America can’t compete globally without training

http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/Breakthroughs-Voices/2016/0315/America-can-t-compete-globally-without-training?cmpid=gigya-mail

Signing trade agreements is not enough. Only with a robust national competitiveness agenda will America continue to lead in the global trading system.

By Robert D. Atkinson, Information Technology & Innovation FoundationMARCH 15, 2016

Imagine the men or women of America’s national basketball teams getting ready for the best competition the world can offer this summer at the Olympic games in Rio de Janeiro. Now imagine that, instead of training in high-quality gyms, the players have to make do on cracked blacktops with broken backboards and rims without nets. And rather than having top-notch coaches like Duke University’s Mike Krzyzewski and the University of Connecticut’s Geno Auriemma, they are stuck with a parent whose only previous experience came in shepherding their kid’s 6th-grade rec league. We’d be lucky to win the bronze. Thankfully, that is not how we do things when it comes to Olympic sports. But it’s not a bad analogy for the casual way we compete in the global economy.

While America has one of the most open economies in the world, we stubbornly refuse to “train” by adopting a robust national competitiveness strategy. No wonder we have racked up a trade deficit of more than $6 trillion over the last decade while losing one-third of our manufacturing jobs since the turn of the 21st century. And no wonder an increasing share of Americans no longer support new trade agreements, or that candidates such as Donald Trump get showered with applause when they say they will roll back existing pacts, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.

If you don’t train, you can’t win. If policymakers want Americans to once again support trade and globalization – as they should, because it’s ultimately in almost everyone’s best interests – then they have to give the country more than empty promises and happy-talk bromides about why trade is good. Only when we start training for the global competitiveness race will Americans view trade as something that’s good for everyone.

The country’s lack of preparation for global competition isn’t middle America’s fault; they understand there’s a problem. It lies in the failed “Washington Economic Consensus,” so named in 1989 by economist John Williamson to describe 10 specific economic policy prescriptions that institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund should impose on developing nations – and it has become the de facto view about what the United States also should do internally.

Army must ditch its war data network, former Defense Intelligence Agency chief says

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/20/michael-flynn-says-army-must-ditch-war-data-networ/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times

Sunday, March 20, 2016 

An Army general who reached the pinnacle of military intelligence says his service’s war-deployed data analytical network is a flop and needs to be stopped, rebuilt and renamed.

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, who headed the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency until 2014 and held a number of terrorist-hunting jobs, is the most senior officer to publicly chastise the Army for how it has clung to the Distributed Common Ground System, or DCGS.

In doing so, Mr. Flynn sides with a number of field commanders who have written blistering internal criticisms of DCGS. Intelligence officers found it slow and susceptible to crashes. During the height of the Afghanistan War, some soldiers parked the hardware off to the side and relied on commercially available Web-linked computers.

When commanders made emergency requests to buy off the shelf, Army headquarters sometimes delayed decisions or simply said “no,” according to internal memos.

“Here we are in 2016 and we are still forcing a capability down the throats of our military units, special and conventional forces, that requires way, way too much training and basically contract support,” Mr. Flynn told The Washington Times. “The Army needs to move to a DCGS 2.0 quickly. Frankly, I would even change the name because it just has such a bad monicker right now.

“DCGS is hard to learn,” said Mr. Flynn, a hard-charging officer who has bluntly criticized President Obama’s approach to fighting radical Islam. “It takes a long time. You have to use it all the time, which means it’s not a simple technology that people are used to and can buy off the shelf today. And frankly, it doesn’t do what it’s touted to do. That’s why you see units out on the battlefield asking for very similar things.”

An in-battle computing system may not carry the star quality of sleek jet fighters or supersonic missiles. But in the painstaking war on terrorism, there are few battlefield tools more important than an intelligence network of server and software. The system can produce the information that helps warriors locate buried bombs, identify terrorists and plan the next raid.

DCGS too often failed in being able to store and produce retrievable classified data, Mr. Flynn said.

“I can’t sit here today and say in my nearly five years in combat over the last decade that I ever saw it applied on the battlefield the way it was touted,” he said. “We found other, more capable technologies that were essentially off the shelf that performed far better for the needs for the soldiers. I saw other technologies that were wildly successful that our forces definitely used quite a bit more than what they can get out of DCGS.”

He offered advice to the Army’s top intelligence directorate (G-2) at the Pentagon.

“If I was going in as the G-2 of the Army today, what I would do is take a big step back, and I would analyze whether the system is doing what it’s sold to do, and I would consider taking the best parts of it and sort of retooling given the new technology we have available to us today because the system was originally considered well over a decade ago,” he said.

“The point is technology and innovation have advanced far past what DCGS is capable of doing. It’s not an agile enough tool to be able to incorporate and integrate the most advanced technology that is on the shelf today that can be bought by our forces that frankly our war-fighting units want.”

The False Choice at the Core of the Apple-FBI Standoff

http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/the-false-choice-the-core-the-apple-fbi-standoff-15548?page=show

Neither absolute privacy nor absolute security should prevail.

Daniel M. Gerstein, March 21, 2016 

The standoff between Apple and the FBI has been going on for a few weeks but it has been simmering for a great deal longer. While the focal point of this debate has been the government's attempt to compel Apple to unlock an iPhone tied to the San Bernardino County attacks—in essence to develop a backdoor creating an inherent vulnerability—the issue is far weightier than what happens to this single device.

In a very real sense, the results of this case and the accompanying dialogue represent an important skirmish in a much longer and more important conflict in which neither of the polar extremes can be allowed to dominate outright. At its core, the question comes down the issue of privacy versus security, where important compromises must be made to ensure that neither absolute privacy nor absolute security prevail. But in resolving this issue, the dialogue must not be allowed to devolve into a false dichotomy between two extremes, neither of which will satisfy the demands for security or privacy in a free and open society.

Apple's case, as espoused by CEO Tim Cook, is based on wanting to protect the privacy of iPhone users, coupled with not wanting the government to be able to compel the company to develop insecurity in its device. Apple has been joined in this battle by fellow tech companies such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft. The concerns expressed by the technology companies somewhat misleadingly imply that securing the terminal device—in this case the iPhone—will substantially increase one’s security, when in reality most insecurities are caused by an individual's online behavior, such as becoming the victim of a phishing attack, which make up about 90 percent of cyberattacks.

The FBI's case, while focused on the San Bernardino's shooter's phone, really comes down to the question of whether technology should have backdoors that allow for interrogation of electronic devices after obtaining proper legal authority. The outcome of this case has serious implications for the long-term ability of law enforcement to deter criminal and terrorist behavior, conduct investigations and secure prosecutions and protect United States citizens at home and abroad.

An important backdrop for the current debate is the perceived excess associated with the global surveillance program exposed in the Snowden classified information release from the U.S. National Security Agency in 2013, which has heightened sensitivity regarding privacy issues. To increase the intrigue, some—including former CIA contractor Edward Snowden—have claimed that the FBI already has the capacity to unlock the phone, but that the agency wants to drive home the point that law enforcement must have the capacity to access technology given appropriate legal authority.

Implied in Apple's case is that electronic devices should provide their users with absolute privacy. In this view of the world, everyone (including terrorists) would be able to operate with impunity taking advantage of the dark web, end-to-end signal encryption, and encrypted terminal devices such as the iPhone in question. Such a world would be unique within the legal frameworks established through the nation's founding principles, articulated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and well-considered over 240 years of established law. These legal and societal precedents have long sought to balance the rights of the individual with the responsibilities of individuals as part of a larger community.

** Army Electronic Warfare Investment Lags Russian Threat

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/army-electronic-warfare-investment-lags-rhetoric-russians/?utm_campaign=Breaking+Defense+Daily+Digest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=27490466&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-93XHmc5QXanFxayrILFMpibuE7a48aaNwXFCP4g3YY0_lNMJMCbDqGVKgjTSzIoE8ksl2ey0VrVFPfMYruOleg1hMwfQ&_hsmi=27490466

By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on March 21, 2016

The Army disbanded its Combat Electronic Warfare Intelligence (CEWI) units, like the one shown here, after the Cold War.

There is a great disconnect in the Department of Defense. Leaders at the highest levels realize we are falling behind — or have already fallen behind — Russia and China in electronic warfare, the invisible battle of detecting and disrupting the radar and radio transmissions on which a modern military depends. Even in the traditionally lower-tech world of land warfare, Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work told me EW was a pillar of the future Army, alongside the new domain of cyber and the traditional arts of fire and maneuver.

Yet the US Army, the largest armed service, has few EW sensors, no long-range jammers, and no funded plan to field them before 2023. While Army leaders now acknowledge the importance of EW, and units are training harder on how to operate when the enemy is jamming them, the service is investing very little in fighting back.

It’s true that Army modernization is squeezed tight. But even in a diminished budget, Army EW investment is a rounding error. Out of $17.6 billion in procurement requested for 2017, just 0.8 percent — $142 million — is listed under “electronic warfare,” very broadly defined: $99.9 million of that $142 goes to specialized radars to detect incoming mortar fire, which isn’t really EW. Out of a $7.6 billion 2017 request for Research, Development, Testing, & Evaluation (RDT&E), just 1.6 percent — $118 million — is EW-related. These numbers, small as they are, are actually up from prior years. Not reflected in these figures is recent infusion of $50 million to accelerate the Army jammer program — by all of three months.

Army spending on electronic warfare (EW) in $ millions (2017 figure is budget request)

So while the Army’s 2017 budget request makes many much-needed investments in other areas, said analyst Jim McAleese, it still shortchanges electronic warfare.

“I can see cyber money. I can see Active Protection Systems money. I can see aircraft survivability money,” McAleese said at last week’s Association of the US Army conference in Huntsville, Ala. “The only place that I would tell you, sir, that there’s probably a weakness in the budget that I can see the Army spends very, very little on EW.”

The lack of investment has real-world consequences. “Are we closing the gap between Russian EW capability and US Army EW capability? Right now… no,” said Col. Jeffrey Church,head of electronic warfare on the Army’s Pentagon staff (section G-3/5/7). “The EW wall locker is still bare. The maneuver commander still does not have a tool at his disposal that he owns and controls on a daily basis to conduct electronic warfare.”

Meanwhile, the Russian army has fully equipped electronic warfare brigades, some of them at work in Ukraine with lethal effect.

A Longshoreman's Guide to Military Innovation

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/longshoremans-guide-military-innovation-15562?page=show

The secret to being innovative is to innovate. Make it routine.

James Holmes, March 22, 2016

Military innovation is all the rage in U.S. Navy circles these days, and indeed throughout the Pentagon. It has to be, in an age when U.S. expeditionary forces square off against newly ambitious, newly capable antagonists In those antagonists’ turf. How can U.S. Navy chieftains speed up the search for newfangled weaponry, methods and tactics? My advice: to be innovative, innovate. Make it routine. Make the experimental mindset part of everyday naval life.

If innovation comes to constitute Navy culture, seafarers will innovate of their own accord—and, in all likelihood, produce better results than the latest centralized initiative handed down from on high. For insight into how to encode creativity in U.S. Navy culture, where better to turn than classic works of political philosophy? And to be sure, in the canon you’ll find an odd couple from classical Greece and Depression-era California who can help.

Why the Navy’s sudden mania for innovation? Simple: because America’spost–Cold War holiday from history has drawn to an abrupt close. In those halcyon years, basking in the triumphal afterglow of victory over the Soviet Union, officialdom cherished the conceit that U.S. naval supremacy hadrepealed basic military functions—functions such as fighting peer navies forcommand of the commons, namely the seas and skies, which are beyond the jurisdiction of any coastal state.

Bizarre though it may sound—and let us vow never to repeat the post–Cold War leadership’s blunder—it seemed to make sense to let preparations for fleet-on-fleet battle lapse back then. Few could contest U.S. maritime mastery during the 1990s. Starved of funding, the remnants of the Soviet Navy weresinking, rusting at their moorings or making the final sad journey to the ship-breaker. With its archfoe consigned to the boneyard and an oceangoing Chinese navy little more than a gleam in its founder’s eye, there was no one left to fight. Why prepare for the last war? Why gird for a high-seas duel against a nonexistent enemy?

Except that the post–Cold War years were a mere interlude in power politics, not an end of history. Faced with unpleasant developments—in particular, the return of China and Russia to the sea—Navy leaders have accepted that thehappy time when U.S. fighting ships rode the waves with abandon is now over. American arms can accomplish little without an offshore safe haven. They can’t even reach important combat theaters, let alone project power ashore, unless they subdue local defenders. The Chinas and Russias of the world have taken note of U.S. forces’ dependence on the commons, strewing “anti-access” defenses along Eurasian shorelines. As a result, U.S. commanders can no longer take entry into Eurasia’s peripheral seas for granted. They must devise countermeasures to pierce anti-access defenses.

Indeed, there are no final victories in strategic competition. Advantages in hardware, tactics and organization must be preserved and expanded for the U.S. military to stay ahead in this never-ending cycle of martial one-upmanship. Ergo, innovation.

Brussels Attacks Tear At The Fabric Of The European Union

from STRATFOR
The March 22 terrorist attacks in Brussels come as the European Union is stillreeling from the November Paris attacks and scrambling to solve the migrant crisis. More important, they come as nationalist forces are challenging key principles of the Continental bloc, including the free movement of labor and the Schengen Agreement, which eliminated border controls among several member states. The atmosphere of fear and suspicion that is sure to follow will only worsen these social, political and economic crises.
The first outcome of the Brussels attacks will be a fresh round of debate over EU border controls, in particular those in the Schengen zone. The Schengen Agreementcame under fire at the start of the migrant crisis in early 2015. The Paris attacksescalated the controversy, particularly because the perpetrators moved between France and Belgium without detection. Consequently, France and other countries enhanced their border controls. The European Commission has since said that it wants all border controls in the Schengen area lifted by the end of 2016. However, the latest attacks - and the potential that more will follow - will make this difficult.
Several governments in Western Europe will likely soon announce new national security legislation, improved controls on fighters returning from conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as enhanced intelligence sharing with their neighbors. EU members will also resume discussions on how best to combat terrorism abroad in troubled nations such as Libya and Syria. Europeans will become more willing to contribute to the coalition against the Islamic State, possibly with more weapons and training for the Iraqi military and Kurdish militants, increased deployment of combat aircraft and participation in NATO surveillance missions in Turkey.
Another casualty could be the recent, tenuous agreement between Turkey and the European Union to limit the arrival of asylum seekers in Europe. Renewed awareness of the threat of terrorism among EU member states will bring focus on the bloc's external borders, possibly justifying deeper cooperation with Turkey. But the attacks could also reignite anti-Muslim sentiments in Europe and increase popular demands on EU governments not to grant visa-free travel to Turkish citizens - a key stipulation from Ankara for cooperation on migrant issues.
Anti-Muslim sentiment could also lead to more support for nationalist parties across the Continent.France's National Front already receives substantial support in electoral polls. In Germany, the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party recently achieved record performances in regional electionsand is currently the country's third most popular party. Both France and Germany will hold general elections in 2017, in votes that will happen against the backdrop of the immigration crisis and the multiple terrorist attacks. In both cases, the mainstream parties will be under electoral pressure from their nationalist rivals. As a result, they will likely adopt some elements of nationalist party platforms. The same can be expected in other Northern European countries such as the Netherlands or Sweden, which also have relatively strong nationalist movements. Political parties and groups that want the United Kingdom to leave the European Union could also use the recent terrorist attacks to justify greater isolation from the Continent.

Belgium, Turkey and Islamic State's Strategy

Briefing: SPECIAL REPORT
A real-time update on global developments as they happen.
March 22, 2016
By George Friedman
The recent attacks strike at the heart of two potential threats to IS.
Summary
The attacks in Belgium and Turkey must be considered together. They are attacks in the symbolic heartlands of two potential enemies of the Islamic State, Europe and Turkey. The attacks are meant to destabilize each country and recruit potential operatives from each country’s pool of possible jihadists.
There have been two attacks this week, both apparently by the Islamic State, first in Turkey on March 19 and then today in Belgium. The close sequence of the two attacks might simply be a coincidence, but IS tends to be more strategic than other terrorist groups and has the ability to coordinate attacks. Therefore, why would they choose Belgium and Turkey for their attacks?


One answer is that they have operatives in both countries. Turkey is a Muslim country, and IS is able to recruit Turks and move other operatives into Turkey if needed. Belgium has a substantial Muslim population, which IS can target for recruiting and inserting operatives. But of course, that is true of many countries.
It is interesting that these attacks were against countries IS considers strategically significant. Turkey’s significance is obvious. It is a major power in the Middle East. It also had relatively benign relations with IS that have broken down. In striking Turkey, IS demonstrates to its followers that it is able to strike at an enemy. And it also, IS hopes, emboldens potential jihadists inside of Turkey to strike, politically and militarily crippling Turkey’s ability to strike IS in Syria and Iraq. IS is trying to shape Turkey’s behavior. And Turkey is an enormous presence in the region, as well as a symbol of non-Arab views of IS.
Belgium is not only one of the countries of Europe’s core, as is France, but it is also in some sense the capital of Europe. Brussels is the headquarters of the European Union’s secretariat. It is also near the headquarters of NATO. By striking Brussels, IS was striking at Europe’s core. IS has come to see Europe as an enemy, not only because it sees it as Christian, but also because it sees it as hostile.
And this is where we get to the heart of the matter strategically. Turkey and Europe collectively form a potential core for resistance to IS. The only possibility IS has of deterring this action or of crippling their ability to act is to conduct terror operations against them. If the operations are successful they will do two things. First, they will create a faction in each nation opposed to hostilities with IS because of the consequences. Second, they will utilize the significant population that could be recruited to join IS. Even failing that immediately, the inevitable scrutiny and repression of this population could recruit operatives.

IS is under significant pressure from conventional forces, and its boundaries appear to be contracting in Syria and Iraq. It needs to destabilize potential enemies and combine that with symbolism. Attacking tourists near Taksim Square in the heart of Istanbul is one strategy. Attacking Europe’s capital is another. As it comes under pressure in Syria and Iraq, it must consider shifting from a conventional to an insurgency role. An ideal mix is to maintain more conventional operations while intensifying terrorist acts outside of Syria and Iraq.
IS has few options in this regard, but attacking Istanbul and Belgium strikes at the heart of two potential threats, using resources that were in the country and generating responses that might strengthen their position.

Brussels Airport and Subway Attacks Kill at Least 30; ISIS Claims Responsibility

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/world/europe/brussels-airport-explosions.html?_r=0

By ALISSA J. RUBIN, AURELIEN BREEDEN and ANITA RAGHAVAN

MARCH 22, 2016

BRUSSELS — The Islamic State claimed responsibility for deadly terrorist bombings that struck Brussels on Tuesday, killing at least 30 people at the main international airport and in a subway station at the heart of the city, near the headquarters of the European Union.

The violence began shortly before 8 a.m. with an explosion in the departure terminal at Brussels Airport believed to be a luggage bomb, followed shortly by another. Then, at 9:11 a.m., a bomb tore through the last car of a subway train as it was pulling out of the Maelbeek station.

Officials said the bombings killed at least 10 at the airport and 20 at the subway station — and more than 230 others were wounded.

“We were fearing terrorist attacks, and that has now happened,” Prime Minister Charles Michel of Belgium said at a news conference, calling the attacks “blind, violent, cowardly.” On Twitter, he called on people to “avoid all movement,” as the authorities braced for the possibility of additional violence. King Philippe planned a televised address later.

Belgian news media published a surveillance photograph from the airport showing three men pushing luggage carts, two of them appearing to be wearing gloves on their left hands and a third wearing a dark hat and white jacket. Belgium’s federal prosecutor, Frédéric Van Leeuw, told an evening news conference that the black-gloved men were “believed to have been suicide bombers,” and that the authorities were hunting the third man. He said several house searches were underway.

Passengers queuing at terminal counters described sudden panic and mayhem as the explosions turned the departure area into a death trap with flames, smoke, flying glass and shrapnel. The airport, in the town of Zaventem seven miles from Brussels, was closed and the Belgium authorities placed the entire area on emergency lockdown.

“We heard a big noise and saw a big flash,” said one passenger, Ilaria Ruggiano, who had been traveling with six others including her mother. “My mother went to the floor — she was hit. I just dropped my luggage and went to the floor. A kid came out, bleeding a lot. I tried to help him with a tissue, but it was not enough. There were two bombs.”

In the afternoon, Amaq, a news agency affiliated with the Islamic State, issued a bulletin saying the militant group was responsible for the attacks.

“Islamic State fighters carried out a series of bombings with explosive belts and devices on Tuesday, targeting an airport and a central metro station in the center of the Belgian capital, Brussels, a country participating in the coalition against the Islamic State,” it said. “Islamic State fighters opened fire inside the Zaventem airport, before several of them detonated their explosive belts, as a martyrdom bomber detonated his explosive belt in the Maelbeek metro station.”

The attacks occurred four days after the capture on Friday of Europe’s most wanted man, Salah Abdeslam. He is the sole survivor of the 10 men believed to have been directly involved in the Islamic State attacks that killed 130 people in and around Paris on Nov. 13.

President François Hollande of France vowed “to relentlessly fight terrorism, both internationally and internally.” He added, “Through the Brussels attacks, it is the whole of Europe that is hit.”

The French government ordered 1,600 extra police officers to patrol the nation’s borders, including at train stations, airports and ports. The National Assembly, the lower house of Parliament, observed a moment of silence to honor the dead. The Eiffel Tower was to be lit with the black, red and yellow colors of Belgium’s flag on Tuesday night.

Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain called an emergency meeting of ministers. Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany said the attacks “aim at the heart of Europe.” Pope Francis expressed condolences.

Brussels Terror: West Is Losing The War; It Has Not Learnt To Roll With Punches

http://swarajyamag.com/world/brussels-terror-west-is-losing-the-war-it-has-not-learnt-to-roll-with-punches

R Jagannathan, March 22, 2016

Terror always inflicts more costs on the target than the terrorist. For the cost of a few lives (bodies and bombs), terrorists can do multiple times the damage to their targets. 

The only real answer to terror is to learn to roll with the punches, but this the west has not learnt to do.

No system can deter all forms of terrorism, especially in places with high footfalls. Developing a degree of social immunity to terrorism seems important to make it less attractive to terrorists.

As yet another terrorist attack rocks the western world – this time in Brussels airport and the city metro, killing over 28 people and injuring scores more – the question to ask is this: is the west losing the war on terror?

A simple answer is this: terror always inflicts more costs on the target than the terrorist. For the cost of a few lives (bodies and bombs), terrorists can do multiple times the damage to their targets. So even if the west prevents a hundred attacks, and saves hundreds of lives due to good intelligence and pre-emptive security measures, the target country/economy is inflicted with huge costs that go far, far beyond the lives and properties lost.

Economically speaking, the cost-benefit analysis of trying to prevent terror is never going to look good. The only real answer to terror is to learn to roll with the punches, but this the west has not learnt to do.

Consider what the US alone has spent in its decade-and-a-half war on terror abroad and in defending its homeland.

#1: The wars against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Uncle Sam over $1.8 trillion so far, and counting. $ 1.8 trillion is just a little less than India’s current annual GDP which supports 1.25 billion people. Put another way, the US spent the equivalent of one year’s Indian GDP fighting two wars it has not yet won.

#2: The second war is the defensive one the US has been fighting through the department of homeland security (DHS), set up to keep the mainland safe after 9/11. The DHS spends $6.75 million every hour to defend the country. That’s nearly $675 billion spent since the department was set up under George W Bush. Together, the external war on terror and the internal defence against terror has cost the US $2.5 trillion since 2001.

#3: Now look at two sets of figures to decide whether the money the US spent on fighting and preventing terror is well spent. According to a report in cnn.com, between 2001 and 2013, the US lost 3,380 lives in terror-related incidents (both abroad and inside the US, including the 9/11 deaths). As opposed to this, over 4,06,000 people were killed in gun-related deaths in the US during the same period. Less than 1 percent of the deaths were due to terrorism.

#4: Excluded in all these costs are the losses suffered by insurance companies, airlines and other industries that were impacted by the 9/11’s aftermath.

#5: The Global Terrorism Index says that the economic cost of terrorism spiked to $52.9 billion in 2014 from $32.9 billion before 9/11 in 2002.

Now, with terrorism shifting focus to Europe, what with the Paris and Belgium attacks, one can assume that costs relating to tacking terror will escalate here too.

*** Open Letter to the Next President, Part 2

BY JOHN MAULDIN

MARCH 21, 2016

“Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.”

  – Margaret Thatcher

“Nobody in Europe will be abandoned. Nobody in Europe will be excluded. Europe only succeeds if we work together.”

  – Angela Merkel

Today we’ll continue our world tour with more advice for the next president. Speaking of whom, lLast week’s primaries narrowed the race a bit. Marco Rubio is out of the GOP running, and Bernie Sanders is lagging further in the Democratic delegate count. The next few weeks will be interesting. An open Republican convention in Cleveland is very possible, a possibility I wrote about in a recent letter from the point of view of someone who has been deeply involved in very large, raucous, and open political conventions. I was trying to give you some insight into the mechanics of such an event. While an open convention might be fun from an entertainment perspective, I think I would prefer a clean win prior to the convention. I find it really fascinating to think that the race might actually come down to California, the last state primary and one with a potentially decisive number of delegates.

One thing is sure: somebody will take the ball from Barack Obama next January 20. Whoever it is will face a world full of challenges, economic and otherwise. Last week we flew west and reviewed Japan and China. Today we’ll continue the trip.

By the way, please don’t take offense if I skip over your country or region. It likely means your problems are relatively minor on the global scale of things. You may not want whatever “help” our new president offers, anyway. Now, on with the letter.

Dear Presidential Candidates:

One of you may move into the White House next January, and you’re going to have your hands full. Last week I gave you my thoughts on Japan and China. Today we’ll take Air Force One further around the challenging world you hope to lead. I hope you’re ready.

We’ll start with a dip Down Under. Australia is an important American ally. It was also, until recently, a big resource supplier to China. Its huge, high-quality iron ore reserves and convenient location ensured Australia an important role in China’s massive infrastructure binge.

With that binge now winding down, Australia’s economy and currency are struggling. The country spent several years gearing up to accommodate Chinese demand that is now gone, or at least greatly reduced. On the plus side, wealthy Chinese citizens are finding Australia a convenient place to buy real estate, propping up what to the rest of the world looks like a housing bubble. This trend could persist for some time if China maintains its capital controls. But as you enter office, Australia will be economically fragile.

Your challenge, Mr. or Mrs. President, will be to help Australia economically so that they can afford to continue their cooperative stance as our allies in various endeavors around the world. The same goes for New Zealand, for whom China is now an important agricultural customer. The Aussies and Kiwis I know typically want strong ties with the US, and I believe those ties will remain close. These two countries have been willing partners of the US, but their budgets are being strained, and domestic priorities are coming to the forefront.

This observation brings me to an important point. You will find as president that your power is not absolute. Circumstances are going to dictate what you can and can’t do. You won’t be able to fix everything, but you will be able to make every situation worse. Resist the urge to “do something” simply because you can.

Subcontinental Opportunity

When your predecessor, Barack Obama, promised a “pivot to Asia,” he was talking mostly about China. India is equally important, but many Americans forget about Asia’s other mega-state. You need to pay attention to it.

India and China may look like neighbors on a map, but they are worlds apart. George Friedman explained recently how the Himalayas make a China-India military conflict all but impossible. Neither country has ever been able to invade the other or even conduct very much cross-border trade across the world’s largest mountain range, so the two nations have grown to their present gargantuan size independently. India has been regularly growing at 7%-plus GDP per year.

Your Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, is now almost two years into a much-needed economic reform plan. India does not have China’s vast export industries. Services comprise almost a third of India’s exports, mainly call centers serving the English-speaking West. Modi is wrestling with an entrenched bureaucracy, crumbling infrastructure, and a fast-growing labor force. But he is making progress. Roadbuilding has accelerated to more than ten miles a day from barely one mile a day just a few years ago. Modi is beginning to put a damper on the rampant corruption in the bureaucracy and is actually making the bureaucracy accountable. His has been a very tough job.

In an experiment to watch, India is assigning a biometric digital identity to every citizen so that the government can pay subsidies directly into citizens’ bank accounts and thus prevent the money from falling prey to a corrupt and incompetent bureaucracy. India is also putting money into its banking system, which has needed a boost. Indian banks are under pressure (a story that is being repeated all across the world, highlighting the fragility of our global financial system).

Geopolitically, India bridges South Asia with the Middle East. Its uneasy relations with Pakistan give India an interest in promoting Middle East stability and trade, but given everything else that is happening in the Middle East now, achieving that end won’t be easy.

Mideast Maelstrom

American presidents since Nixon have tried to bring peace to the Middle East. Some came closer than others. You will have to try your hand, too, but the odds are against you. The entire region remains a powder keg, and the situation you inherit will have added complexity and instability.

Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth once let it enforce relative calm on its neighbors. That era is now over, as George Friedman and I explained in our recent report. Oil prices stuck at $40–$50 per barrel are forcing a massive Saudi budget shift and draining enormous amounts from their sovereign wealth fund. By some estimates, if the country maintains its current budget, it will run out of cash by 2021. Which of course means it can’t maintain its current budget. The Saudi royal family is trying to build a cushion for the inevitable hard landing. Their success, or lack of it, will be outside your control, but the outcome will dictate your options.

Saudi Arabia has been offering major financial support to Egypt and other Middle East countries. How long the Saudis will be able to continue to do so is a question that you will need to answer in order to be prepared for whatever exigencies arise.

Across the Gulf from Saudi Arabia is Iran, where implementation of the Obama nuclear deal is proceeding at an unsteady pace. Here you have an opportunity to make something happen. There are two schools of thought. One posits that the single best way to keep Iran from threatening its neighbors, including Israel, is to reintegrate the country into the global economy, since countries that trade with each rarely resort to war. A big barrier to that process is decades-old US economic sanctions on Iran that Congress refuses to lift. The other school of thought asserts that renewed sanctions and further financial repression are required to force Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. While most people focus on the political implications of the US–Iran deal, the economic implications might have even more far-reaching consequences. Formulate your Iran policy wisely.

The Middle East is, of course, complicated by the presence of ISIS. Fighting ISIS requires money, and the nations that have been working with us are going to be financially constrained. For the moment, fear of ISIS is spurring many in the Muslim world to flee toward Europe, a continent with its own problems. Dealing with the refugees in cooperation with the Europeans may be one of your greatest challenges as president.

Russia is another commodity exporter that is under tremendous economic pressure. The Russians are running through their dollar reserves at a rapid rate; the country is in recession; and a turnaround doesn’t appear imminent. They are reportedly cutting their budgets by 10%, including education and social welfare. Just think about how hard it would be to get through the US Congress a bill that would halt increases in spending for a few years—never mind cutting spending by 10%. Theoretically, Russia’s military budget will actually grow a bit, but the realities on the ground mean that the country’s projected 1% growth won’t go very far. Inflation in Russia is now down to just under 10% but has averaged much higher than that over the past year. Everyone is feeling the squeeze.

The fact that Russia is economically challenged does not make the country any less challenging to US interests. Ukraine is clearly in Russia’s backyard, and Russia is obviously opposed to Ukraine’s becoming a NATO member. Thus, Ukraine is now a divided country in a semi-anarchic state.

Let me offer an economic solution to Ukraine. Instead of supporting the various oligarchs who are squabbling over Ukrainian spoils, why not get Ukraine to open up its agricultural industry to outside investment? If Ukraine became productive along the lines of US farms, it could be the breadbasket of all of Eurasia. There has been enormous resistance to outside private capital, but Ukraine could become prosperous in less than 10 years if the country were opened up. This initiative would also create significant new employment and whole new industries supporting agricultural growth in Ukraine, stabilizing the country. And this objective is something that could be achieved without a shot’s being fired. It would mean that entrenched interests would have to be negotiated with, but continuing to pursue the present policy just isn’t working. Just a thought…

What is the Jihadi Threat to Belgium?

22 Mar 2016

http://tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/religion-geopolitics/reports-analysis/briefing-note/what-jihadi-threat-belgium?utm_source=Tony+Blair+Faith+Foundation&utm_campaign=d28addbfba-Brussels_Attack_Briefing&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8a9632e709-d28addbfba-339476325

The seemingly coordinated attacks on an airport and metro station in Brussels have once again drawn attention to Belgium, which is no stranger to jihadi groups.

With ISIS reportedly claiming the attacks in Brussels on the Zeventem airport and the Maalbeek metro station that killed more than 30, the seemingly coordinated assaults highlight the threat Belgium faces from jihadi militants. A toxic mix of Salafi-jihadism combined with high numbers of foreign fighters, and easy access to arms, has seen the country become an important base for radicals to launch attacks in Europe.

The investigation into the Paris attacks threw a spotlight on this challenge. The last remaining suspect wanted for those attacks, Salah Abdesalam, was arrested in Brussels on 18 March. The manhunt that culminated in his eventual arrest highlighted the relative ease with which highly publicised jihadis were able to hide in the city right under the eyes of the security services.

While investigators have welcomed his capture, describing him as being "worth his weight in gold," the attacks in Brussels show how the country's jihadi problem is broader than a few known individuals.

Abdesalam is described as having changed his mind about blowing himself up during the Paris attacks, but investigators have indicated that he was planning further attacks from Brussels. Today's bombings will no doubt lead to further scrutiny of these statements.

Belgium has become an important base for jihadis in Europe.

Belgian authorities have been increasingly concerned over the growing threat of domestic jihadi violence since the Charlie Hebdo attack in January 2015. Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman behind the attack on a Parisian Jewish grocery store in January 2015, obtained weapons used by himself and the Kouachi brothers through connections in Brussels.

Parts of Belgium have surprisingly lax gun control. The suburb of Molenbeek is notorious for a black market in assault weapons, blamed on smugglers who used the Yugoslavia conflict to build a considerable armoury.

Molenbeek, where Salah Abdesalam was captured, is also no stranger to jihadi activity. One of the men jailed for the 2004 Madrid train bombings was from Molenbeek, while Ayoub el-Khazzani, the Moroccan who attempted to open fire on a Paris-bound train in August 2015 before being tackled to the ground by bystanders, is believed to have lived there for a time.

The area has strong Salafi roots, attributable in part to Saudi Arabia's construction of mosques and the influence of Gulf-trained clerics in the largely Moroccan municipality. Deputy mayor Ahmed El Khannouss says it is not in Molenbeek's 22 mosques, but rather the more informal network of Salafi meeting places and prayer sites where radicalism is suspected to thrive.

Global Links

ISIS has recruited successfully in Belgium and it has proportionally the largest number of foreign fighters travelling to Iraq and Syria, with current estimates standing at over 500. Official estimates from the Belgian government believe that around 120 of those have now returned to Belgium and the recent events suggest they remain committed to violent jihad once home.

Proportionally, Belgium has the largest number of foreign fighters travelling to Iraq and Syria.

Many Belgian foreign fighters are linked to Sharia4Belgium, a group originating in Antwerp which recruits young people to fight in Syria and advocates for the imposition of domestic sharia law. Its leader, Fouad Belkacem, was imprisoned for 12 years last year. His trial found that members of the group not only went to fight with ISIS in Syria, but also for al-Qaeda's affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, as well as jihadi groups in Yemen. The judge specifically cited Belkacem's influence "for the radicalisation of young men to prepare them for Salafi combat."

This variety of different jihadi groups' presence in Belgium was demonstrated by nationwide raids in June 2015. Police arrested 16 people following intelligence reports about an attack on Belgian soil. Among those arrested were suspects with links to al-Qaeda affiliates Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic Caucasus Emirate, and who had travelled to Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to receive training.

Abdelhamid Abaaoud, said to be the leader of the Paris attacks, was an ISIS militant in Syria and was interviewed in an issue of the group's English-language propaganda magazine Dabiq. He described Belgium as being a "member of the crusader coalition attacking the Muslims" and that he and his accomplices were able to return from Syria to Belgium, obtain weapons, and setup a safe-house as they sought to carry out attacks.

But Belgium's long association with jihadism shows that the ideology and the number of groups involved goes even deeper. The focus on ISIS and the Belgian links to the Paris attacks overshadows a wider issue; the spread and incubation of the Salafi-jihadi ideology. Though welcome, the dismantling of ISIS alone in Belgium, or the rest of Europe for that matter, will only be dealing with a symptom, not the root cause of the problem.

Conglomerate Crisis: Why Tatas, Birlas & Ambanis Must Become Warren Buffetts

http://swarajyamag.com/business/conglomerate-crisis-why-tatas-birlas-and-ambanis-must-become-warren-buffetts

R Jagannathan, March 21, 2016

Some lessons for Indian Conglomerates from the debt debacles of India Inc. 

Cronyism is not a sustainable way to build a business. What you gain on the political and economic swings you lose on the roundabouts. 

Businessmen who don’t have the resources to put in adequate equity to balance the debt should not be getting into projects that are too big for them. 

Diversification worked in the pre-1991 era when obtaining a licence was the key to profitability. Not today. 

In this age of competition, all businesses should downsize and focus on their core strengths. 

Having too many companies under one roof means capital allocations can go wrong so Conglomerates should aim to become capital allocating businesses, rather than operating ones. 

India’s big business has to shift its area of competence from running a company to judging the efficiency of their capital allocations.

After more than a decade of irresponsible growth, undigested acquisitions and unrelated diversification, India Inc clearly has to downsize. Groups as big as the Tatas and Birlas are feeling the weight of debt, and they will surely be better off selling entire businesses and becoming less of conglomerates. Focus, in the post-debt world, is going to be more important to success than size and diversity.

The big groups have to redefine their core business as the allocation of capital, and not running the various businesses themselves. In short, the Tatas and Birlas have to become Warren Buffetts, and not remain primary entrepreneurs. 

While the Tatas are probably big enough to hold on to most of their behemoths and still pay off their debts, one statistic is worth noting: of the total group market valuation of around $110 billion (Rs 7,47,000 crore), two-thirds comes from just one company (Tata Consultancy Services). They should ask themselves: are we better off growing our best businesses or feeding the slackers? Should we be leaner and more profitable, or larger and less effective in what we do?

For both the Tatas and Birlas, their current problems relate to two big overseas acquisitions they made in 2007, of Corus Steel and Novelis (aluminium products) respectively. While the Birlas bought Novelis for around $6 billion, the Tatas paid nearly $11 billion for Corus, before running smack into the global financial crisis that made it impossible to generate enough profits to pay back the debt incurred for the acquisitions. Now, the Tatas are busy hiving off portions of Corus to pare down debt. 

The Birlas are on a more even keel, but they too are stretched on debt. The Hindalco share today quotes at less than half the value it had around the time of the Novelis acquisition nine years ago. 

In the case of the Tatas, just two companies (Tata Steel and Tata Power) account for more than half the group’s overall debt of Rs 2,07,000 crore; for the Birlas, Hindalco accounted for more than half the group’s overall debt of Rs 1,25,000 crore. Clearly, one difficult acquisition each has damaged the growth prospects of the Tatas and Birlas.

If this is the case with the big boys, the midi groups are faring worse. The Economic Times today (21 March) notes that the Ruias are planning to sell their refinery in Gujarat – the second biggest in the country after Reliance’s – in order to prevent debt from killing off the entire group. The group has Rs 85,000 crore of debt, and selling off a three-quarters stake in the refinery and the connected Vadinar port will reduce 40 percent of the group’s debt.

Another ET magazine report (20 March) says the default-rated debts of five groups, is as high as 65 percent for Jaypee (the Jaiprakash group), 38 percent for Lanco, 37 percent for GMR, 36 percent for Essar and 5 percent for GVK.

And so the story goes on as one descends down the pecking order of Indian businesses grouped by size. 

The interesting thing about debt-driven downsizing is this: all these groups are selling not their worst businesses, but their best. Look at the irony. Greed in good times encouraged these businessmen to overload themselves with debt, but on the downside they are not even getting to keep their best businesses.

This is true across the board.

How to Make Editors – and Journalism – Relevant Again

http://thewire.in/2016/03/19/how-to-make-editors-and-journalism-relevant-again-25265/

BY HAMID ANSARI ON 19/03/2016 •

While editorial independence faces challenges in the traditional media environment, the digital medium today provides space for independent thought and contrarian views, says Vice President Hamid Ansari 

Sinking Credibility: “There appears to be a distinct reluctance on part of the owners to have a visible, independent and opinionated editor. The owners have also started playing a larger role in determining the news content and orientation of the newspaper or the television channel.” Delphine Savat/Flickr CC 2.0 

Vice President M. Hamid Ansari delivered the inaugural address at a seminar in New Delhi on the ‘Roles of Editors in Today’s Media’ on March 19, 2016. The event was organised by RSTV. Reproduced below is the text of his speech. 

I thank the organisers of this very relevant seminar for inviting me here today. I confess that my knowledge of the subject is that of a beneficiary of the end product rather than of someone who is familiar with the process. 

It is said that an editor’s is a thankless job. He is respected, feared, even hated. The story is related that Napoleon once shot at a magazine editor, missed him and killed the publisher; the narrator added that Napoleon’s intentions were good! 

So how should we judge a member of the species? The Press Council of India Guidelines on Ethical Norms deal at some length with editors’ discretion. It recognises that in the matter of writing an editorial, the editor enjoys a good deal of latitude and discretion. It is for him/her to choose the subject and to use the language considered appropriate, provided that in the process the boundaries of the law and norms of journalism are not transgressed and the views are couched in sober, dignified and socially acceptable language. The guidelines uphold the editor’s discretion in the selection of the material for publication, but in the expectation that, on a controversial issue of public interest, all views are given equal prominence so that the public can form an independent opinion in the matter. 

These are substantial powers. 

The media has a transmutative capacity. It not only portrays reality but can alter the perception of reality itself. The editor thus holds the key to forming public perception and by extension public opinion and thereby set the agenda for the national debate. It is not unheard for a powerful editor to take on the Government of the day, and occasionally, even to bring one down. 

There was a time, not long ago, when newspaper editors were intellectual stalwarts who acted as the brain trust of the country. The editor was the personality of the newspaper – setting its tone and tenor, as well as determining its philosophical and political line. 

The Indian Spy Who Fell for Tibet

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/magazine/the-indian-spy-who-fell-for-tibet.html?emc=edit_ae_20160319&nl=todaysheadlines-asia&nlid=59843357&_r=0

Sent by Britain to carry out a secret survey,

Sarat Chandra Das became enchanted instead.

By SAMANTH SUBRAMANIANMARCH 16, 2016 

If it hadn’t been for a bout of malaria, Sarat Chandra Das might never have become a spy. As a civil engineer, he might have worked in Calcutta forever. But in 1874, upon recovering from his illness, he was offered a position as headmaster of the Bhutia Boarding School in Darjeeling. The mountain air would do him good, he thought, so he accepted. This was how, at 25, Das came to run a school for spies, training agents to work along the India-Tibet border, growing so besotted with Tibet himself that he made two surreptitious journeys to the kingdom.

In the European imagination, Tibet and its capital, Lhasa, were a fantasy, a fabled paradise of spirituality locked away from the world. In the late 1700s, Tibet began denying entry to Westerners, its government — under pressure from China — reluctant to play the games of imperial geopolitics. For Britain, Tibet’s inward turn was ill timed, disrupting its plans to dominate Central Asia. In desperation, as the scholar Derek Waller found, the British cultivated ‘‘pundits,’’ Indians who had helped map the subcontinent and were now dispatched, in disguise, into Tibet, equipped with compasses and 100-bead rosaries to discreetly count their steps.

Among the pundits, Das stood out, a scholar who offered his services as a spy in order to pursue his academic interests. It was as if James Bond volunteered to hunt down Blofeld, booking his own flights and hotels, all to improve his Japanese. Das persuaded his assistant, a lama named Ugyen Gyatso, to visit the Tashilhunpo monastery, in south-central Tibet, and talk him up as a theology student. The monastery’s prime minister was keen to learn Hindi, so Ugyen Gyatso, promising that Das was a fine tutor, wangled a passport for him. Presented with this document, Indian officials, now enthusiastic, gave Das indefinite leave and a crash course in spycraft. During his first trip, to Tashilhunpo in 1879, he studied Tibetan customs and so impressed the prime minister that he was invited back. In November 1881, Das returned, the vision of Lhasa glimmering before him.

The two reports Das wrote about his second, 14-month journey were kept confidential until the 1890s and then published, with severe redactions, in small print runs. In 1902, they were compiled into a book, ‘‘Journey to Lhasa and Central Tibet.’’ The opening pages are tough going, brimming with place names: ‘‘On ascending about 3,000 feet above the Kalai valley, we enjoyed distant views of Pema-yangtse, Yantang, Hi, Sakyang, and other villages.’’ Still, all this was valuable information. In those days, so little was known that even the most quotidian details — the appearance of houses, the location of a pasture — shone with significance.

The first month wasn’t easy. The Himalayas are punishing in early winter. ‘‘How exhausted we were with the fatigue of the day’s journey, how overcome by the rarefication of the air, the intensity of the cold, and how completely prostrated by hunger and thirst, is not easy to describe,’’ Das writes. Das’s guide is frequently drunk. Suspicions must be allayed everywhere. One village council permits his party to pass only after testing Das’s knowledge of Buddhism; even so, someone hollers, ‘‘That Hindu will surely die in the snows.’’ But Das makes it to Tashilhunpo, where he remains for five months, absorbing the news. China is flexing its muscle. Tibetans who rebuff a Chinese official’s attempts at extortion receive ‘‘four hundred blows with the bamboo.’’

* Cheaper renewable energy soars past nuclear power in India

http://scroll.in/article/805316/cheaper-renewable-energy-soars-past-nuclear-power-in-

Amit Bhandari, IndiaSpend.com

Renewable energy in India has overtaken nuclear power as the country seeks carbon-free sources of energy to balance its reliance on coal.

Renewable energy generation in India is higher than its nuclear power generation and is growing at a much faster pace because it is cheaper and quicker to install. The cost of renewable energy is now lower than the cost of nuclear power and does not come with attendant risks, such as last week’s radioactive fuel leak in Gujarat.

Renewable energy generation in India was 61.8 billion units, versus 36.1 billion units of nuclear power generation during the financial year 2014-'15. Renewable energy accounted for 5.6% of electricity generated in India, against 3.2% for nuclear power.

Renewable energy has been growing at a faster pace than nuclear power over two years. During 2013-'14 and 2014-'15, renewable energy grew at 11.7% and 16.2%, respectively, while nuclear power growth has been almost flat over the same period.Source: Central Electricity Authority

Meeting targets

The bulk of India’s renewable energy comes from wind, but solar energy is growing faster, with installed capacity reaching 5,775 megawatts in February 2016. The national solar mission has set a target of 100,000 MW of solar power by 2022. If this target is met, renewable energy will become the second-largest source of power for India, after coal, and ahead of hydropower, natural gas and nuclear energy.

Nuclear power capacity in India is 5,780 MW; another 1,500 MW is under construction and another 3,400 MW has been cleared – a total of 10,680 MW by the end of the decade.

Renewable energy’s growth is propelled by the falling costs of solar and wind energy, as reported earlier.

In November 2015, US-based SunEdison offered solar electricity in India at Rs 4.63/unit. In January this year, this was followed by a Finnish company, Fortum Finnsurya, offering solar power to the National Thermal Power Corporation for Rs 4.34/unit.

At these prices, solar electricity is already cheaper than electricity coming from newly built hydro and nuclear power plants. For instance, India is now starting work on a Rs 39,849-crore expansion (2 units of 1,000 MW each) of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant, Tamil Nadu, due to be completed by 2020-21. Electricity from these reactors – if they are completed on time – will cost Rs 6.3/unit.

Past experience in India and elsewhere suggests this is unlikely.

Slow progress

Work on Units 1 and 2 of the Kudankulam Power Plant began in 2001 and was supposed to be completed by 2007 and 2008. Unit 1 began commercial operations in December 2014 while Unit 2 is yet to be commissioned.

This experience is mirrored in other countries: a power plant being builtby the US firm Westinghouse is more than three years behind schedule; a French company, Areva, is building a reactor in Finland, about nine years behind schedule. Both, Areva and Westinghouse, are among four foreign companies that want to build reactors for the Nuclear Power Corporation of India.

While nuclear power plants typically take more than a decade to build, solar farms and wind-mills can be erected in a few weeks to a few months, with capacities that range from 0.1 MW to 1,000 MW.

Also, nuclear power plants are owned and operated in India by one company, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India. Solar and wind-energy installation have been set up by private individuals, airports, banks, oil companies and educational institutions.

Apart from shutdowns – such as this and this in Kudankulam, and the one we referred to in Gujarat – making nuclear power more expensive, there is also the issue of nuclear liability: Who pays in case something goes wrong? Foreign companies want to build reactors in India, but don’t want to face resultant liabilities.

The drawbacks

The single biggest problem of renewable power is its intermittent nature. The sun does not always shine, and the wind does not always blow.

So, 1 MW of renewable energy generated 1.43 million units of electricity from April 2015 to January 2016. Over the same period, 1 MW of nuclear power generated 5.85 million units of electricity. A nuclear power plant can operate round the clock and can supply electricity at night.

There is currently no cost-effective answer for supplying renewable energy round the clock.

An interim solution can be to use renewable energy when it's available, and turn to natural gas, a fuel much cleaner than coal, at other times. India has more than 24,000 MW of natural gas-fired power plants – enough to supply almost 10% of current electricity demand – mostly idle due to lack of cheap fuel. The drop in international gas prices offers an opportunity to fire them up again, as IndiaSpend has reported.

Solar power also needs a lot of land. Putting up 1 MW of solar powerrequires two hectares of land. This means large-scale solar power plants should only be put up on land that has no value for agriculture or wildlife. This restricts large-scale solar power to the arid areas of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and Ladakh. Small-scale rooftop solar plants can, however, be installed in cities.

This article was first published on IndiaSpend, a data-driven and public interest journalism non-profit.

Under Modi, India May Be Generating Less Black Money Than Before

http://swarajyamag.com/economy/under-modi-india-may-be-generating-less-black-money-than-before

R Jagannathan, March 21, 2016

Given the escalation in the hunt for illegal wealth abroad, both by the Modi government and the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT), it is unlikely that more black money is being shipped abroad. 

Given the sharp fall in profitability in domestic businesses, and also because of the high level of debts, it actually makes sense to overinvoice exports so that money is brought in and used to bolster local businesses that are at risk of going under.

One of the less remarked features of today’s Indian economy is the probability that it is generating less black money than before.

The big areas for black money generation have traditionally been in real estate and construction (both down in the dumps), big bank lending to cronies (where bribes are paid to bankers so that money can be siphoned out to finance the promoters’ equity), misallocation of scarce resources (now gone, as mining and telecom spectrum leases are being auctioned and thus rendered less capable of generating illegal “rents”), and marketing of liquor (now coming increasingly under foreign domination, and hence less prone to cash deals). 

Black money generation from adulteration of diesel and fuels is gone as prices have been deregulated. The scope for small ticket black money generation is also being gradually eliminated by the use of direct benefits transfers in subsidised products like LPG, which will soon be extended to kerosene, fertiliser and food at some stage.

The Great Export Crash of 2014-16, where we have seen exports fall for 15 months in a row, may be yet another pointer to the deceleration in black money growth. Underinvoicing of exports and overinvoicing of imports have been major sources for the creation of illegal black wealth abroad, and these may be coming down. 

The April 2015-February 2016 export fall of 17 percent has many causes: one, of course, is the global slowdown, which has reduced overall demand; another is the relative overvaluation of the rupee, which makes Indian exports relatively uncompetitive; and, third, of course, is the possibility that businesses may be selling more in the domestic market, which may be more profitable than selling abroad right now.

However, there is also a possibility that the shrinkage of the Indian black economy market is impacting export figures. Logically, if your balance-sheets are impaired, it is better to bring in cash by overinvoicing exports than sending it out to tax havens by underinvoicing it. But the export crash suggests that this may not be happening.

Raja-Mandala: Bridge to China

http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/nepal-china-relations-k-p-oli-beijing-new-delhi-madhesi-rights-bridge-to-china/

A rising China and the anti-India resentments of Kathmandu’s hill elite, however, have the potential to neutralise, over the longer term, some of Delhi’s natural strategic advantages in Nepal.

Written by C. Raja Mohan | Updated: March 22, 2016 

As Beijing serenades Nepal’s Prime Minister K P Oli in China this week, should New Delhi be concerned about the expanding partnership between our two northern neighbours? Geography and kinship tie India and Nepal in an inextricable but not necessarily happy relationship. A rising China and the anti-India resentments of Kathmandu’s hill elite, however, have the potential to neutralise, over the longer term, some of Delhi’s natural strategic advantages in Nepal.

Realists in India can’t object to a good neighbourly relationship between Nepal and China. Pragmatists in Beijing know the dangers of moving too far and too fast and provoking an Indian reaction. But miscalculations and misperceptions often generate outcomes no one wants. For his part, Oli made a political gesture to India by visiting Delhi before heading out to Beijing. That significant differences remain, especially on the question of Madhesi rights in Nepal, was reflected in the inability of the two sides to issue a joint statement at the end of Oli’s visit last month. If India-Nepal relations are never too tidy, Beijing-Kathmandu ties are rich in their affirmation of high principle.

Beijing revels in extending strong support to Nepal’s territorial sovereignty. If Delhi claims a “special relationship” with Kathmandu, Beijing tends to emphasise “equality and non-intervention” in its engagement with Nepal. Underlying that rhetoric is the proposition that Beijing can’t accept any claim that the subcontinent is Delhi’s exclusive sphere of influence.

As a writer in China’s Global Times put it in the paper’s Monday edition, “New Delhi should wake up to the fact that Nepal is a sovereign country, not a vassal of India”. The commentator was a lot less harsh in stating that the only sound choice for Nepal is in maintaining good relations with both China and India. “Instead of being forced into becoming a strategic barrier against China,” Global Times concluded, “Nepal should be better treated and act as a bridge between Beijing and New Delhi”.