Young Diplomats

Terrorism has become one of the major issues of international politics in recent decades. It is considered a threat to international security since decades especially after the tragic attack of 9/11. It has become a major part of consideration for state security for almost every country in the world especially the United States .

The war on terrorism was started with an aim to save states’ (U.S. and other countries) sovereignty. The 9/11 attacks were turning point for state policies to fight the war on terrorism.

Due to many attachments with it, defining terrorism has been a problem for officers of law enforcement, policy makers and academics (Goodall, 2013).  Different dictionaries give different definitions for the term ‘Terrorism’ but they all fail to define it concretely. However, most of the definitions include the word ‘violence’ while defining terrorism.

This essay aims to understand and analyze terrorism and war on terrorism and explain these two issues with basic paradigm perspectives. Furthermore, it analyzes two articles on the issue with recommendations for journalists to deal with the reporting of terrorism and war on terrorism.

Understanding and analyzing Terrorism and War on Terrorism:

The realists influenced thinking on the war on terrorism is an interventional description of U.S. and its allies. Realist ideas and actions are erroneous to fight the war on terrorism because they do not consider the salient features of terrorism.

Realist Prospective:

Realist perspective undertakes that in its basic essence under anarchy, the politics of the world is a position and power struggle among countries with self-centered interests (Kegley, 2007). Within this perspective, every state feels a security threat from every other state hence, in order to stop other states; military force is mostly used (Dougherty & Pfaltzqraff, 1996). This perspective, furthermore, says that state should only consider those states its allies which are in its best interest (Aljoofy, 2009).

From the perspective of a realist, in order for the states to preserve power, war becomes an essential tool. Moreover, in principle there is no limit to the power exhibition and exercise for the states. In case, if a state limits itself during a war, it would just be a method to reserve power to follow peace (Fiala, 2002). This perspective mostly draws its basics from the Machiavelli’s “The Prince” in which he asks states to sacrifice their principle of non-exerting power during the war and asks them to consider the way, which will help them, defend and save sovereignty of the state. Following this argument Fiala raises the point that self-preservation is the main objective of war, which overtakes all other concerns.  Thus, terrorism can be warranted as a struggle against a power which is considered a threaten one’s liberty and sovereignty (Fiala, 2002).

The war on terrorism was started with an aim to save states’ (U.S. and other countries) sovereignty. The 9/11 attacks were turning point for state policies to fight the war on terrorism. The foremost effects of 9/11 can be observed from the change in foreign policy of the U.S. who adopted a realist perspective in foreign policy in order to fight the war on terrorism with Afghanistan invasion. Furthermore, the principle of “either you are with us or with them” denotes the realist perspective of the U.S. and its allies on war on terrorism (Aljoofy, 2009).

Contrary to this, Dr. Anna Cornelia Beyer argues in her paper, “Why idealist Realism can’t win war on terrorism” that the realist influenced thinking on the war on terrorism is an interventional description of U.S. and its allies. Realist ideas and actions are erroneous to fight the war on terrorism because they do not consider the salient features of terrorism. In addition to this, the strategies of war on terrorism have failed to identify the foundation of terrorism and main focus has been on exhibition of power to eradicate terrorism. This way of dealing with terrorism did not mitigate but augmented it (Beyer, 2006).

Liberalist Perspective:

The basic principles of liberalism are: rule of law, individual freedom, equal human rights, democracy and free market economy. These principles are the foundation for liberal democracies of the world. Terrorism is actually antithesis to these principles. Thus, from a liberalist perspective terrorism is opposite of liberalism (Meinardus, n.d). Furthermore, ideologically, terrorism is a challenge as it has different roots of intolerance, violence, fear and death. On the contrary, the basics of liberalism are tolerance, progress and civilization (Dunne, 2008). Those individuals and states engaged in violence against liberal states and individuals are actually anti liberal idealists. Terrorists have attacked Liberalism for being an opposing principle (Fiala, 2002).

Current war on terrorism is considered to be the military problem requiring solutions based on military and this is the legitimate description which has been used to favor Afghanistan-Iraq invasions. Liberalists view this military based solution as anti-human rights and consider it victory for anti-freedom terrorists. Thus, what U.S. and its allies did in Afghanistan, liberalists cannot accept it the way it was done. From a liberalist perspective what is being done in Guantanamo, where suspect terrorists or prisoners are kept without proper explanation and trials, is also against basic human rights (Meinardus, n.d).

In addition to this, Lisa Anderson argues from a liberalist perspective that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was not the only available policy response on war on terrorism. War on Terrorism would rather require a broad-based approach (Anderson, n.d).

Constructivist Perspective:

Constructivist believes that in order to understand any global political agency, the role of norms and ideas can never be ignored.  This perspective stresses on political causation of social norms and ideologies and convinces state actors to divert their concepts from power to ideology. In order to understand terrorism, constructivist perspective is the best perspective. Terrorist organizations are mostly said to be following constructivist perspective, since they seem to have an Islamist ideology for power (Trainer, 2007).

Janani Krishnaswamy argues in his paper, “How does terrorism lend itself to constructivist understanding?” that terrorism itself is socially constructed. In the real world, terrorism is an interpretation of events and recognized causes. Furthermore, he says that the basis of terrorism is either constructed by state or individuals as the statement that a person can be a terrorist for some and for others that same person can be a freedom fighter. Terrorism exists within our subjective understandings. The perspective of constructivism reminds us of the existence of terrorism and considers it as a social fact (Krishnaswamy, 2012).

On war on terror William E. Halal states that in order to win war on terrorism, the strategies of military should be combined with constructive approach. Furthermore, he says that combining both would be beneficial for both militants (he gives them name of Islam) and those who are fighting against terrorism (he gives them/it name of U.S) (Halal, n.d).

International Political Economy (IPE) Perspective:

The understanding of global affairs put forward by the IPE perspective bases itself on the interconnectedness of states. In specifying the perspective to terrorism, at least five ways of state-to-state connections are involved in capturing the dynamics: flows of trade, extension of finance, transfer of technology, movement of people, and networking of multilayered security (Balaam & Veseth, n.d). With progressive maneuvering of its policies regarding these five ways of connection, states can put an end to being recipient, hosts, or facilitators of terrorist activities. An example of such maneuvering would be the U.S. policy formation regarding the Taliban government in Afghanistan, that abandoned trade with the country, dried up their sources of international finance, restricted the movement of Afghan citizens to the US, and descended a network of military bases around it.

The ability to scheme interconnectedness with other states, and lobby among others on the agenda, however, is subject to the polarity of world power. For of a hegemonic state, which defines the international power politics as unipolar, case in point the U.S, interconnectedness with states such as Afghanistan is easier to alter. In a bipolar or multipolar world however, with multiple power centers, relations between states are more reactionary and less flexible (Cox, 2012). This idea leaves space for constructive judgment, insofar despite their occurrence in the bipolar Cold War era, militant groups were labeled as freedom fighters as opposed to being declared terrorists.

Thus, it can be concluded that the IPE perspective develops a multilayered approach in explaining the occurrence and suggesting solutions of terrorism. The relations of states are defined by presence of a larger power structure with polar state authorities that govern the functioning of smaller units, and direct their take on terrorism within or outside their jurisdictive territories.

Reporting on Terrorism and War on Terrorism:

Terrorism has been one of most reported global issues in media during last few decades primarily after 9/11. Some terrorist attacks receive good media coverage while others do not depending on the intensity and geography of the attack.

On April 10, 2015, an article was published in Aljazeera with the name of “Americans have yet to grasp the horrific magnitude of the war on terrorism.” The writer takes liberalist perspective and argues about the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. She writes about casualties caused by war on terrorism and refers to a report namely ‘Body Count’ by IPPNW Germany. Referencing from the report, she writes that due to the (U.S.) war on terrorism; approximately 1.3 million have been murdered. Furthermore, she refers to the report and says that the number could surpass 2 million excluding those killed in Somalia, Yemen and other countries. In addition to this, the article talks about internally displaced 3 million people from Iraq and refugees from Afghanistan, approximately 2.5 million, who are living in Pakistan. After mentioning these figures, the writer criticizes that people of the U.S are misinformed and refers to a poll by Americans in which they had said that death toll on Iraq was just 10,000. Moving forward, she talks about how this war on terrorism has not only caused blood to the people of the U.S. but also their money while referring to taxpayers estimated money which goes to war on terrorism. She ends her article with the argument that the current U.S. war on terrorism (Logistically in Syria & Yemen) will not only cause suffering of human beings but can also affect lives of those in the U.S. As liberalism talks about the rule of law and equal human rights, so does the writer in this article and condemns this war on terrorism.

Another article was published in a journal namely, Small Wars Journal, “Realism vs. Liberalism in the Development of Counterterrorism Strategy.” The writer Randi L. Buros criticizes the realist approach of Ex-President of the U.S. G.W. Bush to fight the war on terrorism. He argues that this approach could not help us from relying on our allies to combat the war. Furthermore, he talks about current U.S. President Obama’s liberal approach and basis his study on it. He analyzes Obama’s National Security Strategy (2010) and National Strategy for Counterterrorism (2011) and talks about how liberals view terrorism and war on terrorism. He quotes Obama and says that for liberals, not only military force but law enforcement and intelligence are also crucial to fight war on terrorism. He argues that realist approach by the former U.S. President was based on the assumption that the U.S. would compel the rest of the world to comply with their strategy and that is what had happened for some time but it did not last longer. He concludes by arguing that security and economic interdependency of the world need to fix the basic problems that cause violence. Military force is not at all a dead option but it should accompany intelligence to solve the problem (Buros, 2011).

Most reports on terrorism and war on terrorism are after the attack of 9/11. Some of them are based on realist perspective while others are based on liberalist perspective. Some reports are also based on Constructivism approach adopted by militants like Al-Qaida etc. Almost all the reports are somewhat linked with the IPE perspective but they take either a liberalist or realist perspective.

Recommendations for journalists while reporting terrorism and war on terrorism:

Contemporary terrorism is known as media terrorism as it attracts the media not because of the duty of journalists to report what is happening but these barbaric acts also fascinate the public. Thus, this gives terrorists a chance of exploitation of media and they do whatever gives them the most media hype around the globe. The significance of expression of freedom should not be affected by terrorism. For a democratic society, media information is one of the most significant bases. From a liberalist perspective, the public’s right to be informed about the matters concerning general public is carried by the expression of freedom. Therefore, the states should not control the expression of freedom of press in the war on terrorism.  On contrary, from a realist perspective, journalists should not play in the hands of terrorism and they should avoid broadcasting pictures and secret information of the state (Jarab, 2005).  Hence, journalists should take liberalist perspective while reporting terrorism and war on terrorism as it is the basic right of the general public to know what is happening around the globe.

On September 09, 2011 CNN published an article by Joel Simon, “How war on terror unleashed war on journalists.” The writer had taken the liberalist perspective and argued about how war on terrorism affected journalism and how media was censored in the world after 9/11. He talked against the realist perspective adopted by most governments across the globe and said that the journalists were being charged with anti-state charges and were being labelled as terrorists. He mentioned the names of the countries and how journalists are being stopped from reporting the terrorism and war on terrorism in those respective countries.

It is hard to report terrorism and war on terrorism as on one hand; there are restrictions by the state (realist perspective) and on the other hand, there are terrorists who in order to gain media hype would try to exploit the journalists. However, adopting liberalist perspective would be in favor of journalists as it would give them the right to freedom of expression and will enable them to disseminate the information to the general public who has the right to know.

Conclusion:

From a realist perspective, terrorism is justified to be a fight against those who are threat to ones liberty and sovereignty. Adopting this perspective in war on terrorism proved to be unsatisfactory, as the results have not been achieved over the last fourteen years. Liberals see terrorism as their antithesis as it is based on intolerance and violence. But they do not seem to be happy with the war on terrorism which was based on realism. They believe military force combined with intelligence can win the war on terrorism. Constructivism is what adopted by militant groups like Al-Qaida because these militant groups are based on an ideology of imposing their own manipulated Islamic Shariah. From IPE perspective, in order to capture the dynamics of terrorism, five state-to-state connections are involved; flows of trade, extension of finance, transfer of technology, movement of people, and networking of multilayered security (Balaam & Veseth, n.d). IPE perspective suggests multilayered approach towards war on terrorism.

Currently the primarily discussed issue on media regarding terrorism is focused on War on terrorism.  Most of the articles and news stories covered are based either on realist or liberalist perspective. Some of them also touch other two paradigms but lack the focus as realism and liberalism.

While reporting terrorism and war on terrorism, journalists should adopt liberalist perspective as to know what is happening in the globe is the basic right of common citizens.

Muhammad Murad

Even though, democracy is thriving and taking root across Sub-Saharan Africa, several countries on the Continent, are still lurching under the heft of tyranny and brutality at the hands of self-perpetuating despots who cling on to power by hook or by crook, through the manipulation of their respective Constitutions or the organization of dubious, bogus elections. 

Africa’s patience with autocratic rulers is running thinner and thinner by the day, reinforcing the notion that Africa is rising.

Gambia and Freedom

When the smallest mainland African nation of the Gambia gained its freedom from the claws of Jammeh’s two-decade long tyranny, a wind of euphoria and a sense of optimism swept the Continent, particularly in countries that are lurching under one form of dictatorship or the other.  The citizens of those countries have looked up to the Gambia as a source of inspiration and hoped that one day they shall embrace democracy and rule of law and see the long night of autocracy come to an end.

However, last August, Gambia’s Foreign Minister and leader of the United Democratic Party Ousainou Darboe raised eyebrows when his ministry issued a statement debunking a report carried by Reuters that the Gambia had called on Togo’s Faure Gnassingbé to step down, amid unprecedented protests against his attempts to re-introduce the 1992 Constitution with the sole aim of prolonging the Gnassingbé dynasty’s long overdue stay in power. His late father Gnassingbé Eyadéma, who came to power through a military coup, was the President of Togo from 1967 until his death in 2005.

A statement released by Gambia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphatically noted that “there is no reason warranting the government of the Gambia to take a position, since the Togolese people continue to make efforts to find a solution to the crisis.”

Gnassingbé Dynasty

I was personally disillusioned with Gambia’s decision to distance itself from Togolese people’s struggle to enjoy the freedom the Gambians are relishing after they booted Jammeh out through ballot box.

The Gnassingbé dynasty has dominated Togo’s political scene for five decades with the people keenly looking forward to regime change.

When Gambia’s former despotic ruler Yahya Jammeh rejected the outcome of the elections in the Gambia last December, after he had initially conceded defeat, an unprecedented impasse ensued and the country was on a brink of turmoil, Gambians were appreciative of every voice in support of their cause, so others would expect the same.

The Gambia has a moral duty to lend support to the people of Togo to get rid of dictatorship. The Gambian government ought to scale down ties with a tyrant who has, along with Jammeh, thwarted ECOWAS’s plan to introduce a two-term period in West Africa.

Africa’s patience with autocratic rulers is running thinner and thinner by the day, reinforcing the notion that Africa is rising.

Continent’s Dinosaurs

History was made last month when the people of Zimbabwe jubilated the ouster of Mugabe who ruled the Southern African nation of Zimbabwe for 37 years, which entails the bulk majority of Zimbabweans only knew Mugabe as their ruler.

The Continent’s dinosaurs, including the longest serving African president, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea (38 years), Paul Biya of Cameron (35 years), Denis Sassou Nguesso of Congo (33 years), Museveni of Uganda (31 years), Omar al-Bashir of Sudan (28 years) and Idriss Déby of Chad (27 years), should take note before they are red-carded and humiliated by their democracy yawning citizens.

Even though it is a small country, the Gambia, can lend its voice to democracy aspiring African nations to ensure that democracy and rule of law are brought to those countries.

By: Basidia Drammeh

Gambian researcher – Canada

Early this morning guns were heard a short distance away in my neighborhood. Quite surprised and worried of course. Perhaps no one prepared for a move in the neighborhood, as I understand that our military and police officers put their lives on the line for us every single day. However, I am still wondering about a vast continent of more than 700 million people, where warfare still rages unchecked, and far too little is being done about it. – Civil wars in South Sudan, Central African Republic, Boko Haram’s insurgency in Nigeria and around the Lack Chad region, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are the recent examples of deadly conflicts that have killed and displaced millions of African men, women, and children.

Preventing Wars

Realistically speaking, I am also still wondering why every effort to reduce societal stress and create peace in Africa has failed until now; diplomacy, international organizations like the United Nations, the African Union and the European Union—everything has failed. The long histories of war in the continent that continues unabated to the present, political will and institutions to intervene in such traditional conflicts and complicated –to-solve wars remain fragile and inadequate. It’s too silly and too much to wait for Paris, Washington and their allies to be involved in solving Africa’s problems all the time, because preventing domestic conflicts in Africa is primary an African task. There should be alternatives ways preventing wars, rather than fighting them, as long as diplomatic efforts seem equally powerless in a continent divided by religious, political and ethnic tensions that fuel violence and conflict – as most of these conflicts are fought within African states, not between.

Obviously, a fundamentally new approach is needed for Africa. As long as traditional approaches to conflict resolution and conflict prevention fail, in large measure, perhaps, because they do not address the underlying cause of violence and social conflict within the continent, they do not relieve the acute religious, political and ethnic tensions that fuel tribal conflict and terrorism. For diplomacy and other conventional approaches to succeed, we first need an effective means to defuse these deep-seated tensions—an approach that can prevent these societal tensions from reaching the boiling point. Perhaps Invincible Defense Technology {IDT} is the best scientifically studied solution that Africa needs at the moment in order to reduce its societal stress, and help diplomatic solutions succeed.

What is Invincible Defense Technology?

In an interview with Dr. David R. Leffler, Invincible Defense Technology expert and Executive Director at the Center for Advanced Military Science, argued that Invincible Defense Technology is a non-lethal, preemptive national defense strategy. It is better than other solution for a strong military because it prevents enemies from arising, and neutralizes existing enemies. The ultimate goal of IDT is to prevent enemies from arising by reducing the collective societal stress that culminates in crime, war and terrorism. IDT involves use of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique and its advanced practices, ideally by African militaries, to reduce this collective societal stress. Numerous extensive peer-reviewed studies have documented the efficacy of this approach. Military and police worldwide have successfully field-tested and are now using this approach.

Furthermore, many IDT experts agree that IDT is a scientific solution for a strong military that is a non-lethal approach to achieve peace and stability. It is the best solution for a strong military due to following reasons:

• Quietly demonstrated in conflict-prone regions
• Scientifically studied
• Non-religious, non-partisan
• Easy to implement

Dr. Leffler who advocates the creation of special Prevention Wings of the Military, argued that Africans need to understand that their domestic security is threatened whenever collective social stress builds up in society. If the national collective mood is one of contentment, then crime and violence are low, accidents and hospital admissions are fewer, employment and abundance rise for all individuals, and families are stable and supportive of the growth, education and progress of their children. The next generation then grows in a harmonious atmosphere, and all future generations likewise benefit. Conversely, if there is a buildup of tension and stress in the national mood, the result is disharmony, and disharmony is expressed in disorderly social behavior. Crime, violence, rioting, mobs, gangs, looting, and even accidents, hospital admissions, unemployment, poverty, hunger and famine are much more likely and more evident when the national mood is tense.

“Africa needs the IDT right now”

African governments could benefit from the example of nations in Latin America that have implemented IDT in their militaries. These governments have found that by reducing collective stress with IDT it is no longer necessary to dedicate a large portion of their GNP to domestic security. This is because the cost to implement IDT is minimal – less than the cost of one modern fighter jet. IDT provides the added advantage of requiring minimal time and training for deployment, and for this reason, is much more cost-effective than traditional defense. As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Prevent military catastrophe with IDT, and the economy, the social life of the people, and the happiness of the entire African continent will naturally improve as well.

“Unfavorable economic conditions and social injustice thrive in and further contribute to deteriorating, chaotic environments. Unrest may then flame up over unresolved territorial, political, religious, and cultural differences. Thus, dissatisfied and frustrated people contribute to national instability. When national tension builds up, it weakens the sovereignty of a nation. There is no domestic security with such an unstable government whose population is now more prone to war and internal conflict.” Dr. Leffler added.

On the other hand, and in an exclusive interview with Colonel (Ret.) Brian M. Rees, M.D. former U.S Battalion Surgeon for the 310th Military Police Battalion at Camp Bucca, Iraq; argued that IDT or Brain Based Belligerency Reduction (B3R) in the form of groups of persons practicing a meditative technique called the TM-Sidhi Program can be applied to reduce hostilities and support civil society in targeted African populations.

Over fifty studies have documented reductions in combat deaths, crime, and terrorist acts, and increased support of government, related to the size of the groups practicing the intervention. Yet, as Dr. Leffler notes, conflicts in African nations often spill unrest into bordering nations, with negative consequences.

Many defense experts predict that the nature of future warfare and terrorism in Africa will change due to the easy availability of weapons of mass destruction. Defending against these weapons is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Thus, war and terrorism must be addressed at their root cause: collective social stress – by reducing social stress through the TM program, many other African militaries could prevent war and end conflict.

“Africa needs to use the IDT right now, because as you can see from the wide range of effects of IDT/B3R, multiple areas in Africa would benefit, not only in the reduction of hostilities, but in the improvement of economic indices and governance.” Said Colonel Rees

Colonel Rees might absolutely be right, because we have seen after Mozambique’s civil war; the economy boomed, and the crime rate decreased. President Alberto Joachim Chissano attributed the war’s demise and these other positive trends largely to new human resource technology he called a “new secret weapon.” He and many other military leaders are convinced that these changes occurred from the implementation of this new technology called Vedic defense technology.

Conflict Fuels More Conflict

For his part, Dr. Leffler believes that without enemies, everyone wins. Hence, this is why the technology is invincible. Terrorism cannot be eliminated by destroying the terrorists. Any step in the direction of destruction only helps to create more terrorists and more wars. More terrorists only results in more waves of destruction. There is no wisdom in initiating a continuous theme of destruction in the name of protection. Prudence dictates eliminating the underlying cause of terrorism, war and all types of violence—collective social stress.

Studies show that there are other important IDT and individual benefits to be gained for warriors who regularly practice TM. They have shown that the TM technique improves wellness, promotes development, resilience and dramatically reduces burnout and symptoms of post-traumatic stress.

Dr. David W. Orme-Johnson, a former professor of psychology at Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa, found that group practice of Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation and Transcendental Meditation Sidhi programs had profound effects on improving the quality of life in Israel and Lebanon, including reducing armed conflicts, which could not be explained by military, political, and cultural events at the time.

Other IDT experts argue that Maharishi’s theory of invincible defense is related to this. Once a “prevention wing” of yogic flyers is formed within an army, Maharishi says, “Military power is brought in alliance with the invincible power of natural law, which spontaneously provides safety and security to the government of the universe and eternally defends the sovereign domain of every galaxy and solar system”.

“There’s no solution to terrorism and tribal conflict except creating coherence in world consciousness and using the IDT, and probably. The evolution of consciousness and the progression of humanity toward peace and tolerance, and away from violence, terrorism, exploitation and discrimination, is natural and ultimately is the only way forward; but faster is better, and IDT/B3R generates prompt results.” Colonel Rees stressed

Yet, Dr. Orme-Johnson points out that forceful response to conflict increases the problem in Africa. “Fear in the world spurs arms buildup and the development of arms technology, which only causes more fear,” he says. “Disarmament is not realistic because no one can rationally disarm when facing an armed aggressor.”

Prevention Wings of the African Militaries

To counteract this fear and promote peace, Dr. Leffler and other scientists at ISTPP are encouraging every country to spend about one percent of the military budget to implement an IDT program that they are calling Prevention Wings of the Military. Soldiers would be given one additional duty: to practice the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program daily in large groups. The theory is that this would result in more peaceful world.

Qualities of Invincible Defense Technology:

• Sea-based and/or land-based
• Non-lethal
• Non destructive
• Non partisan
• Non religious
• Victory before War

For his part, Dr. Leffler argued that the ultimate and best step to ensure Africa’s stability would be for the military of each African country to fund, staff and maintain their own Prevention Wing of the Military. Such elite, highly trained units would meditate together using IDT twice daily, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. In this manner, their nations would always be fully and safely protected. If this plan could be implemented, Africa would be self-sufficient for both international and domestic security. It would not be necessary for the US or any other outside country to take responsibility for Africa’s stability.

The Transcendental Meditation Program

Vedic scholar and physicist Maharishi Mahesh Yogi revived the TM program from the ancient tradition of India. Bob Rabinoff, who has a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Arizona, describes TM as “a simple, easily learned, non-religious meditation practice.” Rabinoff is an independent computer consultant in the Midwest and a teacher of the TM technique. He says that over five million people have learned TM worldwide.

“Everyone who learns TM is taught the same way throughout the world,” says Rabinoff. Because of this standardization; he believes that, it is possible to study the TM program scientifically. Indeed, the benefits of practicing TM have been well documented. “Over six hundred scientific studies show that the TM technique can measurably reduce stress and increase coherence in the individual,” Rabinoff said

According to Dr. Leffler, if African militaries deploy Invincible Defense Technology widely, then no country on earth will pose a threat to Africa. On the contrary, economic and social ties with all countries will improve, and Africa will prosper both materially and socially. Likewise, if the US military creates large Prevention Wings at its military bases around the globe, the resulting reductions of crime, terrorism, and war will enable all governments, including those in Africa, to be more successful and harmonious. Every government has a head of state who is only an innocent mirror of the collective consciousness of the society that he or she represents. Prevention Wings will reduce both national and global collective stress, and consequently, leaders of governments will not be stressed and will make more intelligent decisions. America’s domestic security will naturally also benefit, because the tensions currently dividing the American people will melt away when IDT is deployed. Ideally, if Prevention Wings of the Military were established worldwide, lasting peace would be achieved by preventing the rise of enemies: victory before war.

“If Africa wants to create internal harmony among its people and to prevent negative foreign influences, and help people in poverty and need on every level of society. TM increases the creativity and health in individuals and society to help them find solutions.” Dr. Orme-Johnson stressed.

Many IDT experts think that we always need to establish permanent large coherence creating groups of TM and TM-Sidhi experts of the square root of 1% of the population in every African city and country. They believe that his is best achieved through establishing this program in education. Coherence in collective consciousness will help all other approaches to peace be successful. What we all need is a ground on coherence to work on. TM provides that while other programs may do the work. However, TM is the best friend to all other genuine positive programs in society. It is complementary.

It seems to be obvious that following the successes of Mozambique’s “Prevention Wing of the Military,” more African countries may or should soon apply this amazing strategy to create the highest ideal of military service. – Invincibility without harm for African military personnel or the Africa nations; and lasting peace for the continent-indeed; victory before war.

Civil-Military Relations is considered the biggest threat to democracy in Pakistan. In last seven decades, Pakistan has witnessed three direct military coups which almost constitute half of Pakistan’s history.

Moreover, political analysts believe that military has played behind the scene shots during democratic eras also except for the first decade of Pakistan’s foundation from 1947-1958 and during Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s era from 1971-1977.  However, democracy has paved its way in Pakistan’s democratic scenario since 2008. In this regard, for the first time in Pakistan’s history, the democratically elected government transferred its powers to the next elected government in 2013 after general elections.  Besides this, military leadership has also supported the democratic process in Pakistan after General Mushraf left office in 2008. Chiefs of Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani (2007-2013), General Raheel Sharif (2013-2016) and General Qamar Javed Bajwa (2016-Present) have shown apolitical behavior. These are positive signs for future of democracy in Pakistan. Nonetheless, qualms about military meddling in civilian affairs cannot be ignored completely.

Is Democratic Government free from military meddling in its affairs?

Anatol Lieven draws an analogy between Pakistan and Prussia is his book-Pakistan: A Hard Country by stating Voltaire’s remark for Fredrick the Great’s Prussia that, “Where some states have an army, the Prussian army has a state.” Here, Lieven tried to portray that state affairs are run by the military at its will and civilian governments worked on behest of the military. Ian Talbot insinuates in his writings on Pakistan that foreign and defense policies are controlled by the military. However, the diplomatic role played by the foreign office under civilian government and a foreign minister nullifies these arguments in the current political scenario of Pakistan. Pakistan has a full-time foreign minister along with a very strong team of foreign services officers. They are working based on the designed foreign policy. Nonetheless, the role of the military cannot completely be ignored in this regard but that does not suggest in any way, the complete monopoly of the military in all political affairs of the country. Civil-Military leadership are on the same page which vividly direct to the nullification of both arguments.

Recent Developments in Civil-Military relations:

General Raheel Sharif was firm on not getting any extension in his tenure as COAS and handed over the baton to current COAS General Bajwa. General Bajwa did not only pronounce military’s apolitical behavior but also said that military leaders will work along with the civilian government. However, in the year 2016 after the issue of ‘Dawn Leaks’, there was a possibility of a rift between the two but situation was averted by the joint efforts of civil-military leaders. Moreover, on December 19, COAS briefed the Senate on national security. “When we are together, no one can defeat us,” Director General Inter-Services Public Relations (DG ISPR) said after the briefing. These developments lucidly portray positivity in the civil-military relations and proper function of democracy in Pakistan.

Future of Democracy in Pakistan:

After the military coup of October 1999, the period of naughty-ninety came to an end. In 2002, military dictator General Mushraf installed his puppet government after much horse trading and other political gimmicks. The period from 2002-2007 can be termed as civil-military oligarchy because politicians took the opportunity and became part of a dictatorship. The situation, however, changed soon with 2008 general elections. It was the rebirth of real democracy in Pakistan. Seventh National Finance Commission (NFC) and eighteenth amendment in the constitution of 1973 paved the way for democracy in Pakistan. They dealt with provincial grievances and transferred the powers from President to the Parliament. Year 2013 was the culmination of this regard in which the first democratic transition of elected government took place. 2013 onwards, the military has shown restraint from meddling in the democratic process. Thus, future of democracy seems bright owing to positive civil-military relations in Pakistan.

By: Muhammad Murad (A Student of Social Sciences and a journalist from Pakistan)

Indo-Us alliance serves the interests of both the parties in the region. US needs a player in Asia to check the growing influence of China which is an all-weather friend of Pakistan.

US support to India in this regard is seen as detrimental to Pakistan’s strategic interests.

India and Pakistan are arch-rivals since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947 so India gets US support in its defense strategies and foreign policy. Both the US and India are implementing the old dictum, “An enemy’s enemy is a friend.” However, US is not in an inimical relationship with Pakistan even after President Donald Trump’s August speech but it cannot be termed as friendly either. It’s more like an alliance to break or weaken a rival alliance i.e. Indo-US vs. Sino-Pak alliance.

Indo-US Alliance:

According to Munir Akram (Former Pakistan Ambassador to the UN), the alliance between India and US include co-production of advanced defense articles, joint research on advanced jet engines and aircraft carrier technologies and strategic cooperation on maritime security. India endorses US stand on South China Sea islands and US supports India on its claims against Pakistan. US under Trump administration seems to be taking the alliance to new heights as Indian PM Narender Modi was the fifth world leader to receive a call from Trump after he took charge of his Presidency on January 20, 2017. That is why; some political thinkers believe that Trump’s rhetoric against Pakistan on Afghanistan strategy speech was actually encouraged by Indian position against Pakistan.

In 2008, US Congress approved nuclear cooperation agreement between India and US which proved to be a turning point in Indo-US alliance. It was an embedded recognition of India as a nuclear power. Pakistan does not seem to be receiving any such deal from US. It is pertinent to note here that both India and Pakistan are non-signatories of Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Moreover, US also supports India’s stance on its membership status in Nuclear Supplier Groups (NSG) which was initiated after India’s alteration of nuclear material of conducting nuclear tests in 1974 from its peaceful program. US support to India in this regard is seen as detrimental to Pakistan’s strategic interests.

This alliance supports India’s belligerent conduct against Pakistan politically and militarily. US also ignores India’s developments of fissile material production, long-range missiles and theatre nuclear weapons and opposes Pakistan’s responses in this regard

Impact of Alliance on Pakistan:

Indo-Us alliance has deleterious impacts on Pakistan. This alliance supports India’s belligerent conduct against Pakistan politically and militarily. US also ignores India’s developments of fissile material production, long-range missiles and theatre nuclear weapons and opposes Pakistan’s responses in this regard. India’s relationships with the Middle Eastern Countries, mainly Saudi Arabia, are also encouraged by the US. These relations impact Pakistan’s foreign policy in the Middle East because of Pakistan’s India centric foreign policy. Furthermore, Pakistan maintains minimum credible deterrence. India’s ability to acquire Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) technology from US would impact Pakistan’s conventional defense capacity. Last but not the least; Pakistan does not get any support from US in its NSG membership stance. Pakistan, however, has a great potential to be member of NSG.

Muhammad Murad

This was expected, and  a positive year is about to end for the motor vehicle market in Brazil. Anfavea’s start-of-year forecast to produce 2.41 million vehicles in 2017 has already been substantially exceeded (2.48 million vehicles were produced from January to November) and the year is expected to close with a growth of 25/30%.

A strong contribution to this performance came from exports (700 thousand vehicles from January to November), up 53% compared to the same period of 2016. According to Anfavea president, Antonio Megale, this result should be consolidated in 2018 thanks to the commercial agreement Brazil-Colombia that should be signed in the coming weeks.

The figure for new registrations was also positive, which in the period January-November 2017 exceeded the threshold of 2 million and grew by 9.8% compared to the same period of 2016.

However, the sector is still far from recovering production levels that justify the installed capacity in the country. In Brazil there are 31 manufacturing companies with 67 industrial units and an installed capacity equivalent to an annual production of 5 million vehicles. Considering that the production of 2017 should be around 2.7 million vehicles, there is a idle production capacity of almost 2.5 million vehicles, which is a major problem for companies.

A more detailed analysis will be carried out in February, when the final data for 2017 will be available.

Let’s see some historical series:

(source: Anfavea)

In 2013 the sector reached its all-time high, with 3.71 million vehicles produced. A growth that would have led to production close to 5 million vehicles was planned for the following years, which is why many companies have decided to expand production (GM, FCA, Hyundai, Man, Toyota, Nissan and Volkswagen) or inaugurate its presence in Brazil (Chery, BMW, Audi, Mercedes and Jaguar / Rover).

A fundamental reason that pushed companies to invest in Brazil was the “Inovar-Auto” program, introduced at the beginning of 2013 by the Dilma government and aimed at encouraging productive investments in the automotive sector, imposing a surcharge on imported vehicles. . The “Inovar-Auto” program has recently been declared illegal by the WTO and ends in the last quarter of 2017: it remains to be seen whether and how the new government will replace it, bearing in mind that without the surcharge on imported vehicles it will be difficult to incentivize companies to make new investments in Brazil.

As can be seen from the above graph (source: Anfavea), in 2011 the quantity of imported vehicles reached the record value of 857 thousand units (or 23.6% of the market). The subsequent fall in imports is due to three factors:

– the introduction of the “Inovar-Auto” program, which has increased the prices of vehicles imported to the consumer

– the onset of the economic crisis, starting in 2014

– the devaluation of the real, starting from the beginning of 2015

Exports, specularly, have increased with the onset of the devaluation of the real and with the stipulation of international agreements, mainly with Argentina and Mexico.

Truck production fell from 2013 to 2016, with a decrease of almost 75%.

The economic crisis, accompanied by the effects of the Lava-Jato operation, has virtually blocked the large public infrastructure works and the civil construction market, which are two major sources of truck purchases.

2017 should be an excellent year for agricultural production, which should stimulate the purchase of new vehicles (even if there is a very large fleet of vehicles that are used very heavily).

Source : Mauro Mantica :

https://updatebrazil.wordpress.com/2017/12/15/finally-a-good-year-for-the-automotive-market/ Bra

Failed tactics, undermining Israel’s democratic ideals, inconsistent policies on the settlements and two states – these are the hyperbolic allegations levied against Labor leader Avi Gabbay in a recent New York Times op-ed by Abe Silberstein and Nathan Hersh. In his six months as Labor party head, Avi Gabbay has developed a strategy that may not be convenient for left-wing Israelis and liberal American Jews, but it is not meant to please them. It is meant to win the next Israeli election.

That Gabbay has consciously decided against making “two states, bye-bye settlements” his campaign slogan does not make him “inconsistent” on those issues. Rather, it speaks to a smart political strategy and an in-depth understanding of the Israeli political map and electorate.

Gabbay has made clear that he supports a two-state solution and a freeze of settlements outside the blocs. At the Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Conference last Month, Gabbay said he sees “the two-state solution for two people as the solution for our security. He claimed the two-state solution would “keep Israel democratic” while “enabling us to keep the Jewish spirit of our nation.” Far from the inconsistency Silberstein and Hersh charge, Gabbay trafficks in the same rhetoric before both English and Hebrew audiences. He has consistently reaffirmed his commitment to the two states to Israeli media; in a Channel 2 interview recorded in the Jordan Valley, Gabbay said he is a firm believer in the concept of two states for two peoples and that is what he will seek it should he be elected.

In Israel’s Knesset, elections are based on nationwide proportional representation. To win, a party must secure an outright majority – or, the more likely outcome – be the largest party and form a coalition to reach the necessary 61 [at least] of 120 seats. In this scenario, parties are more likely align with those that are politically similar. For this reason, there is a great deal of importance stressed on the two blocs: the right and center-left. The right bloc includes the Ultra-Orthodox parties, the Likud, the Jewish Home, Yisrael Beiteinu, and Kulanu – currently at 67 seats, while the center-left bloc – comprised of the Zionist Union, Yesh Atid, Meretz, Arab Parties – has just 53. In the most recent Israeli poll, the blocs are virtually tied.

Making sure the center-left bloc has more seats than the right is essential for Labor to win the next elections. In order to increase the size of the that bloc, Labor must convince voters in the center-right to switch over to the center-left bloc. For the most part, these voters either voted for Kulanu – a centrist, economic focused party headed by Finance Minister and former Likud heavyweight Moshe Kahlon – and Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud in the 2015 elections. These voters do not care about Avi Gabbay’s consistency on the settlements and whether or not he enthusiastically supports a two-state solution.

Slogans of the old Israeli left simply do not resonate with center-right Israeli voters. The traumatic experience of three Gaza wars, and a conflict in Lebanon have had a strong impact on the Israeli psyche and right-wing politicians have hammered this point home: when Israel gives up territory, it will become a launching pad for attacks against its citizens. For this reason, the land-for-peace movement has become fringe in Israeli society. That is not to say the majority of Israelis don’t desire peace; they simply don’t think it is currently possible.

If Gabbay were to focus on a two-state solution and settlements, he would appear out of touch with the very voters he needs to sway in order to win. Gabbay understands that to convince the majority of Israeli public – and Palestinian public – what is needed is not sloganeering about two states and settlements butrestoring trust between the sides. This means carrying a genuine message: “I believe in separation,” Gabbay has said, “Such a separation will ensure our security and that of our grandchildren. I don’t believe in saying in advance what we will give. We should have no preconditions, but we have to build trust. If we don’t build trust, there is almost no probability for successful negotiations afterwards.”

Of course, the two-state solution is critical to Israel’s Jewish and democratic future and a prospective prime minister cannot dodge the issue forever. Should he succeed in forming a government, Gabbay would be uniquely well-suited to pursue a deal. The Palestinians will be more inclined to forge an accord with someone they believe is representative of the “true Israel” and commands his polity’s trust, in other words, someone who has the credibility to enforce a deal once it is signed. Such a reputation will not be built by regurgitating Peace Now slogans and re-hashing dead talking points. Gabbay’s appeals to the authentic needs and interests of the Israeli public can generate the respect necessary for him to take greater risks on core national issues.

And Gabbay has not shied away from supporting a two-state solution when he can make a case palatable to the Israeli public. For instance, Gabbay has made a point of emphasizing the economic benefits of Israeli-Palestinian peace. In a Facebook post from earlier this month, he wrote that, “A peace agreement with the Palestinians is worth $18 billion USD to the Israeli economy.” True, the post does not mention democracy or human rights, but the outcome is the same as an open call to simply “end the occupation.” In this case, however, Gabbay has made a case that will resonate with a broader audience because it trucks in the most mundane yet far-reaching social issue in any society: money.

Hersh and Silberstein  cut to the Israeli opposition’s ideological core, claiming that “Labor’s shift is happening while other parties on the left are also struggling to stay relevant”, citing the social democratic Meretz party. Ironically it is Gabbay’s shift that is helping Meretz. By moving to the center, Gabbay is solidifying the Meretz voter base, knowing that their strength and survival are crucial in forming a coalition. In polls conducted since Gabbay assumed the Labor post, Meretz has strengthened.

Where Gabbay’s tactics should be judged is in the next Israeli elections. It is simply impossible to accurately say six months after assuming the position that Gabbay’s tactics are not working and the fact that he has been able to shrink the gap in electoral prospects between the right and center-left bloc to almost nothing while strengthening Meretz suggests the opposite.

Liberal American Jews and Israeli leftists can be critical of Gabbay’s strategy, but they will eventually need to face the facts and realize that the Israeli electorate has changed. An entire generation that grew up during the Second Intifada make up a significant bloc of eligible voters.One cannot definitively predict whether or not Gabbay will win the next elections, whether against Netanyahu or not. Still, it is clear that Gabbay is positioning himself in the best possible place to win and sweeping criticisms of his politicking are unfounded and premature.

Previously published on MatzavBlog

In the past; half of the world did not even know how the other half live their lives. People in different areas of the world used to live so distinctively in customs and methods that they can hardly be classified into the same human race. Today, the leap in technological advancement has transformed our world into one global community, even if we pretend otherwise. This makes every action or utterance at any point of the world far more consequential because of the speed by which it can travel and reverberate at the other end of the world.

 I also dare to challenge the reader to dream and aspire to a greater possibility and assume a nobler self.

The advent of the railways took out all obstructions for the passage of trains – leaving nothing to conquer but the clear passage of its travels. Then the advent of the aircraft took out all the obstructions of the land and the high seas – leaving nothing else to conquer but pure space. But with technology and telecommunication, we transcend the space of this whole sphere – making the world much smaller, and our voices to be heard at every moment, even from the most remote parts of our planet. With that great blessing of the technological evolution, also comes the responsibility for its proper use. Prudence is a mandate; not only in the material sense, for that is a base prudence. Prudence in the moral and intellectual dimensions is the call.

Prudence

Who I’m I to advocate for prudence in our discourse, when this remains a dimension at which I have so much work to do on myself. Yet, I refuse to be silent, for I love facts even if it’s against my interest; despise lubricity even when it’s to mend my default; and I shun the farcical commentaries that passes for wisdom and truth in our political discourse. Neither I’m too fun of vain men that idolize other morals like themselves, or the egotistical persons, and people that are condescending to those that dare to see things differently.

I write from aspirations, antagonism, observation, and very well from experience. At times, writing of qualities or painting virtues I do not yet possess but aspires to possess. In that process, I also dare to challenge the reader to dream and aspire to a greater possibility and assume a nobler self.

Shakespeare and Marx

Shakespeare said to “assume virtue if you have not”…. because he understands that the essential nature of man is good and virtuous, giving us every right to lay claims to that higher self even before we can properly personify it. So I thrashed those Marxian precepts that assume that man is essentially evil and virtue is the exception. I subscribe to a higher doctrine; that man is essentially good and virtue is the rule and not the exception! We sometimes have to be shaken up to shake off our lethargy and bring forth the virtues. We can rightfully admire a quality or assume a virtue we have not yet possessed – for it is part of our essential nature.

Even with our numerous short falls, at every moment of the vicissitudes of life, we shall still communicate our whole ‘meat and bones’, and not the ’empty shells’. So yes, I will write to these subjects as if it is the breath in my lungs and the blood in my veins. I shall speak against imprudence and shed light on these dark elements in our social discourse like an Emmanuel Swedenborg, though I claim not his illumination or his wisdom to illuminate. But, I shall do so from a point of perception and not with cheap opinions or base estimates. Perceptions in a true sense – is the impression of the soul, and when communicated, it becomes the sensual side of the soul’s expressions. Even where it is wrong, it is still noble, because it comes from a positive degree, and with sincerity, where we err – we can always be forgiven.

Opinions are the preferred tools of the base mendicants of intellectual discourse, the foolish disguise in our social intercourse, and the cheap cover for political posture. What a person projects but is not genuine, or doesn’t even truly understand, is only an extemporaneous half possession. We are becoming the guardians of such possessions with the free flow of ideas in the Internet. Every benefit we gain, a tax is levied; so the beauty of the Internet has a price also. It gives us innumerable half-truths and alternative realities at lightening speed. So in politics, we equally infect each other with these half possessions and alternative realities at lightening speed. We go about parroting on serious subjects without proper examination of context or any serious thought because we saw our friends did.

We go out of way to decry a thing by epitomizing the very thing we seek to so strongly condemn. We condemn hate speech with our own form of hate speech. We find ways to negatively classify anyone we have disagreements with; forgetting that we cannot throw dirt and our hands to still remain clean. We employ mean motives to degrade our opponents with base estimates stemming from our own bigotry or ignorance that we are not even aware of.

Why?

How can you enlighten a group by tacitly condemning them as tribalists, or racists or ignorant or ‘unconscious’ before you even get to know them?

Why do we keep categorizing a whole party in ways that assume their worst elements to be the very definition of that party even if majority of each party are good and descent people?

Why do we keep classifying a whole party as bunch of deplorable and racists even though majority are just patriots like you seeking their daily bread?

This foolish attempts to classify political parties by the elements of its fringes as the very heart of the party is unsophisticated at best and disingenuous at worst.

Why do assume that when people are drawn to like minds, tribesmen or those of the same race – they’re bigots or racists?

Naturally, there is closer affinity between people with more superficial commonalities – whether that has to do with economic status, origin, identity or some other common interests. This is a common phenomenon in every country, society, and in every sphere of our existence. Our special affinities will always create some disproportion in our associations in every setting – political or otherwise. This is true in America, Europe, Asia, and equally true in Africa. If our parties and organizations are disproportionately influenced and driven by those superficialities, is there anything inherently bad in that?

What is wrong with people being drawn more easily to groups they have greater natural affinity to, or identify with better?

Even if you find something wrong with that idea, would it not be better to use tact and gentleness to win them over than with condemnation and condescending attitude towards them?

Would insults, name calling, shaming and arrogance towards them help you win over any new members from opponents?

And last; why do we continue to do this deification of certain individuals in our political discourse as if they’re the only men with brain, or God himself brought them down to save us from ourselves?

Our days yield for us no Mandelas or Thomas Paignes or Lumumbas or Castros or Marcus Aurelius – even if we seek to super impose their images on our new icons. It is vain to try to make them who they’re not. The best any man can be is their very best self.

However, many of these political men and women we celebrate today are good and decent people in their own respect, but not because of our mechanical impositions and belligerence towards their critics. We don’t need to go about skulking like interlopers in the Internet and every platform with cumbersome arguments as if the politicians we favor are some divine beings and beyond reproach.

Foolish people think that the politician the so adore can never utter a total nonsense. If they said something outrageous or dishonest, it is quickly rationalized to seem like something profound and intelligent by their cultist and political vanguards.  They would stand to support their every utterance simply because it is the word of their ‘cult’ leader. These fanatical supporters feel obliged to defend every last verbiage of the politicians they support with their last breath.

Instead of truth, we often make the defense of personalities as our solemn obligation. How much breaths will our best minds continue to waste on escapades in defense of particular politicians or party instead of honest erudition to benefit the masses?

In our attacks on opposition, we label them with the very mark on our own foreheads. If we are obsessed with our tribe or race, we will only see tribalism or racism everywhere around us. We guile our own moral malady by labeling others as the “real” racists or tribalists. But if you are a bigot, no amount of cunning and linguistics super navigation can hide the venom you store in your breast. Most people will not call you out, and not all can sufficiently articulate their disgust for the ‘bile’ they see in you, but they can sense it very well. No metamorphosis can hide a filthy rogue from the world. You can call opponents out with every name you wish, but they can all see through you and can clearly read the mark on your own forehead. Man cannot be concealed.

The condescending nonsense we try to spew out with polite pretense will always be seen for what it is – by each one of the ‘village idiots’ we might label as ignorant or ‘unconscious’.

Leave these echo chambers that sought to freeze your brain and implore you to walk only the permitted lines. Examine what is said, and not obsessing over who the speaker is before you can put your brain to better use. Simply do what you can, and attempt nothing beyond your practical force with false pretense. Our parroting of silly opinions of others without reflection is dangerous. Pretending as if those opinions are our own ideas is a disease of the mind. This pretentious attitude is poisonous to any serious conversation.

I have only one point to make in this whole essay. The world is quickly becoming a single community. We are one family; humanity is one. Let’s stop this nonsense of racial and tribal politics whether it’s in America, The Gambia, or anywhere across the world!

Jammal Drammeh

Brazil : Updated Economic Indicators : On 1/12, the IBGE announced the results for the 3rd quarter of GDP.

Unfortunately they are not very comforting, even if they confirm a positive trend for the third consecutive quarter. GDP grew by 0.1% compared to the second quarter, curbed by the unfavorable seasonality of the agri-food sector (-3.0%).

Considering the first 9 months of the year instead, the 2017 GDP grew by 0.6% compared to the same interval of 2016; in this case the contribution of the agri-food sector was fundamental, with a growth of 14.5% in the period, which offset the negative sign recorded by all the other sectors. That is to say, Brazil continues to be extremely dependent on the performance of crops and on the prices of food commodities.

On the political front, it is increasingly likely that the “mini pension reform” will be put to the vote in the coming weeks (before or after Parliament’s closure), even if it is still difficult to predict the outcome of the vote. Also in this case, as for the labor reform, to obtain the majority of votes the Government will carry out the usual “purchasing campaign” (vote vs. parliamentary amendments or ad-hoc financial allocations).

However, analysts’ attention is increasingly focused on the 2018 presidential campaign.

Luciano Huck (announcer of  TV Rede Globo), that the polls gave a level of approval to 60%, has renounced a possible candidacy.

During the executive assembly in early December, the PSDB will elect Geraldo Alckmin as president of the party, in an extreme attempt to regroup the ranks of an increasingly divided and confused party. It is possible, reaching unanimity on his name, that on this occasion he is launched as a candidate of the party for 2018. The path of Alckmin to consolidate his candidacy and to rally the support of the other central parties, however, is very impervious.

Let’s see some updated data:

GDP (Value added at market prices)

The IBGE has revised the 2016 growth figure, from -3.6% to -3.5%.

The 2017 GDP forecast is growing slightly, now close to 1%. For 2018 the forecast for a more substantial growth is consolidated and several analysts even see close to 3%. To give more optimism is the good data on investments, which in the third quarter has entered the positive field (+ 1.6%) after 15 consecutive falls.

Inflation and real/dollar exchange 

The 2017 and 2018 inflation forecasts remain unchanged.

The real / dollar exchange rate forecasts are also stable, today at 3.22.

The euro is today quoted at around 3.81 reais, as a month ago.

Interest rate

The discount rate (SELIC) forecasts  for 2017 and 2018, estimated at 7%, are unchanged. In the last session of 2017 (which will close tomorrow, 6 December), Copom is expected to reduce the Selic by another 0.5% (at 7,0%), closing the downturn cycle started in 2016.

Although not predicted by the average of the Central Bank Focus forecasts, there is already talk of a further 0.5% drop in the Selic in the February 2018 Copom meeting: the 6.5% level should then remain until the end of 2018, except for unforeseen disturbances on the markets.

The Brazilian stock market (Bovespa)

Weeks of highs and lows for the stock market, under the banner of uncertainty related to the approval of pension reform.

As a month ago, the Bovespa index hovers around 74 thousand points, but has reached a minimum of 71 thousand at the end of November.

For more information on the performance of the Bovespa in 2017, please read the post: https://updatebrazil.wordpress.com/2017/11/22/bovespa-superstar-of-the-year/

Mauro Mantica