italian) ● Only with reservation.
Onsdag - Euro 40,00 - Barn Euro 30,00 - Enveis reise Euro 23,00 ● Only with reservation.
avgang fra Casamicciola 9:00. ➜ avgang fra Ventotene 19:15.
avgang fra Casamicciola 9:00. ➜ avgang fra Ponza 18:15.


text:
require File.join( File.dirname(__FILE__), '..', "spec_helper" )

describe LoanPurpose do

  it "should have specs"

end

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Do you know a New Hampshire business woman who deserves recognition for her efforts to grow international connections for the state? The World Affairs Council of New Hampshire would love to hear about them for consideration of their 1st annual International Business Woman of the Year award. Nominations are due to the Council by February 23rd and the winner will be announced on March 8th in honor of International Women's Day.
International business plays a large role in the New Hampshire economy, with businesses exporting to over 180 countries around the world. Those businesses exported a total of $5.5 billion worth of goods, with another $6.93 billion imported to the state. Clearly, international trade is a major driver of economic development here for New Hampshire. This makes sense, as over 95% of the world's market is located overseas.
Presented in partnership with Business NH Magazine, the Center for Women and Enterprise, the NH Office of International Commerce, and Firebrand International, this award is designed to recognize the important contributions women have made to this field. From CEOs driving international connections, to project directors bringing new value to the market, the impact is undeniable.
"While clear that women lead businesses are valued here in the state, they still lack recognition when it comes to their contributions to the internationalization of New Hampshire," said Tim Horgan, WACNH executive director. "This award looks to not only recognize the winner each year, but to provide role models for young women in the state to consider a career path they may not have seen themselves in before."
More information on the award's criteria and how to submit a nomination can be found on the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire's website at https://wacnh.org/event-4680650. Please join WACNH and its partners in this effort to empower women making a global impact.
Foreign policy reforms after Afghanistan Construction
Tuesday, February 08, 2022 10:17 AM | Tim Horgan (Administrator)
By Abrita Kuthumi - WACNH Intern
August 30, 2021 marks an important day in foreign affairs history as the twenty year occupation of the United States in Afghanistan officially came to a close. Approximately 116,700 people- among them, U.S. troops, U.S. civilians, Special Immigrant Visa holders, and foreign nationals- were evacuated in the mission, according to The Washington Post. As the number of airlifts dwindled and ceased, months after the withdrawal, the focus shifted away from Afghanistan. However, the Afghanistan war cannot be easily forgotten because of the tremendous human and financial cost over the two decades: the accumulated death toll has been estimated to be above 117,587 and $145 billion dollars was invested to rebuild and stabilize the region. Beyond this data, there are countless people affected by the conflict. At all this expense, what have we learned from the Afghanistan war?
Until the Special Inspector General For Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) report was published, many internal details of what preceded the chaotic exit were unknown to the larger public. SIGAR, an independent oversight program, which conducted inspections and investigations for Afghanistan reconstruction efforts, published a 140-page report in August 2021 which highlighted key lessons to take away for the future. The full report can be found here. Although the document briefly outlines the positive outcomes of U.S. programs, such as an increase in literacy levels, decrease in child mortality rate, and doubling of the gross domestic products, the report mostly delves into details of what went wrong and suggests what policies could be adopted to improve responses in the future. Since the report's release, some policy reforms have taken shape, such as the first policy outlined below. However, policy reforms two and three take a longer time, as they deal with complex, internal work required by governmental agencies.
Policy #1: Congress should maintain or increase the budget of the State Department to help develop and implement a stabilization strategy with the support of the United States Agency for International Development.
The State Department is the agency with the authority to spearhead overarching strategies abroad. However, given the budget of the State Department, which was (and still is) meager in comparison to the Department of Defense, there is a discrepancy between what is demanded and what can be realistically achieved. Foreign relations ought to be conducted through diplomacy rather than military, or hard power. However, since the Department of State's budget has often ranged within the fifty billion dollars mark prior to 2021, there was a constraint on their efforts given the lack of resources. The State Department did not have the investment dollars which would allow the agency to take leadership and partner with other agencies, such as The United States Agency for International Development, to accomplish developmental goals. Whereas, the Department of Defense has always benefited from a much larger share of the national funding, often taking up 11 percent of the overall national budget, as reported by Peter G Peterson Foundation. In the fiscal year of 2020, the Department of Defense was able to spend $690 billion dollars. Provided the Department of Defense had the capacity, the agency naturally led the mission in Afghanistan instead. Since policy recommendations of expanding the budget of the State Department have been echoed over the years, there has been a sharp improvement since 2021, as demonstrated in Table I below. In fiscal year 2021, the funding reached $71.58 billion. However, this is only the beginning of building better diplomatic relations. In order to accomplish significant tasks, the US governmental agencies require assuming distinct responsibilities and filling the gap of each other. The table below demonstrates the responsibilities and gaps outlined in the report.
U.S. government agencies
To spearhead reconstruction efforts
To follow the lead of State
To oversee spending of programs
To develop national security policy
Lack of expertise and resources; Funded Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (CRS) organization but failed to achieve tangible goals; accountability standards were stringent compared to DOD; understaffing
Lack of economic, policy, diplomacy, and development governance understanding
Lack of resources or expertise; accountability standards were stringent compared to DOD; Actions could be overruled by the National Security Council, ex: Ring Road project at the expense of agricultural and governance programming
Lack of process to oversee large scale reconstruction efforts
Policy #2: The U.S. government should create due dates- not deadlines- based on the conditions on the ground and prioritize spending efficiently rather than quickly.
Due to the political pressure faced by top officials within the government, programs that ran on the ground in Afghanistan also felt the rush to demonstrate quick and visible achievements. Top-down deadlines were created within offices without the consideration for how projects would be realistically achieved. As one of the most well-respected development economist, William Easterly, explained in "The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good," if planning and aid from Western nations was all it took for development, then there would be no global poverty. Planning rigorously is not enough; progress requires understanding the local context, which then requires flexibility in timelines. If not, programs are not sustainable for the long run. Perhaps, the most toxic element of all, the marker of success and progress was measured by how much money was spent and not by what was achieved. Money can be spent recklessly and therefore, solely relying on this metric is quite misleading. The investigators concluded that this element increased corruption and reduced the effectiveness of programs.
U.S. government strict top-to-bottom deadlines
Prioritized spending quickly for short-term solution
Increased corruption and decreased effectiveness of program
The example of the G222 planes is demonstrative of how money spent did not directly correspond to progress made. In 2008, the Department of Defense approved $549 million to provide the Afghan Air Force with G222 military transport planes. In 2014, six years later, the Department of Defense could not maintain the vehicle and sold the planes, which became useful only as scrap metal, worth merely $40,257. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Many billions of infrastructural investments, which are more tangible displays of progress, in Afghanistan were abandoned, destroyed, or unused after the completion of the project, according to the report (See chart below; created by author).
Policy #3: The U.S. government must understand the Afghan context and tailor its diplomatic and development efforts accordingly.
The third policy recommendation tackles an old problem in the US foreign policy efforts. Without understanding the local cultural context, the United States projects have attempted to establish entire new systems in a place that the Afghan people are unfamiliar with. Prior to the United States's push on formal rule of law, 80- 90 percent of disputes in Afghanistan had been traditionally dealt with through informal means. Sure, from an American perspective, the formal rule of law provides stability and equality. However, these values can be encouraged but should not be imposed on a different society with different cultures. Beyond the sociocultural barriers, the geographical context is also important to understand. Afghanistan is a mountainous country with rigid terrains. The American school buildings and infrastructure models, which seemed to be the core focus of projects, could not be easily duplicated.
Although the SIGAR report provided many different policy recommendations, the three policies mentioned above were the top priorities that stood out as necessary to be emphasized for the future. Without the State Department initiatives on diplomacy, a more comprehensive measure of assessing the progress made by programs, and geographical and socio-cultural solutions that are catered to the region, these costly mistakes are bound to repeat. While the State Department's increased budget will likely help expand their capacity for the future, the reforms for the other two issues need more time for further evaluation.
One Woman's Escape from Afghanistan
Wednesday, October 13, 2021 2:29 PM | Tim Horgan (Administrator)
This post comes from an Open World Exchange Program alum, who visited New Hampshire in 2019. We have not edited the content, so as to allow for her true voice to come through. Also, we are not using her name, as she still has family at risk in Afghanistan. We hope this gives some added insights into the final days of the U.S. evacuation efforts from Afghanistan.
"Since fall of Kabul in hands of Taliban, panic shadowed the entire Kabul city. Mob rushed to the civilian airport to board any available flights with no clear destination. I and my mom also tried our luck and went to the airport, however we couldn't manage to move a meter. The scene was chaotic, people of all age and group were rushing and pushing towards the airport gates. The roads toward the airport were overwhelming with crowds. Taliban at first check points, Afghan Special Force on second and third was the US marines guarding the gates and blocking the crowds' entrance to the airport.
We couldn't make it in our first try, second try was even worse. More people arrived from several part of the country with their families and kids, adding to already overcrowded roads. Taxi dropped us to a road close to the airport, we walked few steps and suddenly we found ourselves surrounded by desperate mob. I was separated from my mom whose is a heart patient. The mob pushed me front and mom left behind. I struggled and wanted to swim against the flow, but failed and fell. People stepped on me, kicked me and didn't give me the chance to stand up, thus I crawled and crawled, finally reached a corner to hold my hands and stand on my feet.
I looked around, I didn't know where the mob has taken me, but I knew I wasn't close to the gate, but somewhere in the middle. I stood there for hours and hours, looking around to spot my mom and rang her several times, but no answer. It started to darken and I was totally alone among unknowns. I decided to return and it took me two harsh hours to come out of the crowd.
Once out of the mob, I rang my mom again, it truly added to my anxiety if anything may have happened to her. Finally she picked up, I was relieved. When we were separated by the mob, she was pushed back and hurled toward a wall. She held onto the wall for some time and slowly, slowly moved out of the crowed. She found a calm corner and sat, waiting for my return or to inform her my whereabouts. When I saw her, she looked desperate, exhausted and worry, her heart beating rapidly, she missed her medication. She was not able to walk any step, we stayed there another one to two hours, until her condition was stabilized.
We decided to return home and stayed as long as we could get a save passage to the airport. Meanwhile, I have registered ourselves in State Department and Defense Department Evacuation Assistance Program.
Luckily in two days, I have received a call from my US handler and we get connected through WhatsApp. We had regular communications and plans for evacuation, but uncertainty, insecurity and threats were revamping that made it significantly challenging to hold onto one plan and proceed.
As reaching the airport gates were getting extremely difficult, different methods were used for evacuation such as specific buses, vans and taxis were assigned to pick the people and transport them to the airport through different routes. My US handler assigned me and my mom on the bus list and we waited almost two days to hear from them. It was the second day that we were informed, the bus coordinator will contact us for pick up. The pickup time was not certain, but we were instructed to be ready for any time evacuation, however suddenly ISIS planned huge explosions close to airport gates, claimed many innocent lives and halted the entire evacuation operation. To make the matter worse, Taliban also imposed restrictions on evacuation of Afghans with incomplete documents.
I am a US permanent resident (green card holder), but my mom is not. I and my US handler made all our best tries to evacuate her with me, however we couldn't succeed. Our experience of airport gates haunted her and discourages her to try any other routes to the airport except proper transportation. We couldn't get her out, her documents and limited opportunities, left her behind, but forced me to leave as my two young kids were desperately waiting for my return and delaying any further may jeopardize my evacuation as well.
She is there, waiting for unknown future. She is under tremendous medication and treatment. She has high blood pressure, anxiety and taking depression medication. What is happening right now, certainly not in her favor? No good doctors, no proper medication and no way out. She even can't travel long distance by road or walk. She is very vulnerable to any changes. Part of my broken heart is with her and I don't know when I will see her again.
Eventually on 25th August, I received a call from someone who instructed me to reach a certain address immediately. From that address, I was picked up by a van and transported to a much undisclosed location. There were couple of more Afghan families. Our all electronic devises were taken and we were kept there for hours.
It was around 8:00pm that we were picked up by cars and dropped off to a different location to be airlifted to the airport. It was dark and again we waited few hours until three military choppers landed and we were all airlifted to the airport.
In dark cold night of Kabul, we stayed at the Kabul Military Airport runway for several hours with no food and limited restrooms. Kids were crying, elders were exhausted, and women were worn-out. I constantly communicated with my US handler, updating about my status and she was constantly working on speeding up the boarding and clearance process. Finally at 5:00am, we boarded the military plan, but we had no idea where our destination is. We were sitting on the floor of the plane, so close to each other that made it difficult to stretch our legs or hands. You have to sit without moving any part of your body for four straight hours.
After three to four hours of flight, the plane landed. When the tail of the plane opened, I felt gush of the hot air on my face, right, it was Qatar.
We were off boarded the plane and taken to a large tent, equipped with green military beds, organized side by side. You can occupy any available bed but who will be sleeping on your side, is a lottery. After couple of hours, people with proper documents were categorized and moved to smaller tents. I was moved with five families in a smaller tent which had limited beds and few chairs.
We spent the night there even though Qatar is hot and humid, tents were dry and cold and nights were worse. I didn't have any warm clothes nor blanket to cover myself. I left home with a small backpack filled with my laptop, documents and my country's soil and flag. In addition, there were limited restrooms so I even didn't eat nor drink enough, I was so dehydrated that caused me extreme headache. The next day, our documents were processed and ready to departure for our next destination.
The marines lined up us and directed us toward a commercial plane. At the plane every individual was so traumatized that you can hear only kids' noise or cries, no adults were communicating. Looking at every bodies face, they were so soulless, so motionless, so lost that they no longer cared what will come next. We were harshly shattered.
After seven hours, the planed landed in Germany and stayed for two to three hours for new crew to board and departed toward our final destination, United States of America.
It was 9:00pm, we landed at the Dulles International Airport. Once off boarded the plane, I didn't feel excitement of coming home, going to my kids. Our feelings were lost, no emotions, we were following orders as programmed robots. Sound of laughter and music was hitting us like bullet, you just want to shut it down. Probably we have heard a lot, bullets, bombshells, kids' squeals, mothers' cries, and Taliban's yells.
The process for clearance at Dulles was lengthy and tiresome, but finally around 2:00am, I made it out of airport, but for me it was not my final destination.
Since the fall of Kabul government, I have followed the news and the horrors. Today I am sitting in my house with my kids around me, but I am not the person when I left the house. I am silent, joyless and still only watching the news. We are so traumatized and shattered, it may take us time to collect ourselves."
Building Consensus in a Divided World
Thursday, April 01, 2021 10:58 AM | Tim Horgan (Administrator)
Every day, Americans are faced with the stark reality that many challenges in the world do not respect national boundaries. From climate change and pandemics to racial injustice and more, now is the time for the country to come together and tackle these issues head on. However, it can be difficult to know where to begin and what steps should be taken.
To help sort things out, the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire will present "Report on Reports: A Roadmap for U.S. Global Leadership" at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 7. Offered in partnership with the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition (USGLC), the program will feature Liz Schrayer, President and CEO of USGLC . Schrayer will draw on data from the 2021 Quadrennial "Report on Reports" to guide a discussion on the future of U.S. Foreign Policy.
"In a town where it often feels like policymakers can't agree on anything, we have found a lot of agreement when it comes to U.S. global leadership in USGLC's new Report on Reports," said Schrayer. "This year, we looked at more than 100 policy reports from across the political spectrum, and in the midst of a global pandemic where no one is safe until everyone is safe, there is a clear roadmap of a foreign policy that delivers for American families."
This report focuses on six areas of global leadership where USGLC found strong bipartisan support. These include fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, addressing growing global economic competition, mitigating the effects of climate change, defending against rising authoritarianism, responding to humanitarian crises, and influencing global alliances and partnerships. Drawing on these meticulously researched reports, Schrayer will distill the vital interests of the U.S. and suggest ways in which the country can rally around these issues.
This program is part of the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire's online speakers program, which aims to help people better understand complex global issues facing the nation. These important events can help build consensus and inspire local action to tackle global challenges.
"Report on Reports: A Roadmap for U.S. Global Leadership" is funded with support from Steve and Karin Barndollar, Helen Taft and Peter Bowman, and Peter Berg and Janet Prince. To register for this event and to learn more about WACNH programs, please visit: www.wacnh.org
Global Strategic Competition Hits Home
In a world defined by conflict, the relationship between the United States and China is defined by a strategic competition for global leadership. While there are many areas of potential cooperation, both sides seem fixated on the issues that divide them. It is vitally important that Americans understand these complex problems to help the government chart a path forward the public can support.
On Wednesday, March 24th at 6:00 p.m., the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire (WACNH) will present "The U.S., China, and Their Global Strategic Competition," an evening with Bonnie Glaser of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. As a senior adviser for Asia and the director of the China Power Project, Ms. Glaser has the background and insights necessary to inform the audience about such potential flashpoint as Taiwan, the South China Sea, global leadership, and more.
"Strategic competition with China is a defining feature of the 21st century," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki recently stated. "China is engaged in conduct that hurts American workers, blunts our technological edge, and threatens our alliances and our influence in international organizations."
America's competition with China is an important and timely topic. For example, the trade war between the two countries has cost New Hampshire taxpayers more than $152 million in tariffs. It is also estimated to have cost the state 8,100 jobs in just over a year. The data shows, in stark terms, the hidden costs of this global competition.
This program is part of WACNH's Global Tipping Points series, a three-part speakers program that will focus, this spring, on various parts of the U.S./China relationship. The two other sessions will address Human Rights in China and how these two countries interact with each other, as well as the world, through international trade. More details to be announced soon.
"The U.S., China, and Their Global Strategic Competition" is funded with support from Steve and Karin Barndollar, Helen Taft and Peter Bowman, and Peter Berg and Janet Prince. Register for this event HERE.
Statement on Recent Riots at US Capitol
Tuesday, January 12, 2021 2:10 PM | Tim Horgan (Administrator)
What we all witnessed at the US Capitol on January 6th was shocking and appalling. Never would I have imagined such a scene unfolding here in the United States, as this is something that I thought was reserved to less developed democracies and dictatorships.
Working for an organization that is dedicated to building understanding and creating change through dialogue, I feel compelled to say what shouldn't need saying. This assault on our democracy is wholly unacceptable and not in line with the democratic values of our country. No matter where you want to place the blame for these actions, we as the United States of America need to all agree that there is no place for this violence in our country. Each and every person who illegally entered the capitol building should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
In addition to being a national embarrassment, this further weakens the US', and democracy's, appeal abroad. Dictators around the world can use these images as propaganda to show their citizens what "democracy" looks like. They can say "you may not like the tight control I impose, but at least we do not allow violent mobs to storm our government buildings."
Another issue that is not getting a lot of coverage is what has been going on while the US has been, rightfully so, distracted by the false accusations of election fraud. Iran has been building up their nuclear and missile arsenals, North Korea has been taking an increasingly aggressive stances, and China has been flexing its muscles all over the Pacific. All of these issues can impact our National Security, but have been relegated to back burner status as the US has needed to stay focused on the undermining of our democracy.
Finally, I hope that having this incident occur on our home soil will help us all better understand when similar things happen abroad. Without a doubt, this drives home the point that democracy can be fragile, anywhere in the world, and we all must do what we can to support it, both at home and abroad.
Rethinking Nuclear Policy and Presidential Power
Monday, November 02, 2020 9:53 AM | Tim Horgan (Administrator)
Former Secretary of Defense William Perry to Headline Fall Forum 2020
MANCHESTER/PORTSMOUTH – Little Rocket Man. Dotard. Fire and Fury. Nuclear Buttons. It was not that long ago that tensions between the United States and North Korea flared to the point where threats of nuclear strikes were made publicly. Fortunately, the rhetoric has cooled off for now, but this arguably was the closest the world had come to nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis. On Tues., Nov. 10 at 6:00 pm, the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire will kick-off the first night of Fall Forum 2020 by hosting a virtual discussion on presidential power and nuclear weapons policy.
Former Secretary of Defense William Perry and Tom Collina, Ploughshare Fund's policy director, will discuss the dangers of nuclear war and proliferation, the necessity for robust international legal frameworks governing nuclear weapons, and why the United States should reconsider vesting the sole power to launch a nuclear strike in the President alone. With so many hot-button issues around the world and a failing non-proliferation regime, this discussion will provide vital insights into why Americans need to be aware of the danger nuclear weapons pose.
"The outcome of the upcoming Presidential election will be crucial in deciding the future direction of U.S. global leadership," said Tim Horgan, WACNH Executive Director. "The Council is committed to bringing insightful programs to help the public better understand issues such as the threat of nuclear war. Only one non-proliferation treaty still stands between the US and Russia and understanding the new Administration's views on nuclear weapons will be important to understand."
With the New START Treaty set to expire in February 2021, the next Administration will be quickly challenged on their nuclear vision for the future. A five-year extension would continue to build confidence in a non-proliferation regime and create the basis for future discussions between Russia and the US. In addition, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons will be coming into force on January 22, providing further restrictions on the production and use of nuclear weapons. A broad understanding of the challenges and advantages of non-proliferation will be important for Americans to grasp.
Fall Forum 2020 is a 2-part fundraising event by the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to exploring critical international issues and promoting greater understanding of the world. Fall Forum continues on Weds., Dec. 2 at 6:00 pm and will feature Former Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, who will speak on the future of America's global leadership. Tickets are available for one or both events. For more information and ticket prices, please visit: https://wacnh.org/event-3959454
Saudi Arabia Bans International Pilgrims to Hajj, One of World's Largest Annual Gatherings
Thursday, July 30, 2020 10:00 AM | Anonymous
By Abrita Kuthumi
Photo credit: BBC News
The Saudi Arabian government has announced its safety protocols regarding the annual holy Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca amid the coronavirus. To prevent the spread of the virus that has accumulated to a total of 268,934 confirmed cases with the 2,760 deaths in Saudi Arabia so far according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the government's most impactful instruction has been to curb international visitors.
Therefore, for 2020, the Hajj Ministry of Saudi Arabia has limited the number of domestic pilgrims to be between 1,000 to 10,000. Of those, 70% will be foreign residents living in Saudi Arabia whereas the remaining 30% will be Saudi citizens. The foreign residents are required to be between the age of 20 and 50, in good health, and visiting Mecca for the first time. As for the Saudi citizen pilgrims, priorities will be given to essential workers such as healthcare workers and security personnel who have survived and recovered from coronavirus as "a token of appreciation for their role in providing care."
The Hajj Ministry has also made alterations during the prayer. Typically, prayers are held in tight spaces with people positioned shoulder-to-shoulder through the five days of rites. This year, pilgrims will be asked to practice social distance during the prayer. They will not be allowed to touch the Kaaba, Islam's holiest site and metaphorical God to avoid transmission through high touch surfaces. The holy water will be bottled plastic water and pebbles used to throw will be sterilized beforehand. People will also be required to wear masks and bring their own rugs.
The Health Ministry spokesman Mohammed Abdelali of Saudi Arabia explained this safety measures by stating, "protecting the pilgrims… and the sacred sites from the arrival of this disease is very important [...] Saudi Arabia feels a sense of responsibility, therefore we took these temporary decisions, which will constantly be reviewed."
Prior to the pandemic, the Hajj pilgrimage drew around 2.5 million people from all over the world. Pilgrims start making their way to Saudi Arabia starting Ramadan, the holy fasting month. However, this is no longer an option for Muslims living outside Saudi Arabia. The most impacted country is Indonesia which has the world's largest Muslim population. Previously, around 150,000-200,000 Indonesian pilgrims would make this journey.
These decisions have hurt the economy of Saudi Arabia, a country that was already struggling from decrease in oil demands due to national lockdowns. Saudi Arabia on a normal year rakes about $12 billion through the Hajj. With the sharp decrease in tourism, Saudi Arabia's benchmark stock index has decreased by 1.1% as tourism-related firms such as business for Jabal Omar Development, Seera Group, and Al Hokair Group were dry this year.
China's Human Rights Violation of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang
Monday, July 27, 2020 10:00 AM | Anonymous
[Aljazeera/How Hwee Young/EPA]
As China has quickly ascended as a global power that will come to influence the world during the 21st century, the country's ongoing human rights violation records have come into question. The Chinese government, with the leadership of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China Xi Jinping, has taken draconian measures to control its people under the state. This has been demonstrated recently through the lockdowns and tracking devices during the Covid-19 pandemic. Although this method has been praised belatedly as it narrowed Covid-19 cases in the country, it has also been criticized for impeding on people's rights.
However, prior to the issue of Covid-19, the Uighur people living in China have been experiencing multiple violations against their human rights. The Uighurs are an ethnic minority Muslims that closely identify to the cultures and ethnicities in Central Asia. Around 11 million of them reside within the region of Xinjiang, the most northwest region in China. They are known for their agriculture and trade. Because the region is governed independently from China, they speak their own language known as Uighur, and they are ethnically and culturally different from the rest of China, the Uighurs people have sought to separate by declaring independence during the early 1900s. However, the communist state of China crushed the movement in 1949 and claimed its sovereignty over the territory.
Although an autonomous region, the policies passed from Beijing have heavily impacted Uighurs in Xinjiang. In 2014, the Chinese government banned people from fasting during Ramadan and making visits to the mosques. In 2017, Xi Jinping was even recorded making comments that directly targeted Muslims: "religions in China must be Chinese in orientation". Beyond Islamophobic remarks and actions, the state has further abused human rights through its re-education camps, forced labor, and limited child policies.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) published a report claiming more than 1 million Uighur Muslims were kept in re-education camps that forced them to give up their religious and ethnic identity and to pledge allegiance to the state. They were obliged to attend night schooling to study Mandarin, sing the Chinese national anthem, and follow other activities that the state demanded in the name of patriotism.
The ASPI report also noted that Uighur Muslims were being forced to work in factories to make goods for well-known global companies from the United States, Japan, Korea, and more, such as Amazon, Mitsubishi, and Samsung. They were not only being economically exploited but also dehumanized in the process as another instance came up where the US Customs found 13 tons of hair from Uighur Muslims being shipped as products.
For Uighur women, there is another story when it comes to human rights violations. The Uighur women can have two children- three if they reside in the countryside- according to the rules of the state. To police this act, the government has given authorities the power to raid homes in search for hidden children and give detention sentences if they are not adhered. To prevent the increase of Uighur population, the state regularly takes pregnancy checks, imposes intrauterine devices, sterilization, and even abortion. This has drastically waned the Uighur birth rates in Xinjiang, a place that once used to be known for its blooming population.
With all these human rights violations, the United Nations Human Rights committee has likened these events to concentration camps. The international community has denounced China's treatment of the Uighur people. The United Kingdom called it "gross and egregious" whereas the Human Rights Watch (HRW) commented that it was "shameful". When China takes the seat of a global superpower that can interfere and shape the course of the world, what will the nation do when other countries point fingers toward it for its human rights abuses?
Pride Amidst Pandemic: The LGBT Community During COVID-19
Image credit: Alexander Spatar, Teen Vogue
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people are one of the most discriminated groups around the world. Although the coronavirus does not discriminate against humans based on their sexual orientation and gender identity, the society we have constructed surely does. The LGBT community always had many struggles to face prior to the coronavirus but since then, factors such as lack of access to proper healthcare services, family stigmatization, and socioeconomic slowdown have been aggravating the situation.
LGBT people, particularly individuals living with HIV/AIDS, face stigma, discrimination, and negligence in the healthcare system instead of being provided with more support for being more vulnerable to the coronavirus. During quarantine and lockdown, LGBT people, whose large percent of the people are employed in the informal job market, have been forced by their financial circumstances to return to their family. While there is a lot of romanticizing of family bonding during coronavirus, LGBT people do not have that same privilege because the lack of acceptance runs not only outside in the society but unfortunately within family households. Therefore, they are at a higher risk because of anti-LGBT family members who could physically or mentally abuse them during this stay-at-home era. Patterns of these issues have been encountered in many different countries across various continents.
The Human Rights Campaign found that about among the estimated 16 million queer people living in the United States, approximately one-third of the people are working essential jobs. They work as healthcare workers, first responders, agriculture workers, and so on, being more susceptible to the virus. However, LGBT people do not always visit the doctors because of discrimination, mental health, and poverty. For LGBT people of color, that is especially the case as a study read that "40% of Black trans adults and 45% of Latinx trans adults live below the poverty line". In the United States, often there is data regarding how people of color and low-income groups have been affected by the coronavirus. However, when it comes to LGBT people, there is no data being constantly collected. Dr. Magfa Houlberg, Chief Clinical Officer at LGBT clinic Howard Brown Health and Chair of the American Medical AssociationsAdvisory committee on LGBT explained the current dilemma that health departments have not tracked LGBT people because of the fear of discomfort, discrimination, and privacy reasons.
The World Bank reports that in Argentina, beyond 80 percent of trans women are engaged in sex work job market and due to lockdown, they have been unable to receive wages and have faced evictions. Beyond the economic detriments, trans people have also endured abuses from the police. There is institutionalized discrimination against especially trans people who, due to lack of proper documentation, are unable to access aid from the government. To combat these injustices, the government has set up the Ministry of Women, Genders and Diversity to collect data on women and LGBT people.
Anti-LGBT has been on the rise during the spread of coronavirus in Eastern Europe and no country has made it clearer than Poland. The Polish President, Andrzej Duda, has expressed his homophobic opinions by stating he would invalidate same-sex marriage and adoption for gay couples as part of his "Family Card" proposal. He has also declared to ban education on LGBT subject matter in schools within Poland to "protect children from LGBT ideology". Instead of being an ally to the LGBT communities during these times of hardship, his appalling remarks have spread in the country. Churches have blamed the LGBT community for coronavirus despite no evidence linked between gender and sexual orientation to the spread of virus.
In the archipelago of Indonesia, many LGBT people hold jobs in the informal business. Thus, the coronavirus has made a huge impact among LGBT Indonesians who no longer have the daily or weekly wages through their work in the beauty, arts, sex work, and others. At least 640 trans women have experienced a loss in income which has impacted their ability to put food on table. The government has not been helpful, which does not come as a surprise given the anti-LGBT history of the country which proposed "family resilience" law that would provide rehabilitation to "people who engage in sadism, masochism, homosexual sex, or incest". Instead of relying on others, the LGBT community in Indonesia has organized to help not only people who identify within their group but also others; in Yogyakarta, trans women have created food banks to support the low-income people in need and in Maumere, trans organizations have helped others with food, masks, and rent.


text:
Trump Campaign Files Suit To Halt Vote Counting In Michigan
By Blessing
President Donald Trump's reelection campaign has filed suit in Michigan's Court of Claims seeking a stop in ballot counting in Michigan "until meaningful access has been granted" to supervise the ballot counting process. However Democratic officials in Michigan are countering the claims.
READ ALSO:INEC May Introduce Electronic Voting In Anambra Election Next Year
"We also demand to review those ballots which are opened and counted while we did not have meaningful access," the campaign said in a statement.
The campaign said it had been denied access to "numerous counting locations" to observe the process "as guaranteed by Michigan law."
"As votes in Michigan continue to be counted, the presidential race in the state remains extremely tight as we always knew it would be," said Bill Stepien, campaign manager for Trump's 2020 campaign.
The campaign's statement did not list the locations where it claimed to have been denied access, and a copy of the lawsuit was not immediately available.
Attorney General Dana Nessel's office had not been served a copy of the suit as of Wednesday afternoon, according to the attorney general's office.
"Michigan's elections have been conducted transparently, with access provided for both political parties and the public, and using a robust system of checks and balances to ensure that all ballots are counted fairly and accurately," said Ryan Jarvi, a spokesman for Nessel's office.
The lawsuit is "as frivolous a lawsuit as it gets," said Mark Brewer, former chairman for the Michigan Democratic Party and a lawyer.
Brewer has been at the TCF Center in Detroit, where absentee ballots are being counted, throughout Wednesday and worked with others who have been present there Monday and Tuesday. Absentee vote tally discrepancies in Detroit marred the August primary and prompted Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's office to form a partnership with Detroit Clerk Janice Winfrey to correct the problems.
"I am at TCF, and there have been hundreds of GOP challengers here these past few days," Brewer said, while noting they were "ill-trained" and "rude."
"Nobody is being denied access," he said.
Related Items:campaign, Michigan, President Donald Trump's, us election
Donald Trump Supporters Clash With Police In Attempt To Gain Access To The U.S. Capitol Building (Video)
Mike Pence Tells Trump He Can't Alter Biden's Win
"This Was A 100% Rigged Election" – President Trump Blows Hot Again
INEC May Introduce Electronic Voting In Anambra Election Next Year
President Buhari Pledge To End Estimated Electricity Billing
Chelsea Set To Break The Bank For Haaland's Release Ahead Of Real Madrid, Man City
Chelsea set to break the bank to sign Erling Haaland from Borussia Dortmund this...