Brazil has been affected in recent weeks by suggestions of a slow down in Brazil’s usually hot economy. Inflation in China also has received some attention. The result was that some market studies have been done on the BRICS and emerging economies showing that countries like Mexico, South Africa and Vietnam are doing quite well and that China keeps on moving along to attract investment, even with signs of inflationary pressures. In a Bloomberg article on the top emerging markets, China was the only one of the BRICS to make the medal round, with Thailand and Chile taking the silver and bronze positions. Frontier markets, those who are not BRICS or possible future BRICS but had noticeable growth, also made their own listing with Vietnam at the top of the list. South Africa and Mexico made the top ten of emerging markets, South Africa already being seen as one of the BRICS and Mexico achieving record reserves despite slow growth in the US and local narcotics violence.

This year Mexico will elect a new President and Senate and the parties are slowly presenting their candidates for the upcoming six-year Presidential term. President Calderon has served his one and only legislated term in office of six years and it will remain to be seen whether his PAN party will be re-elected. With excellent economic numbers in a slow global economy, the PAN has a good chance of being re-elected. What might hurt the party is the open drug war in Mexico currently taking place that was a result of Mr. Calderon pressing for drug security in Mexico and the entrenched drug networks that have been established in Mexico over the last few decades. With former PAN President Vicente Fox pushing for a legalisation of the narcotics trade to reduce violence in Mexico, the PAN may have some soul searching to do before putting the Presidential campaign into full force.

A decent market measure for all economies can often been seen in the aviation industries response to different national economies. In Mexico, the now defunct Mexicana Airlines is showing some signs of re-emerging in Mexico after its financial collapse a few years ago. Emerging markets in general has seen some attention from the aviation industry in general as many companies seek customers in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, a result of region market growth in general through to 2016. While the aviation industry is not being displaced in North America and Europe, it does show that BRICS and other emerging and frontier markets will produce trade expansion while the US and eventually the EU drag themselves out of economic paralysis. A conference on competitiveness and innovation addressing the aviation industry by GE named “GE American Competitiveness: What Works” will deal with issues of expansion to emerging markets and strategies in the current US market slowdown next week in Washington DC. Anyone who wishes to see how one industry is handling expansion to emerging markets and growth in the time of economic slowdown should seek information from the conference presenters and organizers. With the possible re-birth of Mexicana and troubles in Asia with the A380, it is certain to be an interesting week of presentations. Information on the conference can be found here.

Applications are invited for two fully funded PhD Student to undertake research in the area of Human Motion Analysis and Understanding. One position is supported by an EU project and falls in the general area of modeling and recognition of … Continue reading →

As Europe suffers a severe a cold snap, EU-Russian relations are experiencing a proverbial chill. The diplomatic cooling is the result of EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton’s criticism of Putin’s democratic credentials. The sharpness of Ashton’s critique was for many a somewhat surprising, yet desirable development. Indeed, the tough stance on the state of Russian democracy has provided Ashton with rare kudos from commentators and MEPs. Could these new tones be a sign of a more confrontational EU stance on Russia’s human rights record?

Among Ashton’s critique points was the government decision not to register Grigory Yavlinsky, leader of the opposition party Yabloko, for the March election, the intention of Putin and Medvedev to swap jobs (again!), and more generally a support of the Russian people’s desire to “rein in corruption and impunity, and to give more breathing space to democratic process.” Of course, Ashton also urged Russia to not veto the UN Security Council resolution on Syria.

Russian officials were quick to shoot back, accusing the EU of meddling in internal affairs, calling Ashton’s criticism “bewildering” and saying that it “overstepped the bounds of political correctness.” In the official Russian view, the EU and US are using the democracy movement as a pretext to leverage influence in Russia through utilization of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and pro-democracy organizations.

Needless to say, Russia and China disregarded all pressure and vetoed the Security Council’s Syria resolution. Russia and China have since been catching some well-deserved flak from the international community, not that that will have an immediate effect on the ground in Syria. But, in this context, it has had an effect on global opinion of Putin’s Russia and how to deal with it.

Arguably the EU is now finding a new more confrontational diplomatic footing, with more emphasis on supporting democratic developments in Russia. Some might say that it’s about time. But it seems fair to say that Putin’s current hardships were unforeseen by most, including the EU. Where Europe previously was preparing to deal long-term with a Russia like the one Putin took over in 2000, the game has now changed and the EU’s stance has changed with it.

For example, the December 2011 EU-Russia Summit was dominated by preexisting issues, such as visa-free travel and Russia joining the World Trade Organization. Although human rights and democracy issues were discussed at the summit, Ashton’s statements on these matters were deemed “weak” by Mikhail Kasyanov, leader of the opposition party Parnas. Human rights are now center stage, and Ashton statements have grown stronger.

In previous years, EU members states have by-and-large followed a policy of pursuing economic goals, while limiting their criticism of human rights abuses. The European Council on Foreign Relation’s European Foreign Policy Scorecard points to EU diplomacy being a result of an overriding wish for cooperation with Russia on a swath of issues, ranging from trade to global security and cooperation in the Russian/European neighborhood. Putin’s actions at home and abroad have damaged the assumptions that the policy of cooperation policy built on, i.e. that economic modernization and engagement would gradually bring about a more democratic Russia.

Naturally, there are limitations to the EU’s ability to influence Russia. Disagreements over ending frozen conflicts in Georgia and Kosovo are examples. And of course, cold snap and all, Russian natural gas has previously provided Putin with a stick with which to beat the Europeans. But limitations will always exist. The EU now has an opportunity to test these limitations.

Ashton’s critique of Putin’s Russia is a good thing. These days, how else is one to react but with support of those who come out in favor of democracy movements? And in this respect, Putin is certainly not looking stellar. Putin and Assad are all too easy to lump together as autocratic brothers-in-arms, each trying to retain their grip on power with the methods that happen to be at their disposal.

While not forgetting that Russian cooperation is necessary to solve the issues of the day, e.g. Russia’s role in negotiations with Iran, we must hope that the EU will maintain its pressure on Putin’s Russia. In an age where democratic reform is a rallying cry, Putin quiet possibly has made a big mistake throwing in his lot with the likes of Assad. This offers an opportunity that should not be left untried.

S&P finally downgraded France’s credit rating several weeks ago along with some other EU Member States. Such decision by S&P could undeniably cost Sarkozy’s reelection in May 2012. Many see the downgrade of France’s credit rating as Sarkozy’s sole responsibility. But May 2012 is still very far away from a political standpoint. Since his election in 2007 Sarkozy has been a very polarizing political figure in France as proven by the large variety of nicknames given by the media such as President Bling-Bling, Sarko l’Américain, and so on. This blog will put into perspective Sarkozy’s first and maybe last mandate as French President by assessing his contribution to the construction/safeguard of the EU (in defense and security questions), advancing French foreign policy, and the buildup of the transatlantic relations.

Sarkozy, son of a Hungarian immigrant, rose to the highest political sphere quite quickly and unconventionally in French standard. He started his political life in the mid-1970s in the Municipal Council of Neuilly-sur-Seine, one of the richest suburbs of Paris, wherein a large segment of France’s political, economic, industrial and financial elites live. The fact that Mr. Sarkozy’s political life started surrounded by the French elite was considerable for his political career. The creation of an intellectual and support base traditionally takes place in the famous Grandes Ecoles, such as Ecole Nationale d’Administration (ENA), as it has been the case for previous French presidents and ministers, and certainly is the case of François Hollande, the Socialist Candidate. Sarkozy was able to compensate this lack with its Neuilly connections. The latest scandal connecting Sarkozy with the L’Oreal heiress, Liliane de Bettencourt, is one example of his powerful network. A paper produced by the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute counts some interesting facts on the rise of Sarkozy and his understanding of politics.

Following his election in May 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy appeared to have changed radically the direction of France’s foreign policy, especially towards the US. Sarkozy’s decision to re-establish ‘cordial’ relations with the US, still under the presidency of Bush, was in direct rupture with his predecessor, Jacques Chirac. The latter opposed his American counterpart, President Bush, in 2003 on the hot topic of the invasion of Iraq. The 2003 transatlantic and European split was real and substantial. The European unity was only reinstituted with the approval of the 2003 European Security Strategy, which symbolizes the agreement between EU Member States of a common agenda and united security vision. As per Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense at the time, Europe was then divided between Old and New Europe; France being one of the old members considering its opposition to the Iraq war. The tensions between the US and France remained high until the election of Sarkozy. Some talked at the time of ‘Sarko l’Américain,’ as he expressed at many occasion during and after the presidential race his admiration for the American model. However, Justin Vaïsse of the Brookings, argued that in fact the Americanism of Sarkozy is much more embedded into Hollywood and Elvis Presley rather than the admiration for the American political system.

The transatlantic relations between France and the US can be divided into three periods. First, from 2007 to 2008, the last part of the Bush administration, which I often refer as the ‘good Bush period,’ was favorable for a rapprochement between the two sides of the pond. Second, after the election of Obama, the honeymoon was extremely short. Very early in his presidency, Obama reoriented the attention of the US foreign policy from Europe to Asia. Such strategic move by Obama has affected the relations with his European counterparts. And the third period was since the G8 summit in Pittsburgh, following the collapse of the financial system in 2008, with closer relations on dealing at the international level with the financial crisis and with Iran. However, in general, the rupture with Chirac was over-emphasized, as Sarkozy did not change that much the direction of the French foreign policy. Sarkozy’s decision to fully reintegrate France within the military structures of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was a moderate signal of his Atlanticism considering that France was always an active and core member of the alliance. The debate in France about such move was certainly excessive.

France was also a key actor during the summer 2008 crisis in Georgia. Following the invasion of Georgia by Russia, Sarkozy played an important role in monitoring Russia-West relations and in limiting a major split between the former Cold War enemies. Sarkozy did play a central role, but made some costly decisions and compromises for not only Georgia, but also the field of international law and human right. At that time France held the EU Presidency and was the voice of the EU, undermining Javier Solana’s role. Russian-French relations have historically been good since the late 19th century and remain quite stable. The latest part of this love story was the sale by France of a French Mistral class amphibious assault ship, creating criticism on both sides of the Atlantic.

One of the highest points of his presidency will remain the gamble on the Libyan campaign. Following a disastrous beginning of the year 2011 with total miscalculations and evaluations of the importance and reality of the Arab spring in Tunisia and then Egypt, Sarkozy decided to be proactive in the support of the rebels in Libya fighting Colonel Qaddafi. The miscalculation by the prestigious French diplomatic corps and intelligence services will remain as a stain and most likely become a cas d’école of diplomatic failure for future generations. Sarkozy did play a crucial role in getting the UN Security Council to agree on the UNSC Resolution 1973 allowing the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya. Sarkozy was then able to bring the Americans on board and get NATO involved in the war in Libya. The use of NATO was critical for the success of the mission as French and British armies, navies and air forces have been considerably affected by budget cuts. For example, as of today Britain does not have an aircraft carrier, which seems quite contradictory to its historical strategic culture and heritage as a maritime power. The Libyan mission was a success and will become a template for future military interventions: short, precise, highly technologized, multilateral, and quite cheap. However, Sarkozy’s decision to use NATO was a major setback for the EU, which was completely bypassed by London and Paris, as well as discredited. The best example of the CSDP weakness is the fact that EUFOR Libya was created, but never deployed. Thus, HR Ashton remained quiet and irrelevant throughout the different steps of the Libyan campaign.

What next for 2012? Sarkozy does have a busy schedule until the first round of the presidential election. The year starts quite well for France and ultimately Sarkozy considering the fact that India decided to buy for $20bn of France fighter jet, Rafale, at the expense of the EADS’ Eurofighter Typhoon. Such contract is a true illustration of Sarkozy’s understanding and mastery of politics. The Financial Times published an outstanding article on the dogfight taking place backstage in order to sale the fighter jet. In addition to his reelection campaign, several topics need to be addressed, or at least discussed: first, Iran. What should France do about it? Is it the time to empower the EEAS led-by Lady Ashton and use the similar approach of 2003 EU3+1 implemented during Solana’s mandate? Or is it the time to discuss military operation within NATO? What is certain is that Sarkozy will not get a UNSC Resolution as China and Russia will definitely oppose it. Second, the mission in Afghanistan. France has been progressively removing its troops from Afghanistan, but has actively contributed to the European Gendarmerie Force (EFG) in charge of training the Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army. With the announcement by the US to remove the troops by 2014, the Europeans will soon be following this trend. Will the EGF remain or should it come back home as well? Third, Syria. The violations of international law by the Syrian government are undeniable and some members of the Arab League monitoring team have even expressed their anger and opposition to the Assad regime. Avoiding and sidelining Syria could haunt Sarkozy in the future, the same way the Rwanda genocide has been haunting French political elites for over 15 years, but for different reasons. Sarkozy understands that the UNSC will not agree on a Resolution, but decision needs to be taken on the matter. Unfortunately until today China and Russia have favored sovereignty over humanity. Could it be done outside the laws with a NATO-led operation as it was done in 1999 in Kosovo? It would be ethically a right mission embodying the R2P concept, but wrong as it would violate international law. Fourth, Turkey. Franco-Turk relations have been at their lowest since the adoption by the French Assembly of the recent law criminalizing the denial of the Armenian genocide. Poor bilateral relations with Turkey will ultimately hurt and affect the overall EU and NATO relations. Turkey could block, as it has done in the past, Berlin Plus type NATO operations. Sarkozy must address the matter with Turkey and find new common ground. Fifth, the economic crisis has been painful for the Euro-Atlantic community. The Eurozone is still not safe and saved, as the financial and economic situations of Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal remain volatile. Sarkozy with his German counterpart, Ms Merkel, have a lot of work in readjusting and agreeing on the rules of the game and reforming the Eurozone. Sixth, the British headache. Since the gamble of Prime Minister Cameron back in November, the relations between Britain and France have not been of the most pleasant. The Franco-Anglo relations are central for the construction of the common EU defense polict as it was the case in the 1998 Saint-Malo Treaty creating the ESDP, and in the 2010 Defense Treaty. Both actors need one another in order to maintain their active foreign policies and keep the construction of the CSDP going. 2012 will be interesting to see how France and Britain readjust their relations either with the reelection of Sarkozy; or with the election of Mr. Hollande.

Even though, I have not been a supporter of Mr. Sarkozy’s domestic and social policies as well as fundamentally disagree with his leadership and governing style, I have to admit that he has been an interesting international leader. His approach to foreign policy is quite in the continuity of French Gaullist heritage. However, the case of the French operation in Ivory Coast, last April, has been completely under-studied and under-covered by global media. Some have argued that the Libyan mission was a simple cover-up for the real mission and French interests, Ivory Coast. I would also criticize his lack of commitment to the construction and strengthening of the EEAS. It is true that Ms. Ashton has not been the best representative as well as has been unable to establish a common EU vision, however she was appointed by the 27 Heads of State and Government. Sarkozy was part of the appointing committee, and privileged at that time the securing of the DG Internal Market to Michel Barnier rather than getting a French HR. Sarkozy’s priorities were set: French’s influence over the common market, even though the Directors are theoretically not supposed to represent their national government; l’Europe de la defense after.

Until then there is one thing that I can’t wait to see: who will be representing France at the NATO summit in May in Chicago?

One thing that bothers me about how Pakistan conducts its foreign policy is how narrowly it is focused on a few states. The four horsemen of Pakistan’s foreign policy are: the U.S., China, Saudi Arabia, and India. These states take an overwhelming and disproportionate level of our government’s interest, time, money, effort. Almost everything we do is run through the prism of relations with one or more of these states.

Now, it’s trivially true that some partners and/or rivals will be more important than others, depending on history, geography, the distribution of power, and so on. This much is true for all countries.

What’s unique, or at least noteworthy, about the situation in Pakistan is the near-absence of other areas and regions of the world. Think about it: when’s the last time you heard about an important state visit to/from Brazil? Or Australia? Or South Korea?

I don’t know the first thing about investment and money, but I’ve always heard the phrase “diversifying your portfolio”. Well, Pakistan’s portfolio is not very diverse at all. It puts us at a disadvantage, in that we are more vulnerable to small changes in each of the four aforementioned states.

Furthermore, we leave a lot of potential gains on the table by ignoring different parts of the world. Consider textiles. Pakistan’s textile industry constitutes about sixty percent of its exports. It is a massive, massive part of our economy. So with good reason, we have approached the U.S. (unsuccessfully) and the EU (successfully, it seems) to loosen tariffs and trade barriers on textiles.

Now, with respect to our successful lobbying with the EU, this is great news. The reason this is great news is that there are a number of countries in the EU which, presumably, would very much like our textiles. The following is a list culled from the CIA World Factbook, with countries whose “main” imports include textiles. The EU countries are shaded orange.

Source data: CIA World Factbook

Of course, there happens to be another region of the world that would, presumably, very much like our textiles. Here’s the list from above again, but this time with African countries shaded blue.

Source data: CIA World Factbook

Now, it’s perfectly plausible that we have, in fact, engaged in a lot of lobbying efforts for more trade with Africa, and I just haven’t heard about it. But I’ve never really heard anyone else talk about it either. My guess is our economic, political and diplomatic relationships with African countries, particularly the non Arab ones, are essentially dormant.

I’m only using textiles (and Africa, for that matter) as an illustration of a broader point. Pakistan needs to do a better job of engaging with states out there on the basis of mutual interests. Maybe it’s not trade, but rather cultural exchange programs. Or student scholarships, or sports tours, or whatever. There’s a whole lot of foreign policy beyond drones, war, terrorism, and oil, and there’s a whole lot of countries out there not named the U.S., China, Saudi Arabia, and India. I hope the new power team from LUMS in charge of our foreign ministry grapples with this issue a little bit.

A look back at the international headline-making events of 2011.

The cold snap that has frozen most of Europe solid has created some tensions over Russia’s role as supplier of natural gas to its neighbors. On Friday, a Gazprom official claimed that Ukraine was taking more than its share from the pipeline that runs through its territory. For those who remember the unpleasantness between Moscow and Kiev in 2006 and 2009 over natgas prices, this came as an awkward reminder that when demand soars, it’s still every nation for itself.

CFO of Gazprom, Andrei Kruglov, admitted yesterday that the fault lay not with Ukraine but rather with his company’s export capacity. “Gazprom at the moment cannot supply the extra volumes our West European partners are asking for,” he told President Putin according to Reuters. Moreover, the cold in Russia has increased demand there. So, for a few days, Russia reduced the amount of gas it was putting into the pipeline in the first place.

The good news here is that many of Gazprom’s customers have increased with stockpiles, and so the 10% decrease many experienced did not cause any enduring hardship. With gas from the pipeline selling at record prices (more than US$400 per 1,000 cubic meters), alternatives are coming on line, which will help diversify supply, including liquefied natural gas. And Russia is not the only source of natgas. For example, Norway is maintaining its reputation as a reliable supplier to the UK. Because of the cold, UK demand was just shy of 378 million cubic metres (mcm) on Saturday, about 63.5 mcm higher that usual. Still, flows from Norway continued at 380 mcm.

Russia sees that it must improve its ability to service customers, Reuters has reported, “Gazprom increased its gas supplies to Europe to 150 billion cubic metres (bcm) from around 138.6 bcm in 2010. It is aiming to ramp up those volumes to around 164 bcm this year thanks partly to the underwater Nord Stream pipeline commissioned last November. Nord Stream’s initial capacity stands at 27.5 billion cubic metres a year, which may be doubled by the fourth quarter. Russia is also pushing for a South Stream pipeline to rival the EU-backed Nabucco and other supply lines. Moscow plans to ship over 60 bcm of gas to Europe via South Stream starting from 2015.”

However, you have to wonder if this is going to be sufficient given that some countries in Western Europe (e.g., Germany) have decided to end their nuclear power generation. While the ideal replacements are renewables, it’s so very easy to buy gas from Russia and elsewhere that the additional capacity envisioned may not be good enough.

Carlos Slim is well known in Latin America and abroad as one of, if not the wealthiest CEO in the world. He was even mentioned on the Colbert Report this past week introducing him to the American public as someone who’s net worth trumps that of Mitt Romney as well as that of Donald Trump. This week an OECD report named Slim’s company, Telmex as overcharging Mexican consumers for telecommunications products from 2005 to 2009. Slim argued against the allegations and the numbers presented in the OECD report stating that his company was working within the competitive market that exists in Mexico and did not take any actions that would be deemed as anti-competitive. It is likely a detailed debate will occur over Slim and his companies that may lead to a test of Mexico’s competition laws as well as the reputation of Mexico’s state telecom giant Telmex. We will have to wait and see if Slim wins the day, or if he will be fined. One fine has already been set on Slim’s company, but a challenge in Mexico’s Supreme Court may eliminate this legal measure from being enforced.

Telecommunications giants have been in the position to create a great deal of wealth as new technologies create new boom markets for their products in a commercial environment dependent on new forms of telecommunications. With technology, come many new IP laws to enforce violations of privacy and competition in those new markets as companies jostle for position and form legacies like Nokia and Microsoft. In the EU, stringent laws enforcing consumer protection within the Common Market have set much of the global standard against overly ambitious telecoms giants. Going from competition laws setting records against companies like Microsoft to investigations into companies like France Telecom regarding a series of employee suicides since privatisation a few years ago, the EU has set the hard standard against companies that wish to violate competition laws and as well as all other market and labour standards. It is likely that Mexican competition laws will take much of their precedents from that of the EU and US to enforce any violations against Carlos Slim’s business interests, if evidence provides for enforcement to become necessary.

In reality Mexico is likely not the most expensive country for phone services, and there is a great deal of evidence showing that their NAFTA neighbour, Canada has the highest per-capita telecoms charges in the world. A lack of effective competition policies have created a market in Canada where people not only pay a great deal for services, but services are often out of date and ineffective due to a lack of competition in the Canadian mobile phone market. While many developing nations have modern up to date cellular services due to the reduced cost of setting up such systems in places that historically had poor phone access, Canada’s modern economy creates an expensive and outdated mobile phone market that has existed without proper scrutiny from the last few governments. There have been some moves to protect Canadian consumers over the last few years, but until a true measure to help Canadian consumers takes shape it would be a good idea for those like Carlos Slim and other telecoms to enter a Canadian market that sorely needs proper services in their sector for individuals and businesses. A study of the Canadian, European and Mexican telecoms markets would be a useful and interesting study to provide all consumers with a legitimate and fair market for telecoms usage.

How can you not love California if you’re an environmentalist?  I’ve lauded the Golden State a few times here for its forward-thinking, smart, and economically advantageous approach to power, transportation, planning, building and curtailing greenhouse gases.  The federal government has so many times taken California’s lead, most recently in pumping up the Corporate Average Fuel Economy required for cars sold in the U.S.  We were talking in one of my classes the other day too about how California has made energy efficiency a priority and controlled its electricity consumption since the mid-1970s far beyond what has happened in the rest of the country.

California has taken another giant leap for mankind with the adoption of its new Advanced Clean Cars program.  The LA Times reports here that “By 2025, one in seven new autos sold in California, or roughly 1.4 million, must be ultra-clean, moving what is now a driving novelty into the mainstream.”  What is ultra-clean?  Electric vehicles, cars powered by fuel cells, and plug-in hybrid vehicles.  Californians will be once again setting the pace.

Meanwhile, the state has also tried to move forward with a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS).  The Washington Post explains here that “The new standards assign carbon intensity values to roughly 250 types of crude (higher carbon) along with other fuels — including ethanol, electricity and hydrogen, all lower carbon— that power cars and trucks.”  The aim is to reduce the carbon content of the fuel over time.  U.S. law, not incidentally, takes it a step further in barring all purchases by the federal government of any fuel that exceeds the greenhouse gas footprint of conventionally sourced oil.  This is embodied in Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.  The Sierra Club is pursuing a case in court now to enforce this rule.  The European Union is taking a similar approach with its Fuel Quality Directive which would, if fully implemented and enforced, bar Canadian tar sands oil from use.

California is being held up because of a court case in which a federal judge has barred the rule from coming into effect.  However, the WaPo article notes that Mary Nichols, head of the California Air Resources Board, has said that amendments that the Board has made recently will satisfy the court’s concerns.  See a video on the program at the LCFS web page and how it is integrated into the overall approach the good people of California are taking to maximize health and prosperity while minimizing the costs, environmental and economic, of business as usual.

This is first part of a series of posts on Iran based on travel experiences in the country in 2011.

“Sir, can I ask why Iran?” asked the travel agent whom I called to book the flight for Tehran.

 “I have an interest in the culture, people and language”, I respond.

“Hmmm but people would normally go to Dubai for that… anyway”, he conveys his lack of cultural knowledge.

Just like a lot of people confuse us Pakistanis as Arabs, the Iranians have to face the same misery.

The country is so diverse in terms of culture, lifestyle and landscape that planning the trip to Iran was itself an exciting experience – from LonelyPlanet to Iranian travel agents, books and travel documentaries; I explored everything to ensure my time in Iran is well spent and I return with a better understanding of the country and its people.  With the variety it has got, its unfortunate Iran isn’t a hot tourist destination.

Getting a Visa

Iran Visa

Despite the bad press, the travel agency business seems booming in Iran. There are hundreds of them in the capital and tens in other bigger cities. They can help planning the trip, arranging accommodation, travel, guides and more. Most importantly, you may need them to get a visa. Although nationals of some countries can get a visa-on-arrival but the recommended option is to get in touch with a travel agency, email relevant documents (passport copy, itinerary etc), make the visa handling payment (30-50 Euro) and wait for them to get you a Visa Ref Number which you take to your local Iranian Embassy and get a visa stamped on the passport on-spot. I received my Visa Ref number in a week and didn’t even had to go to the Iranian Embassy. You can post your Passport, Visa Ref Number and payment details to the Embassy and they return passport with the visa fairly quick. The visa fee depends on your nationality.

I would highly recommend Shiraz based Pars Tourist Agency and specifically Marjan Owji in their Visa Department. She can help you in literally everything on your trip to Iran and she does that not from a customer-friendly-business perspective, its Persian hospitality at its best. She took only three working days to get back to me and the Embassy took another three days. The visa process was fairly straightforward. Everyone, except citizens of Israel can get an Iranian visa. The citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia and Turkey can stay for up to 3 months without a visa.  The maximum duration of tourist visa is 30 days while for the visa-on-arrival its 15 days. Once in Iran, extension is possible fairly easy.

Visa fee for every country is available here and here. We had to pay something around £20 on a Pakistani passport and £120 on a British passport. More information can be obtained by calling the local Iranian Embassy or browsing the MFA Iran website.

As a notable exception, the 90sq-km beach resort of Kish Island, south of Iran, easily accessible from Dubai, does not require advance visas for visits of up to 14 days, including Americans. This is Iran’s response to the Emirates and the state is promoting trade (by making it free-trade-zone) and tourism on the island. The island has facilities for scuba diving, jet-skiing, sailing, fishing, parasailing, reef walking, coral viewing, boating and water-skiing and offers gorgeous white sandy beaches for relaxing walks and plenty of huge malls if you fancy a retail therapy.

Air-lines

Most of the major carriers have flights to Iran but the favourite for travelling to Iran are Iran’s national carrier Iran Air, Azerbaijan airlines with stopover in Baku, Aeroflot (Russian airlines) with stopover in Moscow, Air France and other Middle East based carriers.  Other low-cost international carriers include Pegasus airlines (Istanbul-Tehran), Air Asia (Far East-Tehran), Air Arabia and Jazeera Airways both connecting through the middle East.

Launched in the mid of 20^th century, Iran Air started with domestic flights between Tehran and Mashhad. By 1970s, Iran Air was ranked amongst the safest airlines in the world (second only to Qantas; being accident free for decades). However, things changed suddenly after the revolution. Because of the US imposed sanctions, the airline could not buy new planes and even had to cancel deals setup earlier. The sanctions meant the airline had to rely on older planes, risking the security of the passengers and the staff onboard. At present, majority of the fleet is decades old with average age nearing 25 years. The Fajr Aviation and Composites Industry in Tehran is responsible for overhauling existing fleet and designing new airplanes. Recently, there have been conflicts over refuelling Iran Air planes as well when UK CAA and the Abu Dhabi Airports Company refused to refuel Iran Air planes. The EU has also recently banned Iran Air’s fleet of Boeing and Airbus because of safety concerns.

I choose to fly with Aeroflot – cheaper, good connections and short stopovers. The flight originated from London Heathrow, serving nicely done Salmon and landing three hours later in Tehran’s primary IKA airport (30KM from city). The two-hour stopover at Moscow Sheremetyevo International Airport was an interesting experience – this was by far the best airport I have seen so far. It’s so huge it could take hours walking from one terminal to the other with duty free shops spread everywhere and the airport giving a fine, shiny, glossy clean look and feel. Plenty of Iranians on the airport – some praying, some gossiping or buying stuff; looks like this the favorite route from EU to get back home for them. It took another three hours for the flight from Moscow to Tehran with an amazing Omelet served for breakfast as we approached Iran.

Note that if not staying in Tehran and planning to get to any city other than Tehran upon your arrival, you would have to change airports, from Imam Khomeini to Mehrabad, 40 km away, to get to your domestic flight.

Accommodation in Iran

Courtyard of a traditional hotel in Iran

You do not necessarily need travel agents to book accommodation for you, although that’s the easiest way. Popular travel/hotel-booking websites like booking.com, venere.com, laterooms.com do not support Iranian hotels; again because of the economic sanctions. However, there are lots of websites voluntarily setup by Iranians who like to see more people visiting their country and these provide lots of information on hotels, pictures, locations, costs etc. You can use these websites, in addition to travel agent websites to choose hotels and then book by directly calling/emailing the hotel, many of which have their own websites as well.

There is no presence of international-chain-hotels like Marriot or Holiday Inn in Iran – if you have read this far, you should know why. The hotels in Iran come in three varieties:

(i)                  Cheap bed-n-breakfasts with private or shared accommodation – These can be found in pretty much every city and are  generally located in city centre with good transport links. Tehran is scattered with hundreds of them.

(ii)                Traditional hotels – These are Iranian version of premium-posh hotels. They are generally converted Inns, older mansions/houses, travellers and traders resting spots – called Sofrekhane Sonati in Farsi. Ponds, trees and fountains in the central lawn, tinted glass windows and beautifully lit at night, these are your best bet to experience Iranian culture.

(iii)               Mid-range to top-notch modern hotels – Larger urban capitals and tourist destinations like Kish Islands have a few modern hotels to compete with multi-star international hotels. Generally, they are not located in city centre and price range vary on a large scale, so one needs to be cautious to check prices from several sources.

Travelling between cities

Transportation between cities in Iran is comfortable, safe, timely, reliable, well managed and cheap as chips. Cities and towns are connected through buses, rail network and domestic flights while port-cities and towns both in North and South also enjoy ferry connections. Depending on the distance, time available to travel and cost considerations, one can make use of flights, trains, buses or even hire comparatively cheaper private taxis.

Buses: Iran enjoys a pretty extensive and competitive bus network from most of its major cities. Major cities have bus terminals a few miles outside the city, planned on the model of airports with separate terminals and connected to city through local transport links. Buses can take you from anywhere to anywhere in Iran – pretty much anytime of the day (or night), normally without long stop-overs and running on time. Police checkpoints on the highways ensure safety. Tickets can be booked either in advance by calling the bus station or on-spot if you reach sometime before expected time of bus departure.

Iran Buses

The buses generally come in two classes: lux/Mercedes/2nd class and super/Volvo/1st class. First class buses are air-conditioned and you will be provided with a small snack during your trip, while second class services are more frequent. There is little financial incentive to opt for the second class tickets.  Among the many bus operators, Royal Safar Iranian is the best, in terms of comfort and reliability, with a fleet of modern comfortable buses. They also run sleeper buses between major cities with reclining chairs, serving Iranian meals and sweets and movies on play – e.g. Shiraz to Isfahan all for $11; while regular buses cost $6. Apparently, you can book tickets online at http://www.royall.ir/ , if you can read their Farsi website or by calling the available phone numbers. Other bus operators are named Seir-o-Safar and Taavoni. Saipa Diesel, Iran’s leading manufacturer of trucks, trailer and mini-buses provides many of the buses you see on roads in Iran. The company also imported several hundred larger buses from China to serve on longer routes.

Trains: The train network is limited but comfortable, speedy and affordable. It has been expanding at 500KM every year for few years and major cities have been connected through contracts with Chinese companies. The under construction Chabahar-Zahedan-Mashhad railway line extending from northeast to southeast will enable Pakistan pilgrims to travel by train to Mashhad instead of the long bus journey from the border. Other international links include trains to Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Afghanistan and Central Asia. It is possible to travel from London to Tehran, by train!

Tehran Railway Station

The passenger rail system is called Raja Passenger Trains. The Sleeper berths in trains allow good night’s sleep specially on longer journeys like Tehran-Mashhad; will cost almost double the bus ticket but are worth it on longer journeys. The best of the trains are called 4 pax Ghazal or Plur train. The added benefit of travelling by train in Iran, like anywhere else, is that you get to see a lot of places on the way, sample food, see tourists and unlike many places, get a chance to meet, talk with and befriend locals. This is your best option to make a few good friends in Iran.

For Train timings, ticket prices and booking information, Google is your friend. If nothing helps, travel agencies can do it for you.

Domestic Flights: A leading oil producer can of course afford to have cheap domestic flights, sometimes dramatically cheap in comparison to international market. Planes are aging, and maintenance and safety procedures are sometimes well below western standards, but it still remains the safest way to get around Iran, given the huge death toll on the roads and longer distances between cities. The average price is in the range of $50 – $80.

Iran Air

Iran’s major domestic carriers Mahan Air, Iran Air, Kish Air and Aseman Air, all have websites and online booking system but you cannot make use of online ticket booking unless you have an Iranian bank account or a debit/credit card. The reason obviously is economic sanctions imposed on Iran means no international banking relationship with Iranian companies. The best way to book domestic flight tickets in Iran before landing in Iran is (i) find local office of above stated Iranian airlines in your city/country and they can do it for you or (ii) use an Iranian travel agent to book tickets for you, they will give you eticket and you pay them into their bank account normally setup somewhere in the EU.

Off Days in Iran

Thursday is generally half-day and Friday is the weekend break. Saturday and Sunday are normal working days. The biggest and most celebrated of all events in Iran is Nowrooz – the start of new year on Persian calendar which is marked with a week off. Other holidays are linked to the revolution and religious days (Muharram/Ramzan) as well as Eid festival.

Comparison Charts

Based on all the information I gathered from websites, Lonely Planet and talking to travel agents, I composed a comparative chart with compares price offers by four different travel agencies for hotel accomodation and travelling between cities (cab/train/flight). This helped me figure out which agency works best for me. The chart can be downloaded in image format here and more detailed Excel format here.

In the next posts, we’ll explore Iran from inside…. with pictures, videos and lots of interesting stories and interpersonal observations.

Some of the travel Agencies I spoke to….

• Setareh, Lotus Travel Agency
• Iran Paradise
• Tehran based Dornagasht
• Marjan Owji, Shiraz based Pars Tourist Agency
• Sara, Iran Tour Package/Lovely Iran
•  Zohreh Souki, Tehran based Sarvineh Tours, Welcome2Iran

Some of the websites I used for hotel search…

• http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotels-g293998-Iran-Hotels.html#T_CAT_HOTEL_MOTEL
• http://www.audleytravel.com/Destinations/North-Africa-and-The-Middle-East/Iran/Accommodation.aspx
• http://www.persiatravelmart.com/
• http://www.asemangasht.com/?blog=22
• http://www.iranbudgettour.com/iran-hotels
• http://www.irantour.org/hotel.html
• http://www.southtravels.com/middleeast/iran/index.html
• http://www.hoteltravel.com/iran
• http://www.bestirantravel.com/hotel/hotels.html
• http://www.irpedia.com/iran-hotels/

Applications are invited for two fully funded PhD Student to undertake research in the area of Human Motion Analysis and Understanding. One position is supported by an EU project and falls in the general area of modeling and recognition of … Continue reading →

Arctic Ambassador Klavs Holm

Earlier this month, Denmark appointed Klavs A. Holm as the new Arctic Ambassador, an office which will become permanent. At the same time, Danish Foreign Minister Villy Søvndal announced the closure of the embassies in Iraq, Benin, and Zambia. This move gives a strong signal that Denmark is putting forth a more visible diplomatic presence in the circumpolar north while refocusing its priorities in the Global South, where it will open embassies in Myanmar and Libya. Ambassador Holm will represent all three parts of the Danish Commonwealth: Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands. He will also coordinate the implementation of the government’s Arctic strategy, released last August.

Holm previously served as the Danish Ambassador in London, Paris, and Singapore. He also represented Denmark to the EU, in Brussels, where he worked on Arctic issues. The current ambassador for Public Diplomacy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will have his work cut out for him, as Foreign Minister Søvndal made clear when he visited Thule Air Force Base last December. When asked what assignments the new Arctic Ambassador would have, he responded, “If you ask for specific tasks, we can name climate change, which means that shipping in the Arctic is increasing in scope. There are very specific tasks to perform in relation to search and rescue in these remote areas. The area is large, and first and foremost, we must prepare the new agreements.” Specifically, he added, “It is clear that we need the Americans to not block civilian usage of Thule. Now, there will be a negotiation process to clarify how far we can go” (translated from the Danish). Search and rescue will thus be an important topic for Holm, as will mining and indigenous peoples – two issues which overlap heavily in Greenland. China has lately expressed strong interest in investing in Greenland’s mineral deposits, the Wall Street Journal reports, which might be cause for Holm to visit Beijing.

Denmark can now be added to the short list of countries which have Arctic ambassadors, which includes Sweden, Finland, and Russia. The United States and Canada are noticeably absent from this list, though there have been calls in the latter country to bring back the position (see here and here). Canada had an Arctic Ambassador from 1994 to 2006, but the role was abolished, as former Foreign Minister Peter McKay then stated, “We didn’t feel we were getting good value for money from that position.”

News Links

“New Danish Arctic Ambassador,” IPS

“Søvndal udnævner ambassadør for det aller nordligste,” Politiken (in Danish)

“Is the US at risk?” Here is the extremely relevant question raised by this outstanding discussion, part of the 2012 Great Decision eight mini-episodes, on the threat of cybersecurity. Cyberthreats have been at the heart of a new body of literature in International Relations and Security Studies, an inspiration for moviemakers, an obsession for policy-makers, a problem for multinational corporations, and a virtual reality for all of us.

Even though this episode focuses on the US, it is not difficult to see how it is relevant to the other members of the Euro-Atlantic community. Their societies, political systems, values, norms, and perceptions are quite similar to one another. Thus as demonstrated throughout the episode, it would be a mistake to speak of national cybersphere. National borders, institutions, political systems are only small variables in the digital world.

Susan Landau of the Harvard University and Martin Libicki of the RAND Corporation discussed the matter of cybersecurity, cyberdefense, and the cybersphere around the Great Decision table. Susan Landau claimed that one of the problems with cybersecurity is the inclusive approach instead of having a strategic, narrow method. She identifies three pressing threats that need to be tackled: 1) protect assets of private companies such as copyright and intellectual property; 2) protection of government agencies. The most obvious example was the release of documents by Wikileaks; 3) protecting assets of critical infrastructures such as the electrical grid. Martin Libicki went further by claiming that “people have elevated it [cyberthreat] to a national security issue. But for a most part, only a small aspect of the cybersecurity is a national security issue; as it affects the military and particular portion of the infrastructure […] like the electrical system.”

The discussion went further with interviews of other experts such as former CIA and NSA Director General Michael Hayden, Senator Ben Cardin, former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, and others all giving insights on the origins of cybersecurity as well as the early ages of the internet, which was not supposed to be secured but instead easily accessibly by anybody.
Michael Hayden talked about a new category of cyberattack when discussing the Stunext attack on Iran. He defined the Stunext as a cyberweapon, which makes it unique as such attack was different than all the previous ones launched considering the physical destruction of properties. It was one first case of cyberassault. In terms of cyberattacks, Michael Hayden claimed “that’s crossing the Rubicon.” However, is the Stunext an example of legitimate warfare that the US should be preparing for? Susan Landau identified three types of actors interested in attacking the US: the state actors; non-state actors; and the criminals. Her argument is that the non-state actors, or terrorist networks, do not have the capabilities and knowledge to go after the US government just yet. These actors are also a menace to other Western states such as France, Britain, Germany, and so on. In 2007, Estonia was a victim of a cyberattack launched by the Russian government after a political disagreement.

Susan Landau argued that one of the problems is that no one has stepped back and asked the question: what are the big issues? These issues are anonymity, loss of borders, new policies/laws. In the US as well as in other countries of the Euro-Atlantic community there exist a body of laws enforcing individual freedoms such as privacy, freedom of speech, and so on. Germany has, for example, one of the strictness in Europe. “The change in technology has not been accompanied by the change of laws.” For example, in the US, government officials need a warrant in order to have access to private emails if stored in private computers at home, but not if they are stored on the cloud. The cybersphere has become an important component in our daily life wherein the big question – not raised in this documentary – is to balance freedom and democracy, as it has been the case with the HADOPI law in France, and SOPA in the US. Considering the constrains at the domestic level, one can imagine the problem to implement a set of rules at the international level. How do you make the right treaty when countries diverge on issues such as freedom of speech and economic espionage? Susan Landau explained that in the US economic espionage is a crime, when in China and France it is not recognized as such. The challenges are quite considerable. Along the same lines, Michael Hayden, former Director of CIA and NSA, raised an interesting point of unfair advantage in building up cybersecurity between the US and China, for the simple reason that the US is a democracy and must balance freedom with security. This is the dilemma facing any democracies in boosting up their cybersecurity, while not violating basic rights. Dr. John Nagl of the Center for a New American Security went furhter and argued for the need of a cyber Pearl Harbor in order to finally adjust – he even uses the verb ‘sacrifice’ – individual privacy in exchange for a greater degree of security. One could draw comparison with the adoption of the Patriot Act soon after the 9/11 attacks.

“The cyber is a new domain,” argued Stephen Hadley, “in the same way land, sea, air, or space were domains of threat and challenge.” International organizations like the EU, UN, and NATO are starting to be joining the cyber balance of power. NATO has clearly identified cyberthreat as a real menace and has developed an agenda in dealing with it. NATO is even talking of creating a cybershield. Cybersecurity was at the NATO menu in Lisbon in 2010 and will undeniably be at the heart of the discussion in Chicago in 2012.

This episode was truly excellent in exposing the complexity of cyberthreats and the challenges for the future. The balance between policy-makers, experts, academics and journalists offer a very insightful expose for students, citizens and experts wanting to deepen their knowledge on today and tomorrow challenges. The cybersphere does not belong anymore to the world of science fiction. US policy-makers still have trouble understanding this as they often referred to cyberexperts as geeks. It will be time that our leaders reboot their knowledge and understand today’s realities in order to make informed decisions and adopt appropriate policies. This episode clearly demonstrated the intertwinement between national security, individual security, corporate security, international security and so on is so deep that touching at one aspect will have undeniably a snowball effect.

This episode is part of eight mini-episodes that will be shown on PBS. Great Decisions in Foreign Policy airs on PBS World on Fridays at 7:30 AM and 1:30 PM, and at various times throughout the year on PBS affiliates nationwide. Check local listings for details.

Well, the Global Fund has had a big week.  It’s been ten years since the creation of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and the recent news about the fund has not been great: internal divisions, questions about improper funding allocations, missing money, and financial shortfalls.  On the other hand, the Global Fund has been key, along with PEPFAR, to incredible gains against HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria in the last decade.  In November of last year, the Global Fund stated that it was canceling its latest round of funding and would not disburse funds for new programs and projects until 2014.  The global health community was understandably alarmed, especially in the climate of the global economic recession.  As of last week, however, the fortunes of the Global Fund may be turning around.

First, the Global Fund announced that Executive Director Michel Kazatchkine would step down in March.  He cited the recent executive-level re-organization for his decision.  A General Manager, Gabriel Jaramillo, has been appointed to manage day-to-day operations for the fund.  Following reports of financial mismanagement and alleged fraud last year, some donor countries canceled or suspended funding.

The re-organization and other internal changes have restored confidence, and coupled with the fund’s impact over the last ten years, it remains key to rolling back the deleterious effects of malaria, TB, and HIV.  In an opinion piece for Reuters, Natasha Billmoria of the Friends of the Global Fight Against Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria argued that more must be done to bolster the Global Fund’s coffers, writing: “We’re in a tough global economy, to be sure, but we’re also primed to beat back AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.”  She cited the success of the Global Fund, which has put 3.3 million people living with HIV on antiretroviral treatment, provided PMTCT services to more than one million pregnant women living with HIV, detected and treated 8.6 million cases of tuberculosis, and distributed 230 million bed nets to prevent malaria.  The fund itself estimates that it has saved 7.7 million lives in ten years.  The International HIV/AIDS Alliance released a report last week discussing the potential impact of the Global Fund’s cancellation of its funding round in November, studying the effects this lack of funding would have in five countries.  The report called for donors to provide an estimated $2 billion to fill the funding gap.

“The internal checks and balances have worked in every case…but if you’re going to do business in Africa, you’re going to have some losses.” -Bill Gates

Ask and ye shall receive, it seems.  At the World Economic Forum, Bill Gates announced that his foundation had pledged a $750 million “promissory note” to the Global Fund.  Mr. Gates said that the economic recession was “no excuse for cutting aid to the world’s poorest.”  This announcement marks a bit of a shift for the Gates Foundation, which in the past has disbursed $650 million to the Global Fund for vaccines and innovations, rather than ARV distribution and day-to-day operations.  In his annual letter on behalf of the foundation, Mr. Gates supported the Global Fund’s efforts and pointed out that despite some reports, the fund had had less than five percent of its funding misused and had instituted further internal reforms that will decrease those problems.  Mr. Gates also argued that some financial mismanagement was a cost of working in the developing world.  He was quoted by AP as saying: “The internal checks and balances have worked in every case [at the Global Fund]…but if you’re going to do business in Africa, you’re going to have some losses.”

Although $750 million is not a trifling sum, it is not the $2 billion or more needed to finance grants at the Global Fund.  With his announcement, Mr. Gates has demonstrated his confidence in the Global Fund, which might inspire bilateral donors to honor their pledges and/or restore interrupted funding.  Recent internal changes at the Global Fund may also prompt donors to donate.  We are certainly witnessing a turning point in the fight against some major diseases, such as HIVand malaria, and it is a shame that these partial successes have arrived in tandem with a global recession that shows few signs of turning around soon.  With a strong, well-financed Global Fund, we may, with hope, see  an HIV-free generation and the further curbing of malaria and TB.  Mr. Gates’ support of the Global Fund should give it the much-needed shot in the arm that will help us achieve these goals.

Header photo available here, via USACE Europe District, CC BY 2.0.