Yemen’s ongoing civil war

The Arab Spring in 2011 resulted in a revolution in Yemen. In just over a year from the start of protests, Yemen’s government was overthrown, and President Hadi was elected with an alleged 99.8% of the vote. However, this was not the end of Yemen’s problems. Earlier in 2015, Hadi’s government was overthrown by Houthi rebels from the north of the country. Yemen erupted into a multifaceted civil war, which continues. The Houthi are Shia, and loyal to the former president Ali Abdullah Saleh, while the government forces are loyal to President Hadi, who is Sunni. Also fighting in the civil war are the extremist groups Ansar al-Sharia, and ISIS.

International actors

[via Miraj News]

Saudi Arabia has played a huge part in Yemen’s civil war. It has openly supported the sovereignty of President Hadi’s overthrown government, even hosting its president in exile. But it is Saudi Arabia’s military assistance that has seen itself firmly embedded into this war. Saudi Arabia’s campaign of drone bombings has been controversial. It has cleared the way for an advance of the Yemeni government forces. So much so, that President Hadi feels he is able to return for a few days. Saudi Arabia’s primary aim in Yemen is completely political. Yemen is the latest stage of the battle for supremacy in the Middle East. Iran has been arming the Houthi rebels. Yemen’s political and social problems have been overshadowed, as Yemen merely functions as the latest setting for yet another proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi has been joined in Yemen by Egypt, and many others in Syria, and the impending creation of a joint Arab military force may see the fight for Yemen erupt into a truly regional struggle.

Is the end near?

It is hard to predict the end of Yemen’s civil war. The ongoing sectarian tensions, the involvement of many foreign forces, and the shadow of terrorist groups make this conflict almost as complicated as the wars in Syria. The return of the president may signal that an end may be in sight – but the fact that he is only staying for two days still places into doubt the safety of the capital, Sana’a,  and the country as a whole. ISIS has claimed responsibility for a mosque bombing in the capital that killed killed 29 during Eid prayers. The country remains in a state of turmoil, and the end is not in sight. But with the military assistance of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the government may slowly gain full control of the country – and the dissenters will be crushed.

The post What Is Next For Yemen? appeared first on BRIC Plus News.

Janet Yellen

Interest Rate and Currency War: What Are They?

Interest rates are a fee that a debtor pays on the amount of money they want to borrow from a creditor. Essentially it is the premium or cost to borrow money. The interest rate, perhaps one of the most significant tools in the monetary arsenal of central banks, can help combat inflation, unemployment, and a weak economy. Since the Great Recession, the Federal Reserve, the closest thing to a central bank in the US, has been cutting interest rates to basically zero. It is essentially free to borrow money in the US. Thursday’s announcement by Chairwoman Yellen signaled that the US will continue to intervene in its markets to ensure it can help stimulate it back to a stronger level. As a result of the government’s inaction with respect to interest rates, the dollar hit its lowest value against other major currencies in weeks. But such intervention will send a reverberation across global markets. Other countries will react accordingly.

Central banks across the globe will attempt to retaliate with similar actions of economic stimulation. This tit for tat in economic retaliation, which has been going on since 2008, is what already sparked the currency war we are mired in. A currency war is an international condition when countries contest with one another to achieve the lowest exchange rate for their currency.

So What Does it Mean?

By achieving the lowest exchange rate, a nation can ensure they can boost their exports and reduce their imports. This does not only help boost the economy but reduce reliance on foreign goods while increasing employment domestically. This is the ideal situation, but almost always it does not end up that way. Instead the goal of devaluation is a very risky strategy and nearly every time backfires. The currency wars typically end up reducing the standard of living and making it much more expensive to travel abroad.

Caught in the Crossfire: Emerging Markets

Typically with all wars, there are losers and winners. In currency wars, almost everyone, voluntary or involuntarily, becomes a participant. Unfortunately, emerging markets typically lack the wherewithal to stand a strong economic defense in such wars. Emerging markets become the unintended causalities that get caught up in the middle of the crossfire by the larger economies waging the war. The exporting industries of these nations will come to a halt since it will be relatively more expensive than the domestic products of the larger economies engaging in the “war”. Typically emerging markets have a large segment of their economy focused on manufacturing and shipping. As a result, the growths of these developing economies become stagnant and reverse into recession.

What’s Next?

CNBC believed that it might start a currency war. In reality, we have had an ongoing currency war since the Great Recession in 2008. There has been continuous devaluation by different governments in order to prop up their economies that nearly collapsed after that fiasco.

In the US, the favorite tools have been the interest rate and quantitative easing. Following in step, many nations in Europe and Japan have followed suit. Unlike nations with a free floating currency, China has directly devalued its currency by pegging the value of the Yuan (also known as the Reminbi) lower to the dollar.

With this latest US move in the ongoing currency war, the ball is now in China’s court to take action. What the future holds nobody knows but most likely another set of government intervention by the Chinese government will come to further devalue their currency. The result will be further destabilization to emerging markets and a bleak future for all.

The post This Means Currency War: Interest Rates and Emerging Markets appeared first on BRIC Plus News.

What is it?
The South China Sea is adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and encompasses an area of 1.4 million square miles (3.5 million square kilometers). The sea is a semi-closed area and extends from the Singapore Strait to the Taiwan Strait. China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan encircle the sea. This large swathe of sea is considered to be a great economic source of wealth (Fishery stocks and potential hydrocarbon reserves beneath the seabed) as well as vital to geopolitical strategy.

Why is it important?
With eight nations disputing about and vying for control of the maritime features and ultimately the entire sea, tensions are starting to spill over into potential conflict. The significance of the South China Sea is its potential for wealth as well as the strategic advantage it will bequest upon whomever controls it. Unlike other seas, the South China Sea has three factors that make it one of the most important, if not the most, sea to watch and guaranteeing a major conflict to ensue in the next few decades.

Image via BBC

The South China Sea has a wealth of resources from “fishery stocks that comprise the livelihood and diet of so many in the region.” It is believed to be “one of the most lucrative fishing areas in the world”. Whoever establishes sovereignty over the sea will control one of the largest fishery stocks in the world. The vitality of such a source is important based on the staple diet of the region. With burgeoning populations in many of these nations, ensuring a constant food source is vital to stability and longevity for the countries of the region.

The discovery of large sources of oil and gas reserves under the seabed has only further enticed the surrounding littoral nations to intensify their claims for control of the sea. Chinese officials have estimated the oil reserves at one trillion US dollars. The Chinese Department of Geology claims that the amount of reserves in and around the island will exceed those of the OPEC nations such as Kuwait or even Iraq. The potential for gas is even larger. If any nations manages to wrest control of the zone, energy independence as well as large revenue stream is guaranteed, which is a national security imperative for many nations in the area including China.

The control of the South China Sea is vital in projecting power to the Eurasian rimlands and eventually to the vast interiors. The sea also serves as a natural link/interface between the Indian and Pacific Oceans only furthering its appeal. This natural passageway between the two oceans creates what is known as “Malacca Dilemma”. The Malacca Dilemma refers to the dependence of China and the other nations in the region on the Strait of Malacca both economically and geopolitically. The Strait of Malacca is analogous in importance to the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. One-third of all global trade transits through the strait as well as more than overwhelming majority of raw materials and energy needs for the economies of China and the region. Due to the increased traffic over the years it has become a critical chokepoint. The inability of these nations to exert its influence on the waterway gives its military planners the ultimate apprehension.

Even though ISIS and the Middle East continue to be important, the world should start paying more attention and getting familiar with the South China Sea before the tensions and skirmishes turn into an all-out regional war.

The post This Is Why the South China Sea Dispute Is Way More Important Than People Realise appeared first on BRIC Plus News.

Resurrection of old rivalries

[via Malaysian Insider]

Malaysia has a long history of assimilating groups from other lands. Along with the ethnic Malay already present, Indians and Chinese began to settle in the early centuries AD. However, it was not until colonisation that Malaysia became the melting pot we know today. Labourers were brought from India and China to work in the colony’s tin mines and plantations, and became vital to the trading of the British Empire. In modern times, friction between the communities is mostly due to economic matters. Although the Malay account for half of the population, in 1970 they only received a 1% share of the national income. A raft of affirmative action measures by the Malay-dominated government sought to redress the balance, and increase it to 30% of national income by 1990. The wealth disparity between the different groups, and the government plans to ease the situation, have caused tension on all sides. Many Malay may feel that the country’s wealth is being kept from them by ‘foreign’ groups. The Chinese and Indian communities may feel that the government affirmative action plans discriminate against them. Neither grievance has been (or can be) easily addressed. The current government is a coalition, dominated by the UNMO, a Malay political party. As long as parties are formed along identity lines, these grievances cannot be resolved.

Prime minister Razak is a divisive figure

[via Ghana Nation]

Economic competition has spilled over into the political scene, and, interspersed with the politics of identity, make for a gruesome spectacle. At the end of August, an alleged 300,000 people rallied in Kuala Lumpur in a bid to force the prime minister Najib Razak to resign. The protesters were drawn almost wholly from Malaysia’s Indian and Chinese communities. Razak is particularly unpopular among the Chinese community, as it is alleged that in 2013 he implied they were to blame for a disappointing election result. An opposition party is Chinese-based. Decked in yellow t-shirts, the group camped out in the capital for two days, but to no avail. Prime Minister Razak remarked that the rest of the Malaysian population was on his side – and he may have been right. The ‘Red Shirt’ movement has been causing controversy, and it is a Malaysian nationalist group (allegedly with Islamist elements), firmly on the side of the prime minister and his administration. An upcoming rally is seen as a direct challenge and response to the anti-Najib protests of last month. The group has suggested its protests will turn violent, and has even prompted a response from the prime minister telling them that although the majority Malay must ‘demand respect’, they must refrain from displaying ‘sensitive words’ on banners, and not ‘provoke other races’. The prime minister is not the problem, but the Yellow Shirt/Red Shirt dynamic, and where their respective support lies,  is a microcosm of the division in the country.

Potential terrorist threat

[via Demotix]

The Red Shirts have already been accused of being an Islamist extremist group. However, it is suggested that a more present danger may be lurking in the country. Reports of a planned terrorist attack by ISIS have been circulating, ever since the Malaysian government claimed to have credible information about an upcoming attack. 10 suspected ISIS members were arrested by security forces last month, and the rumoured future attacks are said to be a form of retaliation. Whether these reports are true or not, they will only add to the tension already rife in the country. Threats from terrorist groups may lead to the Red Shirts being tarred by the same brush. Yellow Shirts may see these reports as proof that the government is giving impunity to terrorists in order to advance its own nationalist agenda. Divisions continue, as Malaysian politics becomes even more polarised. Could this be the moment when this historically diverse nation reaches its breaking point?

The post Is Malaysia Tearing Itself Apart? appeared first on BRIC Plus News.

The controversial veto power

At the heart of many criticisms of the UN lies the UN Security Council. A council made up of five permanent and ten non-permanent member states, its powers are often a source of concern. The five permanent members are Great Britain, France, China, The United States, and Russia, and the ten others are elected by the General Assembly to serve two year terms. A major cause of controversy is the veto power these five members have. The United States, China, and Russia have been the only countries to use their veto power in the 21st century, and each of these has been on serious, contentious issues.

China and Russia exercised their right to veto to prevent the UN from condemning Bashar al-Assad’s human rights abuses in Syria. The United States vetoed a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Russia vetoed a criminal investigation into the Malaysian Airlines plane MH370 that was shot down over the skies of Eastern Ukraine. For many, the UN Security Council may seem antithetical to the aims of the United Nation as an organisation. For an organisation which claims countries much work together for the international greater good, the existence of the UN Security Council, with its vetoes which help to shut down discussion or action, may not be true to these aims.

The membership is old-fashioned

The veto power is not the only issue with the United Nations Security Council. Kofi Annan, a former United Nations Security General criticised its make up. Annan claims that, in order for the UN Security Council to prevent fading into irrelevance, it must admit more permanent members. The UN Security Council seems to have been frozen in time. Its current permanent members seem an anachronism, failing to reflect the geopolitical realities of the current age. Stuck in a time when the world seemed divided into three zones, the West, with capitalism, and the East, communism, and the developing ‘third world’ up for grabs. France is no longer at the front line of a European advance against communism. China and Russia no longer represent a single axis of the world’s powers. As Kofi Annan rightly claims, the UN Security Council must change.

Which new members?

Annan suggests Germany or India as permanent members. The key to any reform of the United Nations Security Council must be the admittance of more countries from the emerging world. China and Russia are already present. With China’s powerhouse economy, and global influence, its status is undeniable. India’s growing economic and political influence merits consideration. India has already submitted a bid to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and this has been backed by the United States. Nigeria, which is Africa’s largest economy, and takes place in peacekeeping operations throughout the continent. It is clear that economic and military might cannot be the only criterion for membership of the United Nations Security Council – however, this has historically been the case. If the UN Security Council seeks to reform, it should also consider countries which have had a positive impact on global peace. With wars waging the world over, this would not be an easy task.

The post Is The UN Security Council In Need Of Reform? appeared first on BRIC Plus News.

After the high-profile killing of the lion known colloquially as “Cecil” in Zimbabwe, a light has been shone on the industry of licensed animal hunting known as trophy hunting. Figures have circulated about the scale of the industry which has proven popular among tourists, particularly American tourists, visiting Africa.

But it is not just Africa affected by trophy hunting; hunters have cast their net far and wide to find other havens for hunting and for many they have found it in Iran.

Despite the difficulty in obtaining a visa to visit Iran as a tourist from the US, for the right price Americans have been able to hunt the rare and often stunning breeds of animal from the Persian country.Iran’s wildlife is extremely dynamic and diverse from exotic sheep breeds to bears and even cheetahs. Concerns have been raised about the impact on Iran’s wildlife should the relationship between the two nations improve.

Transcaspian Urial

Hunting in Iran is big business

Visitors to Iran can pay up to $20,000 for the chance to hunt a rare sheep, the Laristan Mouflon, or $15,000 for the Transcaspian Urial, a majestic horned ram.

The amount of ammunition per machine is as follows: 20 rounds of ammunition are allowed per rifle, 100 shots per gun. This gives hunters a relatively high chance of catching their prized animal.

These events have taken place for more than a decade, when the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control made it legal for US agencies to book hunting tours to Iran.

These legal hunts were made possible when Iran’s Environment Protection Agency issued approximately 500 licenses to foreign visitors to hunt rare and protected breeds.

An average 120 Iranian breeds of animals are on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List of threatened species. The Red list is a list in which displays the animals most in danger of distinction. With only 50 Iranian Cheetahs left they are at the top of the Red List.

Will the Iranian government continue with trophy-hunting?

President Hassan Rouhani has made the environment one of his main priorities. With a person of influence showing such an interest in wildlife conservation, the public have followed his passion. However, his power may not be enough to completely eliminate the current rights that hunters have paid to acquire.

Iran, like many other countries, believe that trophy hunting is an important part of conservation, despite sanctioning the killing of rare animals. The industry claims to in-fact prevent large-scale killings of animals by monitoring and managing hunting opportunities, although many have pointed to the flaws in the system and the problems with a culture that encourages the killing of animals for sport.

Since the killing of Cecil, social media has become a key component in raising the debate around trophy hunting as an industry. It could be that tastes for the sport may change, or that public pressure will force government’s to revisit how the industry works.

via BBC

The post Inside Iran’s Animal Hunting Industry appeared first on BRIC Plus News.

America’s trade deals

[via Occupy]

America’s trade agreements should be at the forefront of any discussions. Upcoming deals are already extremely controversial among a large section of the American (and European) populace. It would be of little surprise if Xi Jinping was eager to discuss it. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a free trade agreement between the United States and 11 other countries. These countries are in Asia, Oceania, and Latin America, and crucially include Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Singapore. These countries are extremely close to China, which is a conspicuous absence from the list. As the world’s factory, China is essentially being targeted by the United States, who wishes to win more export deals, and to challenge this dominance. A similar deal, signed with the European Union, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), seeks to challenge China’s dominance in Europe. With these deals, the two giants move another step closer towards economic warfare.

Africa

[via Railway Technology]

Africa is another potential battleground for China and the United States. China has become very involved in the continent over the past few years, with trade in 2014 estimated to have reached $222bn in value. China is involved in intensive infrastructure projects throughout the African continent. In his visit to Kenya earlier this year, President Obama announced that the United States, in association with the World Bank and a number of private businesses, would invest $33bn into African economies. Though this is significantly less than China, it is the beginning of an attempted to unseat the country’s status in Africa. But trade and investment are not all China is exploring. China’s international arms exports increased 143% within 5 years, displacing Germany as the world’s third largest arms dealer. Crucially, China sells to 18 different African countries, including Sudan. Given the long civil war (which ended only when South Sudan seceded), this is certainly a contentious issue.

Syria

[via CFR]

The issue of Syria is always at the forefront. China and the United States have strongly opposing views. China and Russia were two countries to block a motion tabled at the United Nations for arming the Free Syrian Army. Russia, a close ally of China, has deployed groundtroops in Syria, in support of the Assad regime. China has repeated that Assad’s legitimacy cannot be questioned. The United States has remained a staunch opponent of Assad, and is involved in both fighting ISIS in airstrikes, and beginning to train ‘moderate’ rebels to topple Assad. The complex nature of the Syrian conflict has brought much international tensions. With it once again hitting the headlines, Xi Jinping and Barack Obama can not avoid discussing it.

The post Xi’s US Visit: Three Things China’s President Should Discuss appeared first on BRIC Plus News.

A power struggle

In December 2013, just under three years after its formation, a political crisis shook the country. A dispute between the president and his deputy created a schism in the political system. The difference of opinion between the two culminated in the deputy being fired. This set off a chain of events that would rock the young country to its core.

South Sudan’s own civil war

[via Political Periscope]

Armed struggle between government troops and rebels began in 2013. Over 50,000 people have been killed, and, as of August this year, more than 2 million have been internally displaced by the conflict.

Foreign intervention

The conflict is further complicated by international actors. Uganda is a nation firmly on the side of the government. The flow of arms into the country from around the world only exacerbates the problems. Since the days before South Sudan’s formation, the British trained the army. The French, the Soviet Union, the United States, and West Germany all provided arms to the government, while Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Israel supplied arms and military machinery to the rebels. The proliferation of arms during that conflict has ensured that there are a dangerous level of weapons circulating in the country.

Old rivalries

[via Upper Nile Times]

The crisis in South Sudan is not simply about differences in opinion. It is a matter of politics – precisely who holds the power. This is not a purely ideological battle. The schism in the politics and society of South Sudan laid bare the fault lines of ethnic tension in the new country. Many forces loyal to the government hail from the Dinka, and the rebels, the Nuer. The political struggles have inflamed ancient ethnic tensions. It is this dimension which makes the conflict likely to continue.

The post What Is Happening In South Sudan? appeared first on BRIC Plus News.

How are Russia involved?

Earlier reports confirmed that Russian infantry and naval forces have been deployed in “support roles.” With ISIS, the Nusra Front, and the Free Syrian Army forces advancing in all fronts, the Syrian Regime might be near its last throes. The elimination of Assad’s regime can be a major blow to Russia’s strategy for region. Syria plays a major role in the Russian geopolitical calculus for the Levant.

Why are they involved?

Aside from its naval base in Tartus, Syria is seen as the last guard to Russia’s Caucus region against the Muslim extremists. Russia has long been plagued by Muslim separatists in the region. The rise of ISIS creates trepidation amongst Russia’s planners of potential further destabilization in the area. With Assad’s regime gone, the ISIS flood can potentially drown the Caucus.

What does it mean?

Even with legitimate security concerns, Russia’s latest move can lead to another drawn out of quagmire. If Reuter’s reports are accurate; Russian troops are participating in battles against anti-Assad forces. These small pitch clashes can turn into major battles that require more Russian troops and weaponries, which eventually can turn the conflict into Russia’s war. This is the fantasy that ISIS and other extremists groups wish for. ISIS can then re-label its war as a Jihad and drive a stronger recruitment campaign.

As Russian troops are deployed, Putin and his generals should limit their intervention with clear and specific objectives. With a defined mission, the Russians can prevent another potential Afghan fiasco.

The post In Brief: Why Is Russia Involved in the Syrian Civil War? appeared first on BRIC Plus News.

This is childish and amateurish. A dislike button is unnecessary. If you don’t like a post, you can simply not read it, and scroll down. If you don’t like a person, why not unfriend them, or block them? What this vengeful dislike crowd wants, and what Facebook wants to achieve are two very different things.  For Mark Zuckerberg, it seems to all be about empathy. Some statuses, due to their emotive and distressing content, seem entirely inappropriate for a ‘like’. With a dislike button, empathy can be expressed, when clicking ‘like’ on a sad post may feel insensitive. For the vengeful crowd, the real aim is to bring others down.

Truly, the real reason people are so excited by the prospect of a dislike button is because it is far easier to write why something is terrible than why it is good. The human mind finds it far easier to dislike something, as it is hard to describe why we like something. You can be irrational and negative about the things you hate, but positive emotions require reason. The feeling of dislike comes straight from our basest animal instincts.

Some of those who want to make Facebook a place where they can ‘down vote’ other people’s posts should cool their jets. Mark Zuckerberg’s statement gave hope to those of us who don’t want Facebook to descend into a hole of negativity. Zuckerberg said that he did not want it to be a mechanism for down voting others. I hope this is the case. It would be a very sad reflection of the worst traits of humanity, if all of a sudden people began to wantonly dislike pictures of their friends’ babies, pets, and cooking experiments.

We are lucky that we are all connected through the power of social media. There is no need for insults and mudslinging matches. But, regrettably, these things occur anyway. The addition of a dislike option of Facebook will only make such exchanges increasingly likely. There is enough human hate around, we do not need to start flirting with open dislikes. Perhaps, if we were not so busy highlighting people’s shortcomings, we may find their most secret redeeming qualities.

The post This Is Why A Facebook Dislike Button Is A Bad Idea appeared first on BRIC Plus News.