Opinion

Share this

After the Peshawar massacre, the army decided to roll out all its canons to oppose the Tehreek Taliban Pakistan (TTP) . After the All-Party Conference (APC) held on Friday, it was decided to amend the constitution in order to provide for trial of terror suspects in courts held by military officials. This amendment will be passed for a period of two long years. It shall be known as the 22nd amendment passed by the APC .

The joint declaration issued after the conference said, “The APC decided about the implementation of the National Action Plan and endorsed the proposed legislative measures, including amendments to the Pakistan Army Act to extend its jurisdiction for speedy trial of cases under specified acts and provide the constitutional cover with a sunset clause of two years from the date of enactment.” General Raheel Sharif has also cleared this misconception that this idea was mainly brainstormed by the army itself by openly saying that special courts are not the desire of the army but are the need of extraordinary times.

The creation of speedy courts is a result of the extreme pressure on the government to hang terrorists. In many instances it was proved that law officials did not have the heart of a lion. They were not ready to sacrifice the security of their family members just for the sake of hanging terrorists. After the loss of nearly a hundred school children the army has decide to break all barriers and to remove this pollution from their homeland.

The speedy courts would allow faster trials so that the terrorists could see their end as soon as possible. The speedy courts are responsible to provide justice to any individual involved in terrorist activities in the name of a sect or religion.The prime minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, has also declared this as an act of providing sufficient impression on the enemies of the Pakistani homeland .

Opinion by Armaghan Naveed

Share this

On December 17th the Federal Reserve’s FOMC released its meeting statement, forecast and held a press conference for chair Yellen. The Fed kept up its data dependent commitment to raise interest rates, but affirmed to be patient when deciding to do so. Janet Yellen once again reiterated that the decision is entirely data dependent. Meaning if the data isn’t strong enough, the committee is not incorrect in their current forward guidance policy. This forward guidance policy of informing the markets vaguely what the FOMC will do in the coming months is an attempt to instill confidence into a shaky financial world.

The Fed included their comments and projections on the current low inflation rates of 2014. Chair Yellen saw low inflation as a potential danger to the economy, but yet most analysts still expect the Fed to raise rates in 2015. This may prove to be a large misunderstanding. The Fed has said numerous times that it is imperative to prevent deflation from taking a grip on the economy. Even the head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde says, “If inflation is the genie, deflation is the ogre that must be fought decisively.” Her statement is interpreted as meaning inflation is like a genie, once you let it out of the bottle it is hard to get it back in. Deflation on the other hand is a much more dangerous and deadly ogre that can also have terrible effects. Central bankers currently have a strategy for fighting ogres. The plan is loose monetary policy and money supply expansion. But raising rates is exactly the opposite of the ogre fighting remedy, since they are instead tightening monetary policy; so in theory it’s much more like ogre food.

Unless the Federal Reserve wants to accelerate the natural deflation, which would accomplish the complete opposite goal of its last several policies, then raising rates now or in six months could bring the markets back to a point like was seen in 2008. The world is only starting to experience a large deflationary pull due to low oil prices and its effect on energy businesses and lending institutions. If the plunge in oil causes a crisis to spill over into other markets, which is a high probability if oil prices stay low for a considerable time, then the Fed will have even more low inflation, if not outright deflation to deal with. Raising rates just doesn’t make sense in a deflationary world, when the thing you are trying to prevent is a deflationary spiral. In fact, I am going to call the Fed’s bluff here.

With the New Year upon us, it is the time where many people make unreasonable goals for themselves which none the less end up falling through by February. Like everyone else, the Fed has a New Year’s resolution. It happens to be very much like the popular, going on a diet resolution, but this time is a little bit different. The Fed’s resolution is to go on a diet starting in about six months. It could be May or June, or even September, but their New Year’s resolution is to go on that diet. If a friend told you the same thing, you might be pretty skeptical about. Why don’t they just start it now? Well that’s probably because they aren’t going to go on a diet at all.

The Fed is not raising raise rates now, and even according to their own actual statistical evidence, they won’t be able to in six months. The Fed downwardly revised their PCE Inflation expectation for 2015, and that figure is even lower than the “low inflation” seen in 2014! If low inflation is a problem, then how can they move forward?

The Fed expects deflation, but plans on raising rates; that’s nonsense. Not only will the Fed not raise rates in 2015, they may even restart Quantitative Easing, in the latter half of the year, especially if a crisis brews in the oil, housing or financial sectors. In this New Year, the remaining hawkish members of the Board of Governors are scheduled to be replaced with more dovish leaders. With the most dovish Chairperson in the history of the Federal Reserve and a Board of Governors filled with doves, the Fed will certainly be more than “patient” in raising rates. This situation reminds me a lot of my Great Aunt Thelma who would often say “I’m going on a diet on Tuesday.” Tuesday would roll around and if you asked about her diet she’d exclaim with a smirk “I didn’t say what Tuesday!”

Analysis by Andrew Gehrig

Share this

The dive in the price of oil combined with economic sanctions has hit Russia’s economy very hard. The Russians have experienced massive inflation, as well as large outflow of capital from its borders. To combat this, the Russian Central Bank has raised interest rates to 17 percent, hoping to constrict the rampant inflation by attracting demand for the ruble, and restrict the money supply simultaneously.

Keep in mind that the 17 percent is a nominal figure, and if you adjust it for inflation, is much lower. For example, take a nominal interest rate of 10 percent, and then apply inflation at 12 percent, you’d have a negative interest rate of two percent. So as inflation runs high in Russia, the central bank will maintain or raise the real interest rate to combat inflation, even if that means raising the nominal rate to 25 percent. The downside for the Russian Central Bank to raising interest rates is the increased risk of default. This most likely would not transpire into a Russian sovereign debt crisis but a corporate debt crisis. If Russian companies began to go bankrupt and default on their debts it would increase pressure on the lending institutions that hold the paper.

In addition to the pressure applied to banks that have loaned money to Russian companies, which are mostly European banks, there is an even larger problem for US institutions. With a strengthening dollar and falling oil prices, emerging markets have taken a large hit. An emerging market country like Venezuela is very dependent on oil as a major source of revenue, and carries a heavy debt that is 57 percent of its GDP. It is comparable to a family where the father lost his job, and the family is already indebted. There is a good chance for default. Venezuela is not the only case of shaky emerging market debt. Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey all have high debt to GDP loads. In all, there are nine trillion dollars in dollar denominated emerging market debt. On top of that, there is an additional 5 trillion in energy related debt. So in total there is $14 trillion in unstable debt.

Say if 15 percent of the debt ends up in default. We would then be looking at $2.1 trillion in losses. That would be larger than the losses during the Dot-com bubble and the subprime mortgage bubble, which triggered the collapse of the housing market.

Exacerbating this already large problem could be the vast network of derivatives. These derivatives are used for several functions, to trade as financial instruments, to leverage banks’ positions, and to transfer risk.

In this scenario, pay attention to the last point, their ability to “transfer” risk. In 2008, AIG found themselves guaranteeing $61 billion in subprime mortgage derivatives, and could not provide the collateral to back it up. The US government ended up bailing out AIG and a number of other financial institutions. Without that there would have been a complete collapse of our banking system.

Today’s problem is potentially bigger. This is a terrible scenario, but could certainly become a real one if oil prices stay low and the dollar stays strong. Though if the Federal Reserve instead chooses to delay its rate hike, there will be a huge reversal in the dollar, and it will relieve this deflationary trajectory, for at least a little while longer.

Analysis by Andrew Gehrig

Share this

Monday South Korea proposed a series of talks with North Korea. It is an attempt to remove the gunpowder between the two borders which has led to a huge amount of fighting in the past few decades. Since the Korean War of 1950-1953 there has not been any major progress towards negotiations between the two countries.

Unification Minister Ryoo Kihl-jae said at a news conference that South Korea wants to hold talks in January. However, it is still unclear whether North Korea will accept the offer or not. The reason behind this is that in the past decade North Korea has viewed these talks as an attempt to take over. It also wants a united Korea with Pyongyang in charge, which is nearly impossible.

Ryoo went further to mention hope of rejoining  the families separated by the Korean War. In the past North Korea has made a negative responses to all offers of talks by saying that they were attempts to topple down Pyongyang’s Government. The talks which were to be held in October were also boycotted by the North Korean government in response to the offensive messages sent to that government. The two nations had previously agreed to restart the dialogue when a high-ranked North Korean delegation made a surprise visit to the Asian Games held in the South Korea in October. Ryoo has not addressed the nation on Monday leaving a huge question whether North will accept this offer or not.

“What the North wants from the South is some kind of assurance… to stop the leaflets so I am not sure if the North would embrace the offer easily,” said Hong, analyst at Sejong Institute. Still there are symptoms that the North Korean government will accept this offer in order to defuse tensions created by the recent cyber crimes. Washington has also decided to respond with a long-lasting reaction to the North Korean government for hacking Sony, which is the studio behind the movie The Interview, a comedy movie based on the idea of kidnapping Kim. North Korea has viewed this as a direct act of war. South Korea’s nuclear reactors have also been facing a series of cyber strings.

Tensions are raising day by day as the UN has turned its attentions towards Pyongyang for its record of crimes against humanity.

Analysis by Armaghan Naveed

Share this

The ongoing Catalan bid for independence and the political crisis between the central government in Madrid and Catalonia has opened up a divide which is creating an internal conflict within Spain that runs deep into the social fabric of the country. The divide is threatening to unravel the progress made by the county since the death of The Dictator, Francisco Franco.

A symbolic Catalan vote for independence that took place on the 9^th of November asked two fundamental questions. Should Catalonia become a state? And should Catalonia become an independent state?

The symbolic test vote produced 2.3 Million votes with 80% voting both yes to becoming a state and yes to becoming an independent state. This has been the political stepping stone that independence parties need to push through early elections in 2015. Meanwhile Catalonia fights to create a constitutional reform that will open the way for a separation from Spain and the right to be a country in its own right.

The central government has continually blocked the creation of a subcommittee to begin debating a constitutional reform. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has famously said that he will give “no concession” to Catalonia´s demands, and refuses to recognize the symbolic referendum opinion vote of November.

Mariano Rajoy has gone as far as to file criminal complaints against the president of the Catalan Government Artur Mas for having organized the “non-binding vote” and also pushed to re-centralize power as a way to punish Catalonia. Hundreds of Catalans have gone to the Supreme Court to plead guilty for voting as part of the solidarity campaign to support Mas.

There is a strong national identity in Catalonia that seeks to distance itself from Spain. Bullfighting is banned and the Catalan language that was thoroughly opposed during the dictatorship of General Franco is gaining popularity as a language in its own right. Famously, a sign existed in Barcelona´s trams: “Prohibited: spitting, swearing and speaking Catalan.”

Every year Catalonia is forced to hand over 17 billion Euros of their taxes to Madrid´s coffers, the province which contributes the most, having a larger GDP per capita plus than the rest of the country, apart from the fact that Catalonia does not enjoy fiscal autonomy like the Basque country.

Recently allegations of corruption within the central governing party, the PP (Popular Party) have pushed the divide even further. The Catalan political parties, pushing for independence, have made the end to political corruption a central theme of their manifesto.

A famous case known as the “Barcena´s papers” has rocked Spain to its core, challenging the public perception of the political elite and the traditional two party system.

Luis Barcenas nicknamed by the police as “Luis the bastard” for years was involved in tax fraud and accepting illegal payments, he stood down from the PP in 2010 but continued to accept payments. When investigated for Political corruption 22 million Euros were discovered in a Swiss bank account and a private secret ledger indicating the current president Mariano Rajoy was receiving undeclared payments.

Catalonia has not come out of the corruption scandal unscathed ether. Its famous ex-president Jordi Pujol, who served from 1980 to 2003, is currently under investigation for having syphoned off public funds which were the channeled into fiscal paradises around the world by his sons.

One of the main reasons that Catalonia looks to independence is to stem the tide of politcal corruption that has plagued the country and instilled mistrust in the political elite to the point that the population of Spain is increasingly looking for alternative parties such as “Podemos” meaning “We Can,” a political movement which was which was born from the 15-M Indignados movement.

Regardless of the rift that seems to be threatening Spain´s social fabric, Catalonia continues to push forward the independence vote, regardless of the outcome of independence votes in Scotland and Quebec, and 2015 will be a key year for politics in Spain.

Analysis by Anthony Bain

Share this

It has been the Western, pro-EU, pro-NATO camp that has trumpeted its supposed devotion to the defense of democracy when discussing the Euromaidan protests of late 2013 and their fallout. What made many skeptical of their claims of being champions of democracy from the beginning was their open support for the use of force to overthrow a democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych. It would seem that usurping Yanukovych’s power violated the Ukrainian constitution. What was Yanukovych’s crime in the eyes of the West? Choosing to seek closer economic ties for Ukraine with Russia instead of signing an Association Agreement with the EU.

In the West, those who spoke of the possible inconsistencies of the pro-Euromaidan side were mostly drowned out in major news outlets. Major publications like Time Magazine had been sounding anti-Vladimir Putin alarms long before Euromaidan even took place. The Euromaidan and Russia’s annexation of Crimea sent Western media into what appeared to be nearing full bore panic mode. Perhaps most memorable was The Economist magazine’s over-the-top “Putin’s Inferno” cover. Hackneyed clichés about Putin being a 21st century Adolf Hitler were being used widely. The fact that it was the anti-Russian side that used violent means to overthrow a democratically elected leader, or that the majority of Crimeans were in favor of a reunion with Russia, did not stop the vilification of Putin and his supporters.

More than a year has now passed since the Euromaidan. In addition to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, we’ve seen a bloody civil war break out in eastern Ukraine between the pro-Russian separatists of the east (where Yanukovych had gotten the majority of his electoral support) and the Ukrainian army, taking orders from the newly installed Kiev government. This new government is generally supported by the people of western Ukraine, or at least preferred to the previous government. New elections held in May made Petro Poroshenko the president.

While the Euromaidan, the annexation of Crimea, and the Ukrainian Civil War are all major news stories in their own right, they are also part of a bigger picture geopolitical struggle between Russia and the West that some worry could be as serious as setting the foundation of a third World War. While the anti-Russia, anti-Putin sentiment is still very strong in the West’s ruling class, some notable voices of dissent have been making themselves heard. In a December 20th article in the British newspaper The Daily Mail entitled “Forget ‘evil’ Putin–we are the bloodthirsty warmongers,” English journalist and author Peter Hitchens writes,

“Now I seem surrounded by people who actively want a war with Russia, a war we all might lose. They seem to believe that we are living in a real life Lord Of The Rings, in which Moscow is Mordor and Vladimir Putin is Sauron.”

He goes on to write, “Until a year ago, Ukraine remained non-aligned between the two great European powers. But the EU wanted its land, its 48 million people (such a reservoir of cheap labour!) its Black Sea coast, its coal and its wheat. So first, it spent £300 million (some of it yours) on anti-Russian ‘civil society’ groups in Ukraine. Then EU and Nato politicians broke all the rules of diplomacy and descended on Kiev to take sides with demonstrators who demanded that Ukraine align itself with the EU.”

It is voices like these that are challenging the West’s liberal elite’s claims to be the guardians of democracy. Recent news out of Sweden (an EU member since 1995) will be bound to raise even more questions about the intentions of pro-EU liberals. On Saturday, Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven announced the cancellation of the upcoming elections, in which the Sweden Democrats (a political party) were expected to make large gains. The cancellation came after the “center-left” and “center-right” parties came to a bargain on a budget, and is an obvious effort to isolate the up-and-coming Sweden Democrats. One cannot help but notice that many among the West’s liberal establishment only seem to support democracy when they agree with the voters’ decisions.

Opinion by Robert Inskip

Share this

Known for her ministry The Glory is Here, Hon. Margaret Wanjiru, one of the flashiest preachers in Kenya, is indeed experiencing an uphill task in her political career. The bishop has in the last five years served as a member of parliament and a cabinet minister. The former housing cabinet minister has since decamped from the Orange Democratic Movement party to The National Alliance Party, in which already she is experiencing lots of troubles. Barely two weeks ago, after joining the TNA alliance, we can now report that she is not at peace with her move.

TNA party members have expressed discontent with her and claimed that she is just there to reap from where she did not plant. Indeed the honeymoon period could be over, and she will have to battle it out to be relevant in the party “things.” The Nairobian flashy preacher, upon joining the TNA party, walked to several media stations accusing the ODM of being undemocratic. Funny enough, the party she claims is undemocratic gave her son a nomination ticket and campaigned for him until that son won the parliamentary seat. Margaret Wanjiru has since opened claims into the issue that the ODM party of which she was part during the 2013 elections, refused to sponsor and support her gubernatorial seat, which she lost to the current Nairobi Governor, Dr. Evans Kidero of ODM party.

Even as she claims so, the truth that has been established is that the bishop never had the required papers to become governor. She wasn’t a qualified candidate. It is indeed very funny that the bishop lies with impunity. After the elections she joined St Pauls University, from which one and half year later she graduated with a degree. She, therefore, meets the IEBC threshold to qualify for a governors’ post suppose elections are held today. However, does it mean that education will remain compromised so as to have people and personalities meet their goals and selfish ambitions?

The Jesus is Alive Ministries pastor and bishop has to date not met the president, a month after joining the TNA party despite making several appointments. The several appointments have indeed turned to disappointments and political followers are left to see what comes to play the next time. The flashy Nairobi bishop has since maintained that she will battle it out with other aspirants for Nairobi gubernatorial candidate come 2017. Among her opponents will be the flamboyant Nairobi senator, Hon. Mike Sonko and Nairobi businessman Jimnah Mbaru, who have both vowed to ensure she sinks into political oblivion. Indeed someone could be signing her political oblivion certificate by herself.

Despite declaring interest to battle it out in 2017 with the political heavyweights for the gubernatorial party candidate, political pundits and supporters are left to see if the Glory will be there for the bishop. Even so, the already lit fire could be seen burning for the next few years or it could be extinguished. Hon. Margaret has however held that the fire has to continue burning.

Analysis by Morris Cerullo

Share this

Following the passing of draconian security laws in Kenya, the opposition has taken things a step further to get to the courts.

The Coalition of Reforms and Democracy (CORD) will this morning be presenting a petition against the parliament’s move to pass draconian laws. The draconian laws in regard to security were passed by the legislative house amidst chaos and brawl. In the petition that was drafted by lawyers allied to the coalition and human rights groups, the coalition is pleading with the judicature to bar and stall the execution of the law citing the fact that it impinges on the rights and exaptation of the citizens.

The opposition’s legal team, which comprises of over thirty qualified lawyers and advocates led by senior counsel Hon. Senator James Orengo, will today get to the Milimani court at 9:00 a.m. Kenyan time. The law indeed wasn’t acted upon in good faith and is possibly a tool which the ruling Jubilee coalition can use to kill political dissent in the country. The bill that president Uhuru signed into law last week has issued more powers to the National Intelligence Service that could possibly bring back the horrific Moi era, which witnessed the abuse of power by the intelligence agency. In all likelihood, the laws could bring to the fore the application of impunity to prevail on the opposition.

The amendment, which was hastily passed in a disorderly parliamentary session as well, imparts the executive much power to manipulate what the media puts out. The media proprietors have as well come strongly to contradict the legal philosophy which they say will obstruct the freedom of the press.

In a deep rejoinder to the topic at hand, the US State Department in its affirmation stated its disappointment in the way the bill was covered. The department said that, “We are disappointed, yet, by the very restricted time permitted for debate and audience on the 2014 Security Laws Amendment Bill anterior to its enactment and passage into law.” The Department as well held that they are worried about the very many provisions in the security law legislation, which include those that feature to restrict the freedom of communication and media, and access to asylum seekers and refugees.”

Nevertheless, in a quick response, the PSCU said in their assertion, “The law is of great importance to Kenya and Kenyans. The State House Communication Unit went ahead to hold that the law is of great importance to Kenyans. The PSCU stated that the Security law is similar to the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act which have helped Americans.”

Despite the opposition’s move to get to the court, Kenyans have cast uncertainty on the success of the petition in the courts. Many Kenyans think that the tribunals may not practice their independence as required but instead will follow orders from the Statehouse. The opposition’s move is also viewed in terms of a fierce legal battles between the ruling coalition and itself. The former prime minister, who is also the coalition’s chief principal, has sent a warning message to the President and told him to be ready for a fierce battle in regards to the draconian bill. The move is anticipated to dwarf the chaotic scenes that decorated the passing of the bill. Hon Raila Odinga as well stated that the opposition will not be intimidated until they save Kenyans from the wrath of the new law.

Analysis by Morris Cerullo