Some what overlooked when analysing the results of the 2012 US presidential elections, was the extent to which Asian Americans backed Obama. The figure was up to 73 per cent; surpassing the Latino and female vote. Romney’s Chinese bashing was ill judged, sitting uncomfortably with Asian Americans. Attacking China as an economic cheat served only to raise fears amongst Asian Americans thereby alienating this group of voters.

Asian Americans make up 3.4 per cent of the national electorate, and it is estimated by some that by 2050, this figure will rise to 10 per cent. Although in states like California, it could be at least 20 per cent from the present 11 per cent. Therefore the Asian American voted is growing and its potential should not be underestimated.

Obama’s appeal to the Asian American is mirrored by a wider global appeal, illustrated well by Pew Research and the fact that much of the world cheered the November re-election of US President Obama. This support was not necessarily an endorsement of US foreign policy. In particular there is still widespread opposition to US drone strikes as part of his anti-terrorism policy; his failure to meet expectations that he would tackle climate change; and crucially his failure to position the US as a more even-handed broker between Israel and Palestine. Yet, his popularity in Asia, especially South East Asia is undented. His relationship with South Asian countries is, however more complex. In Indonesia he enjoys massive popularity; this is not surprising considering that Obama has placed a lot of importance on relations with this Muslim majority country. In 2009, in other Muslim majority countries including Afghanistan and Pakistan, people hoped he would be different from the Bush administration. However, after his re-election and second term in the White House, his popularity in these countries has dipped and has never been lower. As for relations with China, this is likely to evolve into a working but competitive one, particularly in the East of Asia, as illustrated by his trip to Myanmar otherwise known as Burma.

So what should we make of his recent trip to Burma? Well it was part of a three leg tour which also took in Thailand and Cambodia for an ASEAN conference in the middle of last November. This made him the first US President to visit Burma and meet their President Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the pro-democracy party. The White House itself called it the “pivot” towards Asia, as their strategic focus becomes the fast-growing Asian countries, away from war and terrorism in the Middle East and Afghanistan. Clearly this trip reflects a watershed in policy and focus following the importance the US has placed on normalising relations with Burma. For the US, this represents an opportunity to have a greater stake in the region, partly to counter the influence of China.

Interestingly Robert Kaplan, academic and journalist in his book Monsoon about Burma,
observes the following;

“In short, Burma provides a code for understanding the world to come. It is a prize to be fought over, as China & India are doing so right now. Recognising the importance of what Burma and its neighbours represent at a time of new energy pathways, unstable fuel prices, and seaboard natural disasters………….For the US, Indian Ocean states like Burma are now, or should be, central to their calculations. ”

Importantly, he wrote this well before Obama’s re-election last November, so clearly some one is listening in the state department.

Further, Kaplan, based on his knowledge of the state department, argues that the appointment of special envoys for Israel-Palestine; Afghanistan-Pakistan & North Korea, will free up the Secretary of State to concentrate on the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific regions. Structurally at least, the State department is now better organised then it’s been for some time to respond to a rising India and China. Indeed John Kerry, the newly appointed Secretary of State should consider himself fortunate to be taking over at such a time of freed up resources within the state department.

So, Asians both in the US and aboard are set to have even more dealings with Obama in his second term. He is naturally more in tune with the region having lived in Indonesia in his formative years and by having an Asian half-sister. This backdrop inevitably acts to make him culturally more approachable and appealing to the Asian electorate. Arguably, the future of American power lies in the East; this notion is strengthened by the re-election of President Obama, who has already made a clear play for Asia. Based on recent policy and the apparent lean towards Asia, it looks as though Obama himself would have little trouble being perceived as the first Asian President of the USA.

Murad Qureshi is a Labour member of the London Assembly

Claire Alexandre, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – presentation to ‘‘ conference.

The Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) in partnership with the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office(FCO) and in association with the City of London Corporation and ‘This is Africa’, (the FT’s bimonthly magazine), hosted a (2012) focused on how best to regulate and expand the provision of mobile payment services across Africa and beyond.

This report distils the main ideas and experiences shared through a series of main plenary sessions and a range of working group discussions at the London conference. The report comprises of two central elements. The first provides guidelines and principles that could support the development of a framework outlining how effective regulation might be shaped. The second suggests potential implementation features which could explore how effective regulation might be implemented, scaled up and replicated.

Jan Gaspers sets out an evaluation of the EU’s Nobel Peace Prize win against the three key judging criteria the Nobel Committee are required to use. He argues that the EU meets these criteria more than most recent most recent recipients and looks to possible future developments.

In March 2013 the conflict will have raged for two years. The breathtaking momentum of the Arab Spring has been stuck in the deep bloody mud of a civil war that has seen over , more than and an estimated 13% of the population (3 million) forced from their homes. At time of writing that the eastern city of Deir Azzour (pre-war population 600,000) is under siege and in a desperate state.

In Syria the unstoppable force of the Arab Spring has clashed most spectacularly with the unmoveable realities of the region’s geopolitics. An American diplomat has described Syria as a proxy war, a civil war and lots of small internal wars all happening at once. CIA officers sent to the country in 2011 reported back that the conflict was far too fragmented for them to see any easy answer to what Washington should do.

Russian and Chinese intransigence at the United Nations has gummed the mechanisms of international war and peace. Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi has admitted that his job is looking at a wall, trying to find any cracks.

The US has been unwilling to grasp a complex nettle with a war weary population and a weak economy at home. Obama’s ‘leading from behind’ is a policy backed by the American public as well as the media establishment, both the New York Times and the Washington Post publishing editorials recently praising his pragmatic approach to the conflict.

However on the ground things are changing quickly, forcing both the US and the Europeans to adopt a far more proactive approach in order to influence what happens in Syria. In Aleppo, Syria’s largest city and its economic hub, the rebels continue to push forward. As the US discovered in Iraq, long supply lines through hostile rural areas are prime territory for roadside bombs and other deadly ambushes. The Regime’s supply lines are stretched and their increasing reliance on airpower in the north is a reflection of such weakness. An analyst recently back from the region predicted Aleppo’s fall in 2013, a body blow to the regime and an opening of a space that some say could be Syria’s Benghazi allowing massively ramped up logistical support to the Opposition.

In Damascus, despite the failure of the rebels ‘Operation – Damascus Volcano’ in July, a new offensive has focused on the suburbs and the symbolic and tactical location of the international airport. Since the start of the protests and then the fighting the regime has steadily ramped up the fire power it has deployed. What started with tear gas and bullets has evolved into and Scud missiles. Unnamed US officials have even begun to speculate that Assad would use chemical weapons in a final act of desperation.

Prompted by the rapid rebel advances on the ground and continued fears of insecurity over spilling into key allies such as Turkey and Jordan, the Western powers have upped their game. November’s meeting in Doha nominally linked all the opposition elements together under one hat – the aptly long named ‘National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces’ (NCSROF). This wasn’t a cathartic coming together of different opposition elements but rather London and Paris leaning on Doha, Riyadh and Ankara to ensure that the groups under their patronage signed up to what was seen as the only game in town. Likewise the decision this week by rebel commanders from across Syria to join forces under the ‘Supreme Joint Leadership Military Council’ reflects a stronger ‘push from behind’.

The US, Germany and the Netherlands are putting Patriot missiles along with battery personnel into harms way along Turkey’s border with Syria and soon enough real questions will likely be asked as to why the West is only providing non-lethal support to what it now officially recognises as the legitimate representatives of the beleaguered Syrian people.

In short the questions as to whether Syria will become a Lebanon, an Iraq or even a Somalia are forcing the hand of reluctant Western governments to get more involved in Syria. The US attempt to marginalise the Nusra Front as a ‘terrorist organisation’ within the Opposition reflects a desire to shape things going forward rather than letting the chips fall as they may. With the demanding a confidential report into military options and the White House likely to pivot around new studies into Syria expect a more proactive approach to country to combine with rapidly moving events on the ground. The general consensus around Assad’s demise may rapidly shift to serious questions as to what a post-regime Syria will look like.

In this FPC briefing Hamazasp Danielyan and Anna Jenderejian from Policy Forum Armenia set out some of the findings of their recent report into Armenia’s 2012 parliamentary elections. They use statistical data to argue that while some improvements were made on polling day and on the issue of ballot stuffing, real concerns still exist over vote counting, paid and multiple voting and the use of the identities of those who have emigrated.

FPC Research Associate Chris Ogden sets out some the major challenges China and India face as they develop great power status. He discusses the history both of the two countries and others who have achieved global dominance, examining how China and India’s past experiences may shape their future behaviour.

Baku-based rights group the Human Rights Club is marking International Human Rights Day by launching an innovative new campaign called . The campaign will use all forms of art to promote democratic reform and respect for human rights in Azerbaijan – including improving the environment for artistic freedom of expression itself.

“Art for Democracy is a unique initiative in Azerbaijan,” said Human Rights Club Chairman and Art for Democracy Coordinator Rasul Jafarov. “We hope that this new, creative approach will be effective in engaging new actors – such as artists and youth – in discussing and promoting human rights in Azerbaijan”.

The Art for Democracy campaign seeks to expand upon the concept of the previous campaign, which drew widespread international attention to the human rights situation in Azerbaijan in the run-up to the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest, which took place in Baku in May. Azerbaijan’s human rights record came under as the international community questioned whether the contest should take place in a country that .

The Eurovision 2012 winner, Swedish pop star Loreen, took note of the issues highlighted by Sing for Democracy, the campaign’s activists prior to the Eurovision final to learn about the human rights situation in the country. Afterwards, she stated in an with Azadliq newspaper, “Human rights are violated in Azerbaijan every day. One should not be silent about such things” – a comment which the Azerbaijani authorities claimed was an attempt to politicise the Song Contest.

Post-Eurovision, as the authorities continue to on more traditional means of exercising the right to freedom of expression, it has become apparent that new tactics are needed for Azerbaijan’s human rights community to get its messaging out. The state maintains what is disseminated via broadcast and print media, and responds to any attempts by activists to protest repressive policies. Art for Democracy will seek to circumvent these methods of control and draw attention to human rights issues in a creative way.

The campaign will particularly aim to improve the environment for artistic freedom of expression in Azerbaijan, including by providing direct support to artists who are marginalised because of the politically sensitive nature of their work. This will include cases of artists who are subjected to human rights violations, such as exiled Azerbaijani musicians Jamal Ali and Azer Cirttan.

Rocker/rapper Ali was forced to flee Azerbaijan after he was detained for 10 days and by police following his arrest at an opposition protest in Baku in March, where he made insulting remarks about the President’s late mother during his performance. In his song ‘’, released just ahead of Eurovision, Ali sang, “I was beaten for what I said, shoved into a police car”. He said in an with the Guardian that police had told him “We’ll do our best to make you leave the country” as they beat him.

Cirttan chose to leave Azerbaijan with his wife, an opposition activist, and their young daughter due to concerns for their safety. In an with Free Muse, Cirttan reported that prior to leaving the country, his attempts to publically perform were thwarted when authorities pressured venue owners to cancel his concerts. After seeing examples made of other opposition activists, when Cirttan noticed he was being followed in Baku, he and his family decided to leave.

But the authorities’ actions to limit freedom of artistic expression did not start or end with the Eurovision Song Contest. As examined in a November 2011 , there is a stark contrast in the operating environment for artists who receive the government’s favour and those who do not. The most “in demand” products include sculptures of the ruling elite, and artists attempting to work independently “struggle to find jobs”. Young artists face particular difficulty in becoming established, as only a handful receive very small government stipends, and few are given workspace.

As Cirttan explained in his interview with Free Muse, musicians of non-traditional genres, such as rock, have “handicaps” in Azerbaijani society – even if their music is not political. He pointed both to overt forms of censorship by the authorities – such as not giving radio airtime to certain artists and putting pressure on or closing down venues that host the “wrong” concerts – as well as to self-censorship as the result of systemic forms of pressure, as contributing to the poor climate for artistic freedom of expression in Azerbaijan.

In the absence of other options, marginalised artists such as Ali and Cirttan are increasingly reliant upon the Internet as a means of disseminating their work – and so the fates of freedom of artistic expression and Internet freedom in the country are intertwined. While the Internet can currently be considered as in Azerbaijan, targeting by the authorities of journalists and activists who express critical opinions online presents a serious obstacle for Internet freedom. Further, local rights groups fear that in the near future, authorities may start to interpret existing legal provisions in a more restrictive manner or introduce new legislation that will effectively close the only remaining largely free space in the country.

In addition to addressing the broader human rights and freedom of expression issues which hamper the ability of artists to express themselves freely, the Art for Democracy campaign aims to fill a gap which has been to date overlooked. “There are artists who want to contribute to the process of democratisation in Azerbaijan, but don’t know how”, noted Jafarov. “Art for Democracy will give them a platform to come together and use their talents to impact positive change. This is one of many reasons why Art for Democracy is so needed right now”, he concluded.

December 2012

In addition to being a freelance human rights consultant and a Foreign Policy Centre Research Associate, Rebecca is the Advocacy Director for the Art for Democracy campaign.

The Council’s ‘democratic’ reputation was forged by , who headed the organisation between 2002 and 2010. Under her dynamic and energetic leadership, it became a place of of the government, providing a liberal critique of state policy in Russia’s narrow political environment in which such views are ridiculed and marginalised. It was therefore surprising that a government-founded institution could criticise the government so vociferously, even if its critiques tended to fall on deaf ears.

According to research done by the Council itself, just five percent of their policy recommendations are put into practice. Nonetheless, the Council has published damning reports on some of the most salient social issues in the country, including , , and the election falsifications of December 2011. Indeed, some members consider it the Council’s main task to help form public opinion on critical social matters, although the extent to which the average Russian is aware of the Presidential Council, let alone accesses its reports, is debatable. Yet, despite its generally low impact level, some inside the Kremlin have lamented the unchecked voice of the Council, and events of the past year may signify the end of the Council as the government’s voice of conscience.

In 2010 Pamfilova suddenly resigned as head of the organisation. Although she did not give an official reason, she privately mentioned that she had been repeatedly targeted by the pro-Kremlin youth movement, . Her successor, Mikhail Fedotov, a journalist and human rights promoter, is widely seen as a worthy successor. Indeed, the Council’s continuing democratic reputation no doubt comes from its membership: a large majority of those in the Council’s earlier compositions were regarded as critical and independent individuals by the NGO community. According to one veteran rights activist and former Council member , the previous make-up contained only fifteen to twenty percent Kremlin loyalists. It is, of course, highly unusual for a government body in a non-democratic state to comprise a majority who are either sympathetic to or active in the opposition, and the fact that this was the case with the Presidential Council contributed to its somewhat superficial designation as ‘democratic’.

However, in the last six months, seventeen of the most respected and outspoken members of the Russian democracy movement have quit the Council, including , , and . Two main reasons have been given: eleven members left as Putin returned to the Presidency, stating that it would be hypocritical to advise that same person against whom they organise in the opposition movement. A second wave of members left in June, declaring that the new selection method of members to the Council, based on a public consultation conducted via the internet, was non-transparent and could be easily manipulated.

Liudmila Alexeeva, widely seen as the figurehead of the Russian human rights movement, stated she would remain in the Council until its formation was complete and then decide whether or not she would be able to work in the new environment. However, she quit the Council mid-way through the process, stating in her that the media

‘Salivated over the smallest details of this process and turned them into scandals, constantly complaining about the cunning plans of the Council members to push through “their” candidates. At the same time in the internet, there was shamelessly blatant falsification of support for certain candidates. For example, during the night in the course of a few minutes, support ratings showed that more than a thousand people a minute had voted for a particular candidate. I had the lasting impression that they were deliberately trying to make the Council a laughing stock, and to deliberately discredit its members.’

It was unclear to what extent the public consultation influenced the decision on who to appoint and, in fact, after voting took place, Putin decided to increase the number of members from forty to sixty-five. The Council now includes a mixture of loyal Kremlin servants such as project co-ordinator at the ruling party’s youth group , Yana Lantratova, and fierce critics such as director of the maligned election monitoring organisation, , and head of human rights lawyers’ association, Agora, Pavel Chikov. But bar a few ‘celebrities’, members of the new Council are not as well-known as those of the previous composition. Could it be that the Kremlin thinks they will be easier to ignore? It is unclear yet whether the new Council will retain its critical stance on rights issues: the expansion of the Council could be a ploy in order to eschew the kind of independent advice that the Council has given in the past. Certainly, it will be hard to gain consensus on which recommendations to give to the President.

The first meeting of the new Council with President Putin was held on 12th November. During the session he promised to revisit the laws passed over the summer, which include a greatly expanded definition of treason and a requirement that NGOs receiving foreign funding label themselves as foreign agent on all print and online material. However, it remains unclear as to why he did not wait to discuss the laws with the new Council before passing them; reconsidering laws already in the statute book will require work that could easily have been avoided. Perhaps the current repressive trend in Russian social politics demonstrates the true irrelevance of this Council; no one is really expecting that these promises will be kept. Overall, the meeting was described as ‘’

This raises the question of what the Presidential Council is actually for. On one hand, if its role is indeed to represent a cross-section of society to the President, one could say that a broader mix of political orientations could better embody the heterogeneous and conflictual nature of society. In which case it is a good thing that the Council should have difficulty reaching consensus, as it is hard to imagine a situation in which society at large could do so. On the other hand, if its role is to present clear advice to the President in the field of rights, including members who are neither experts nor interested in a rights agenda seems to defeat the object. The Council’s three roles as described on its website are to assist, inform and advise the President. This does suggest the need for a coherent voice from the Council and, if coupled with the requirement implied in the new make-up of the Council that it should reflect society at large, seems to imply that the Kremlin’s vision of Russian society is that of a unified servant to the state. As evidenced by the chaos of the first meeting, it is likely that the construction of the Council simultaneously as a cross-section of society and as an advisor to the President will be the further undoing of the Council as an effective institution.

Critics have claimed that the Council is nothing but a decorative institution, a Potemkin village designed to give the illusion that the Russian government does care about human rights. But members, as well as some social scientists, argue that such mediating institutions are important for countries moving away from dictatorial rule in which there often lacks a clear feedback mechanism between society and the state. In countries in which elections are often tampered with, mass media lack freedom and civil society groups do not enjoy broad support, such formal meetings between state and society are seen both as important for the state in understanding social problems and working to diffuse tension, and for society, which can bring pressing issues to the seat of power. And in fact, the Presidential Council is just one of a huge trend of Public Councils in Russia in which prominent citizens advise government officials both at regional and national levels.

But if we consider this new trend in governance in Russia under the rubric of ‘mediating institutions’, questions of legitimacy and accountability become even more salient. The process of mediation implies a harmonisation of interests between state and society. What gives these members the right to represent the interests of society before decision-makers, other than the fact they have done well enough in their careers to be considered ‘public figures’? And when they pursue their own interests at the expense of society via these Councils, through which mechanisms can they be held to account? Currently there are no mechanisms that ensure Public Council members are either legitimate or accountable.

While it is important to be open to other forms of democratic organisation that move away from the electoral model of Western democracies, the Presidential Council as an effective ‘mediating’ institution demands serious reconsideration. If members of the Presidential Council are taking on a representative function, their legitimacy has to be grounded in a broad process of societal consultation and mechanisms of accountability need to be in place. If the Presidential Council is an advisory body, it should be comprised of experts on human rights and civil society chosen by the President. The blurring of these functions is indicative of a broader problem with the development of this new mode of governance in Russia.

Dr Marc Herzog discusses the central role of Atatürk’s mausoleum in Ankara- the Antikabir- as a symbol of Turkey’s secular, nationalist heritage and state legitimation as well as a current site of protest by both Turkey’s old republican elite and secular civil society.