Meet Allan J. Lichtman, a historian with a seemingly magical Midas touch who has been calling US Presidential Elections with eerie accuracy since 1984. 

While most political pundits and pollsters scramble to keep up with the tides of public opinion, Lichtman calmly unveils the future, his predictions as steady as a seasoned fortune teller’s gaze into a crystal ball. But how does he do it? Is he a modern-day Nostradamus, gifted with supernatural foresight, or is something deeper at play here?

Lichtman’s method

Lichtman’s method, often shrouded in mystery, is not based on mere guesswork or gut feeling. His secret weapon? A system he devised called ‘The Keys to the White House’. This isn’t your run-of-the-mill analysis but a framework built on 13 true-or-false statements, each designed to capture the underlying currents of a presidential race. 

These ‘keys’ range from the economy’s performance to social unrest and from incumbency advantages to the absence of scandal. If six or more of these keys turn against the party in power, Lichtman predicts it will lose the presidency. This model, grounded in historical data rather than transient public sentiment, has turned Lichtman into a political seer whose predictions cut through the noise of modern-day electioneering. 

Imagine being able to foresee the outcome of elections while others falter, blinded by polling missteps and media frenzy. In a world where digital misinformation has become the norm and where climate change can even skew weather patterns, how can one man stand firm in his ability to forecast something as volatile as American politics? Lichtman’s system doesn’t just defy the odds; it redefines them, offering a clarity that seems almost otherworldly in a time when certainty is a rare commodity.

Lichtman predicted the following elections since 1984 well ahead, publicly using mainstream and credible media.

1984: ‘How to Bet in ’84’

1988: ‘How to Bet in November’ 

1992: ‘The Keys to the White House’

1996: ‘Who Will Be the Next President’

2000: ‘The Keys to Election 2000’

2004: ‘The Keys to the White House’

2008: ‘Forecast for 2008’

2012: ‘Preliminary Forecast for 2012’

2016: ‘Trump is Headed for a Win’

2020: ‘He Predicted Trump’s Win in 2016, Now He’s Ready to Call 2020’

Except for a couple of predictions of the popular vote, he predicted all others with remarkable accuracy. I have met pollsters who could predict an election just a week ahead of the election day. This is easy for experienced and masterful pollsters, campaigners, and political leaders. However, Lichtman, the 13 keys, and the statistical model predict before anyone can comprehend an election campaign. 

High stakes ahead

As Lichtman, at 77 years of age, prepares to unveil his prediction for the 2024 showdown, the stakes are higher than ever. The contest between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris is set to be one of the most polarising in history, with a nation deeply divided and the world watching closely. Will Lichtman’s keys guide him to yet another correct prediction? And if so, what does that say about the nature of power, politics, and the very fabric of American democracy?

This Harvard-educated Professor, who was an expert witness in over 100 civil and voting rights cases and authored 11 books, remains a towering figure in geopolitical discourse. His predictions capture the public’s imagination and influence how we understand the dynamics of elections. While others chase trends, Lichtman leans on a well-honed system that has weathered the storms of political upheaval. 

In a world where even the seasons and weather patterns seem to change unpredictably, Lichtman is a Mozart of political predictions, reminding us that, sometimes, the most profound insights come not from the noise of the moment but from a deeper understanding of history’s patterns, human psychology, leadership decision-making, behaviour, and the sentiments of the public at large. 

So, as we get closer to the next big election, one question looms: will Lichtman get it right again? And if he does, what else might he see that the rest of us are missing? The answers may lie not just in the future but in the very methods Lichtman has perfected over decades – techniques that have turned him into an almost mythical figure in political prediction.

Lichtman’s keys in South Asia

With all due respect to Lichtman’s 13 keys, which have cracked the code of American Presidential Elections for decades, one might wonder how this framework would fare in South Asia’s complex, diverse political landscape. In this region, elections are far from straightforward. 

Think about India, where the election process is a Herculean task, spanning weeks and involving 900 million voters, one million polling booths, all from various backgrounds. How can a system designed to predict outcomes in a political environment like the US handle the wild diversity of South Asia? Here, the influence of religion, the deep roots of caste, the vast stretches of land, poverty, the growing middle class, unemployment, and the varying definitions of charisma and leadership play a role that would challenge even the most sophisticated models.

Yet, for me, despite these challenges, Lichtman’s 13 keys offer more than just a prediction tool – they provide a fascinating lens through which we can analyse elections and the broader dynamics of governance and political strategy in South Asia. 

In a region where the very definition of being a leader can differ from village to village, Lichtman’s approach could offer a structured way to think about the elements that truly matter in shaping public opinion. Imagine applying this framework not just to foresee electoral outcomes but to understand how governments can maintain stability, enforce checks and balances, and craft political campaigns to resonate across such a vast and varied population.

Lichtman’s keys were more than just a prediction tool – they became the foundation for something I had been working on for seven years. What works in a political campaign? How do you craft a theory that sounds good on paper and delivers results when it matters most? This is no small feat in South Asia, where the stakes are always high and the playing field constantly shifts. Lichtman’s framework, focusing on the fundamental forces that drive political change, offered a way to approach these questions systematically.

Moreover, it challenged me to think about strategy in a way that goes beyond the usual clichés. What works in shaping public opinion? Is it the message, the messenger, or something deeper, something more structural? 

As I reflected on these questions, I realised that while the 13 keys might not be directly applicable to every aspect of South Asian politics, they offer a starting point – a way to begin dissecting the complexities of this region’s political landscape. 

They encourage us to look beyond the surface, ask what drives political change, and recognise that in politics, as in life, the unseen forces often have the most power. With this framework in mind, I embarked on a journey to explore what works in South Asia and build a strategy to navigate its challenges and tap into its unique opportunities. The journey is far from over, but with Lichtman’s keys in hand, the path forward is a bit clearer.

A universal framework 

Seven years ago, a close friend of mine – a political campaign veteran with 40 years of experience who quietly influenced the rise of many leaders – and I embarked on an ambitious journey. 

We set out to craft a theory tailored explicitly to the complexities of South Asian politics, fully aware that what worked in one part of the world might not necessarily apply elsewhere. Our approach was as unassuming as we were, yet it was profound. Through countless hours of discussion, debate, disagreements, and analysis, we shaped a concept that would eventually transform how we viewed political campaigning. 

We were not looking to rewrite the rules; instead, we sought to distil the essence of what drives human behaviour in politics. Our insights became the foundation of what I now believe is a universal framework that can transcend borders and cultures: the interplay of hope, fear, and jealousy.

As I watched elections unfold across the globe – from Taiwan to Pakistan, Bangladesh to the UK, Russia to South Africa, India, and most recently Sri Lanka – I saw patterns emerge. These were not just random electoral outcomes but manifestations of more profound, primal emotions. It became clear that hope, fear, and jealousy were not just abstract concepts but powerful forces that could be harnessed to influence political outcomes. 

Hope drives people to believe in a better future and rally behind a leader who promises change. On the other hand, fear can be a potent motivator, pushing people to act in defence of what they have in order to avoid a perceived threat. Jealousy, often overlooked, stirs up resentment and the desire to level the playing field, whether in economic terms or social status. Together, these emotions create a dynamic that can be both predictable and volatile. 

All above elections I covered extensively for public consumption and some private coverage helped key decision-makers, both in politics and business, with meaningful discourses which led to action. After all, politics shakes business and business shapes politics. When I reflect upon all elections, the hope, fear, and jealousy was universal. 

When leaders tap into hope, they inspire; they offer a vision of what could be, often galvanising those who feel disenfranchised. Leaders like Lee Kuan Yew, Nelson Mandela, and John F. Kennedy instilled hope. In the great Lee Kuan Yew, I saw a leader who was both feared and loved, a rare combination for a leader, and I called it the epitome of leadership. 

The danger of promising hope in a campaign is the credibility of the message of hope. Can a leader honour the commitment of hope? This is a critical question in developing a presidential campaign. In 2016, Donald Trump hit the nail on the head with ‘Make America Great Again’. If he had delivered, would Joe Biden have won the election in 2020? 

When invoked, fear can unify people against a common enemy or perceived danger, whether it’s economic instability, cultural erosion, or an external threat. Meanwhile, jealousy is the undercurrent that can turn the tide unexpectedly. It can lead to movements that demand equality, reject the status quo, or push back against perceived elitism. 

A fear psychosis was at play in the Indian election. There were slogans against Premier Narendra Modi, calling him a dictator, pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim, and a failure, whilst his opponent Rahul Gandhi was projected as a product of nepotism, a danger to the economic and political stability of India. Closer to election day, narratives were about vote counting malpractices to changing election results, and the fear not only crashed the hopes of people but also crashed the stock market. 

But post-election, I witnessed that most of the stories had disappeared. People are getting on with their lives. Why were Indians angry, jealous, and some praying for hope only at election time? Why not in the aftermath? 

When Sheikh Hasina won the election in Bangladesh this year, she lasted only a few months in her seat as the people’s fear broke the threshold, and once peaceful street protests turned violent after the Government forces killed hundreds of student protesters. 

Understanding the human condition 

In the coming years, as we see more elections unfold and more leaders rise and fall, this framework will prove itself time and time again. It’s not about manipulating people; it’s about understanding the fundamental drivers of human behaviour and how they intersect with the political landscape. 

As we delve deeper into how hope, fear, and jealousy work in real life, we can unlock the secrets to winning elections and understanding the complex and often contradictory nature of our societies. The journey of political strategy is as much about understanding human nature as it is about understanding politics, and this is a path worth exploring.

Gautama Buddha’s teachings remind us of something fundamentally human: the presence of anger, jealousy, and delusion within us all. These emotions are not just fleeting feelings but deep-rooted forces that shape how we see the world and, crucially, our leaders. 

Who among us hasn’t felt a pang of jealousy, a surge of anger, or the fog of delusion? These emotions are personal and collective, influencing the masses and steering the direction of entire societies. But how exactly do these primal instincts manifest in the modern world, particularly politics and leadership?

Consider how people lined up for days to buy the latest iPhone in the early days or digital conversations when someone’s views clash with another’s. It’s not just about the product or the opinion – it’s about what lies beneath. Anger fuels those heated online debates, jealousy drives the obsession with having the latest gadget that others flaunt, and delusion clouds the judgement of those who believe that ownership equates to status. This is the human condition and is a powerful force in shaping public opinion.

Harnessing emotions in the political arena 

Now, let’s take this into the political arena. Creating hope is not just possible – it’s a strategy. 

Look at Modi’s campaign in India. Modi didn’t just run for office; he tapped into a deep well of hope within the Indian electorate, offering a vision of stability and prosperity that resonated across the country. His opponent Gandhi too offered a similar narrative, but in politics the campaign does not end with communications, it goes well beyond to alliances, partnerships, and allies, including geopolitical actors. 

Hope can be manufactured, moulded, and directed, and when done effectively, it can lead to sweeping electoral victories. 

But what about anger? That, too, can be stoked and channelled. Think back to the mass protests in Sri Lanka in 2022 or Bangladesh in 2024. In both instances, anger over economic mismanagement, corruption, anti-democratic moves, and a lack of accountability led to regime changes, with leaders fleeing the country. Anger isn’t just an emotion; it’s a catalyst for change, and when it reaches a tipping point, it can be unstoppable.

Fear is another tool that can be wielded with precision. In Taiwan, the fear of geopolitical uncertainty has driven voters and leaders alike to act in ways that protect what they hold dear. The spectre of conflict, losing sovereignty, or economic collapse can create an atmosphere where fear dictates decisions, both in the voting booth and in the corridors of power.

And then there’s jealousy. Can you create jealousy? Absolutely. It’s perhaps the most subtle yet potent of all. When political campaigns highlight the successes of some to contrast the struggles of others, they stir up feelings of envy. Jealousy brews when leaders flaunt their achievements or when governments spotlight the disparities between regions or classes. This quiet but simmering emotion can lead to unrest, demands for equality, and, in some cases, upheaval.

In the end, the emotions that the Buddha spoke of are not just inner battles; they are the very forces that drive political movements, consumer behaviour, and social change. Understanding how to harness these emotions – whether to inspire hope, ignite anger, instil fear, or provoke jealousy – is critical to understanding how the world operates today. It’s not just about predicting outcomes; it’s about shaping them.

The key to a successful political campaign 

Too much fear paralyses a movement. It creates a culture of anxiety and distrust, where people are so overwhelmed by what could go wrong that they lose sight of what could go right. Campaigns that lean too heavily into fear may drive voters to the polls, but they risk alienating them in the long run, creating a legacy of dread rather than progress.

Similarly, an overabundance of hope can lead to disillusionment. Leaders who promise the moon and stars without acknowledging the hurdles set themselves up for failure. Hope, when unchecked, can become a double-edged sword, leading to impossible expectations that, when unmet, turn the very optimism that once energised a campaign into a source of bitter disappointment.

Jealousy, too, is a dangerous emotion when left unchecked. If a campaign stirs up too much envy, it can breed resentment, dividing communities rather than uniting them. A strategy that overplays jealousy may spark initial engagement but also risks creating deep societal rifts that are difficult to heal, ultimately leading to instability rather than solidarity.

This realisation led me to an important conclusion: the key to a successful political campaign isn’t found in the extremes of hope, fear, or jealousy but in their balance. It’s about finding that delicate equilibrium where these emotions intersect, creating an aspirational narrative grounded in reality. A leader who can navigate this intersection – who can inspire hope while acknowledging legitimate fears and subtly addressing the undercurrents of jealousy – has the potential to craft campaigns that resonate deeply with the electorate.

Imagine a campaign that instils hope by offering a realistic vision of the future, acknowledging the challenges ahead but assuring the public that together, they can overcome them. This same campaign would recognise and address the people’s fears, not by amplifying them but by providing concrete solutions and a sense of security. And when it comes to jealousy, the campaign would highlight fairness and equality, ensuring that everyone feels they have a stake in the promised future.

This is the balance every successful campaign strives for. It’s not about manipulating emotions but about understanding and respecting them, and weaving them into a powerful and sustainable narrative. Leaders who master this balance won’t just win elections – they’ll earn the trust and loyalty of the people, creating a foundation for lasting change.

Sri Lanka’s critical moment 

Sri Lanka is on the brink of a pivotal moment in its history as it heads toward the Presidential Election on 21 September to choose its ninth executive president. The atmosphere is charged and the campaigns are steeped in the classic trio of political emotions: hope, fear, and jealousy. Yet, despite the enthusiasm, none of the candidates seems to grasp the critical balance among these forces – a balance that could determine not just victory but the nation’s very future.

I shared this column with Prof. Lichtman for his guidance and a man of wisdom could bring more clarity to the above thought process. 

The 22 million Sri Lankans are yearning for a leader who can steer the country through the next five years and offer clarity amidst the current confusion of party lines, geopolitical sensitivities, and the overwhelming field of 39 presidential candidates. At least six stand out as serious contenders, each trying to outmanoeuvre the other in a race that has become a cauldron of fear-mongering, lofty promises, and envy-stoking.

As the campaign intensifies over the next five weeks, it’s clear that fear is playing a dominant role in the strategies of most prominent candidates. Whether it’s fear of economic collapse, fear of social unrest, or fear of losing national identity, these narratives are being pushed hard, creating a sense of urgency and anxiety among the electorate. But is this the path to victory or a more profound division?

On 21 September, Sri Lankans will not just choose a president; they will select the emotion that will define their future. Will it be a future built on fear, hope, or jealousy – or will one candidate finally strike that elusive middle path, offering a vision that resonates with the full spectrum of human experience? The next few weeks will be critical in determining which of these forces will reign supreme and shape the destiny of this beautiful island nation that I call paradise and my home.

Saliya Weerakoon

The post Hope, Fear and Jealousy appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Speculations over what American foreign policy under the potential leadership of Kamala Devi Harris might look like have begun in earnest, now that US president Joe Biden – who announced recently that he would not be seeking re-election – has officially endorsed his vice president as his heir apparent in the race for the presidency. Although many Democratic Party leaders and supporters have joined the president in coalescing behind Harris, the official nominee of the Democrats will only be chosen at their party’s national convention in Chicago next month.

Should Kamala Harris, if confirmed as the Democrats’ standard bearer, triumph over Donald Trump when Americans take to the ballot box this November, what can we expect from the foreign policy of a Harris administration towards the Indo-Pacific region? Would she prove a “weak” leader – as Beijing’s state-backed news outlet Global Times has insisted – whose presidency is unlikely to pose a threat to China?

Shaky Start

Having carved a niche as the state of California’s top law enforcement official and subsequently its junior senator, Harris stepped into the vice presidency with little foreign policy experience. Her initial foray into US diplomacy began with a stumble: her proposal to work with Central American nations to address the root causes of illegal immigration into the United States was quickly lumped with the related issue of the security of America’s southern border, which she – as in the case of a clumsy interview with the US news outlet NBC News – tried unsuccessfully to avoid. Nor did the initial turmoil among her staff do her reputation any favours.

However, things have markedly improved since those rough beginnings, with seasoned Washington operators like Philip Gordon and Rebecca Lissner being enlisted to advise the vice president on foreign policy and national security matters. According to US congressman Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Harris’s performance at this year’s Munich Security Conference making a case for America’s role in Ukraine and NATO indicates that she has been “stress-tested” and found credible.

Staying the Course

Given her inexperience as an international leader, it is highly likely that Harris, as US president, would continue the Biden administration’s foreign policy, at least until such time as she has a firmer grasp on world affairs. Under her leadership, the United States is likely to continue supporting Ukraine and NATO while adopting a firm line against Vladimir Putin and Russia. Given her strong stance against Israel’s handling of the Gaza conflict – which she has referred to as a humanitarian catastrophe for innocent civilians – it is possible that her Israel policy may prove less fixed and intransigent than Biden’s. Indeed, she is on record for having called for a “temporary ceasefire” to the Gaza conflict well before her boss publicly did.

But far as the Indo-Pacific goes, it is unlikely that Harris would stray from extant US policy. As noted, many Chinese seem to think that Harris would prove weaker than Biden in dealing with China. As a US senator, she co-sponsored a bill promoting human rights in Hong Kong and supported another on the rights of Uyghurs in Xinjiang; in both cases, the bills included sanctions against those deemed responsible for human rights abuses.

China

As vice president, Harris has underscored America’s support – “consistent with [the US’s] long-standing policy” – for Taiwan’s self-defence and decried Chinese intimidation and coercion against Philippine vessels in the waters surrounding the Second Thomas Shoal in the South China Sea.

In an interview with CBS News last year, Harris advocated a firm stance against China, calling for “de-risking” from Beijing – a policy that aims to reduce the extent to which the US and Western economies depend on China. “It’s not about pulling out [from China], but it is about ensuring that we are protecting American interests, and that we are a leader in terms of the rules of the road, as opposed to following others’ rules”, Harris explained in that interview.

Harris’s remarks on China strongly hint at the influence of Rebecca Lissner, who currently serves as deputy national security adviser to the vice president. In her 2020 book An Open World: How America Can Win the Contest for Twenty-First-Century Order (co-authored with Mira Rapp-Hooper), Lissner argues that China constitutes America’s “chief antagonist” to an open world through Beijing’s determined efforts at forming exclusive territorial and technological blocs. Against such opposition, Lissner advocates a new vision and approach for America, one that allows it to de-risk itself while working with like-minded allies and rebuilding what she considers outmoded international institutions to set rules that ensure and enhance global openness. Lissner is adamant that the United States and the West should not pursue regime change around the world, but counter authoritarian competitors by preventing the rise of closed spheres of influence and preserving open access to the global commons.

Such an openness strategy is also in line with Harris’s criticism of the Trump administration’s inconsequential efforts to engage North Korea and rein in its nuclear ambitions, which do not close Northeast Asia off as much as create undue uncertainty and apprehension in the region. This is not to imply that Lissner’s ideas would form the blueprint for foreign policy under a Harris administration. At the very least, it suggests that Beijing’s hopes of a weak and unfocused America under Harris may be premature, perhaps even unfounded.

ASEAN

Under Harris, the United States is also likely to stay the course taken by Biden in its ties with ASEAN and Southeast Asia, a region hotly contested by both Beijing and Washington. But whether Harris would do better than Biden at reassuring and improving the region’s perceptions of America remains to be seen. According to a 2024 annual survey conducted by the ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute, when asked who they would prefer to align with in the ongoing China-US rivalry, slightly more Southeast Asian respondents reportedly sided with the Chinese (50.5%) than with the Americans (49.5%). That said, a Harris-led America would presumably play the kind of international leadership role ASEAN desires of the United States than a Trump-led one is likely to furnish. While ASEAN leaders would no doubt redouble their efforts to keep a mercurial and capricious Donald Trump happy and engaged (were he to return as US leader), a President Harris is more likely to show up for ASEAN meetings in person – the high-mark of ASEAN summitry success – than a President Trump ever did or would.

Southeast Asians have had a couple of opportunities to see Kamala Harris up close. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in August 2021, Harris, in her capacity as US vice president, visited Singapore and Vietnam to strengthen her nation’s security partnerships and to expand economic cooperation with two of America’s critical Indo-Pacific partners. Attending the 2023 ASEAN summit held in Jakarta in Biden’s stead, Harris – in her fifth visit to the Southeast Asian region – engaged with leaders of the ASEAN member states as well as Australia, China, Japan and South Korea. Notably, as a senator, Harris was active in legislating against human rights abuses in Myanmar – a concern she has repeatedly raised during her visits to Southeast Asia. Welcomed or otherwise, ASEAN could expect a greater focus on Myanmar from a Harris administration than it ever did from the Biden – and, for that matter, the Trump – administrations.

Conclusion

Should a Harris foreign policy adopt the contours and course of a grand strategy akin to what Lissner has counselled, it would probably surprise no one if China – still designated as America’s chief antagonist – were to resume its age-old accusation against America over the latter’s ostensible “Cold War” fixation with alliances and partnerships aimed at (in Beijing’s view) encircling and counterbalancing China. In this regard, it is unclear whether Harris might tap into her part-Indian heritage – her late mother was from Tamil Nadu – to enlist India (as a member of the Quad) in checking an assertive China: she has come across as ambivalent towards India. All things considered, the prospect of a Harris presidency is not the worst thing that could happen for the Indo-Pacific region.

See Seng Tan is President and CEO of International Students Inc. (ISI) in the United States and concurrently Research Adviser at RSIS and Senior Associate at the Centre for Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (CLASS) at NTU.

See Seng Tan

The post What Might a Harris Foreign Policy Bring? appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

This was discussed during a meeting between Uzbekistan’s Prime Minister Abdulla Aripov and his Kazakh counterpart, Alikhan Smailov.

The delegation of Uzbekistan, headed by Prime Minister Abdulla Aripov arrived in Almaty (Kazakhstan) to participate in the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council and Digital Forum.

At the meeting, the sides noted the rapid development of strategic partnerships and alliances between the two countries in the spirit of friendship, good neighborliness, and mutual respect, and representatives of both countries defined specific tasks for further development of multilateral relations.

They also emphasized positive growth dynamics between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in all directions.

In particular, the volume of trade has more than doubled over the past 7 years, important joint projects are being implemented in various sectors of the economy, and interregional and cultural-humanitarian cooperation is expanding.

At the meeting, the parties exchanged views on these and other topical issues on the agenda.

Meanwhile, trade turnover volume between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan amounted to $4.3 billion.

Source: Trend

The post Transport, energy co-op between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan enhances appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

These discussions transpired during a telephone conversation between Turkmenistan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Rashid Meredov, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Türkiye, Hakan Fidan.

During the dialogue, the two parties engaged in a comprehensive exchange of views on a range of pertinent issues concerning Turkmen-Turkish cooperation, fostering a constructive discussion environment.

The parties discussed the implementation of bilateral agreements reached at the highest state level, and also considered the possibilities of further increasing the potential of mutual partnership in the political, diplomatic, trade and economic spheres.

Furthermore, the heads of the foreign ministries agreed to maintain regular contacts between the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of both countries.

Meanwhile, Turkmenistan and Türkiye are strategically fostering the development of their bilateral relations, with both nations engaging in continuous discussions and collaborative initiatives to strengthen diplomatic ties and enhance mutual cooperation.

For example, recently representatives of Turkish Petroleum Pipeline Corporation (BOTAS), a state-owned crude oil and natural gas trading company, and Turkmengaz, Turkmenistan’s national gas company, have held a meeting to discuss prospects for exporting Turkmen gas to Europe via Azerbaijan and Türkiye.

Source: Trend

The post Turkmenistan, Türkiye explore opportunities for enhanced bilateral co-op appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

He made the remark during the Digital Almaty 2024 forum.

“This year, the forum is dedicated to the digitalization of industrial sectors of the economy. Our industry must be digitized. This is not a tribute to a trend; this is necessary for competitiveness. The Environmental Code stipulates that enterprises that release ozone-depleting substances into the atmosphere must install certain sensors,” he said.

According to the minister, these sensors transmit information in real time to a central database.

“That is, we must ensure control of the entire environmental situation at all industrial enterprises. Today, this system has already been created, and enterprises are gradually connecting. Today, about 20 enterprises are already connected,” Bagdat Musin said.

As he added, these sensors are being developed in Kazakhstan.

“We also have experience in creating SCADA systems. Previously, we purchased these systems from abroad; today, there are already several Kazakhstani solutions. Kazakh designs are being installed throughout our entire energy system. And there are many such examples. We also focus on robotization. Industrial sectors of the economy must rely heavily on robots. Therefore, we have created a center for the development of industrial robots, which will help accelerate and scale robotization in industrial sectors of the economy,” the minister noted.

Source: Trend

The post Kazakhstan intends to digitalize industrial sector, minister says appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Iranian Ambassador to Tajikistan Alireza Haqiqian reportedly announced the above at a meeting with Faizullo Barotzoda, the head of Tajikistan-Iran Parliamentary Friendship Group, held in Dushanbe on January 25. 

According to Iran Daily, Iranian diplomat referred to the process of comprehensive development of relations between the two countries and hailed the role of parliamentary cooperation in deepening ties.

The visa waiver agreement is part of a larger package of bilateral treaties which include cooperation in transportation, the establishment of free economic zones, anti-drug trafficking efforts, and crisis management.

Mr. Barotzoda, for his part, reportedly emphasized the readiness of the Tajik Parliament to create a legal platform in order to further expand cooperation.

Recall, the Government of Tajikistan on January 3 issued a decree to approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Tajikistan and Iran on cancellation of visa requirements for holders of passports for international travels. 

The decree, in particular, orders the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and relevant agencies to take necessary measures to ensure implementation of the mentioned MoU. 

Besides, the Foreign Ministry is instructed to notify the Iranian side about the implementation by Tajikistan of internal state procedures necessary for the entry of this MoU into force.

The MoU between the Government of Tajikistan and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran on cancellation of visa requirements for holders of passports for international travels for citizens of Tajikistan and Iran was signed in Dushanbe on November 8 last year during Iranian President Seyyed Ebrahim Raisi’s official visit to Dushanbe.

In December, the Iranian Cabinet decided to unilaterally cancel visa requirements for visitors from 33 more countries, including Tajikistan. 

Source: Asia Plus

The post Iran, Tajikistan to implement visa-free travel pact soon, says Iranian ambassador to Tajikistan appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

According to the Kyrgyzstan Cabinet of Ministers, Japarov visited the site to inspect the progress of recovery efforts and chaired a meeting, where he provided directives to relevant state entities.

Specifically, the Ministry of Energy, in collaboration with the Mayor’s Office of Bishkek, has been tasked with leading the operational headquarters and presenting comprehensive information on the reasons for the incident and a plan for further actions to ensure the full operation of the capital’s thermal power plant by 5:00 PM (GMT+6).

The Ministry of Emergency Situations and the State Agency for Architecture, Construction, and Housing and Communal Services have been instructed to commence work on the restoration of the affected facilities at the thermal power plant.

The Ministry of Health is tasked with closely monitoring and providing necessary assistance to the affected employees of the thermal power plant.

The Ministry of Finance has been directed to promptly allocate the necessary financial resources for the restoration works.

Japarov emphasized that the primary task at present is to restore heat supply to the citizens’ residences and prevent the recurrence of similar situations.

On February 2, 2024, at 03:00 AM (GMT+6), the Bishkek TPP, a major electricity-generating facility in Kyrgyzstan, experienced an accident, resulting in equipment failure. The Ministry of Energy of Kyrgyzstan established an operational headquarters to restore damaged equipment and address the incident’s consequences. Five employees were injured and are currently receiving treatment.

Source: Trend

The post Kyrgyzstan’s Cabinet of Ministers issues directives for Bishkek TPP accident recovery appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

“In recent years, I have always emphasized that every family in the country must have a supply of necessary food products for up to two years,” Rahmon noted in his congratulatory message on the occasion of the Sada festival on January 28.  

The head of state emphasized that climate change and deterioration of the socioeconomic situation in the world make this issue especially relevant. 

In this context, making two-year food stocks becomes an important measure to ensure the country’s food security, the president noted. 

The Tajik president’s official website says Emomali Rahmon has emphasized that this decision is based on in-depth analysis of the unpredictable situation in the modern world, including the collapse of old supply chains and constant rise in food prices.  

The president reportedly noted that “everyone must work harder, use land and water efficiently and rationally, produce as much product as possible, contributing to the implementation of the national strategic goal – protection of the country’s food security.”  

Source: Asia Plus

The post Emomali Rahmon reiterates the necessity of making two-year food stocks; this time due to climate change appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

ALMATY, Kazakhstan — Friends who are old faces and friends in high places: Kazakhstan’s former leader Nursultan Nazarbaev has proven in recent months that he still has both.

Does that mean the 83-year-old is mulling a political comeback?

Kazakh officials loyal to his successor, Qasym-Zhomart Toqaev, are keen to dispel the notion. But the very fact that they are feeling the need to comment on the idea is indicative of the interest — and, in some quarters, alarm — sparked by the ex-president’s recent return to the national news cycle.

The first week of January will mark the second anniversary of the Bloody January unrest that exposed fractures in the elite and, for many, definitively marked the end of the long Nazarbaev era in Kazakhstan.

Since ceding all his remaining positions and titles in the aftermath of the violence that left at least 238 people dead, Kazakhstan’s first president has mostly shunned the limelight.

But in the final months of 2023, Nazarbaev’s name is once more on everybody’s lips.

One public appearance in November was perhaps unavoidable, after his controversial younger brother, Bolat Nazarbaev, passed away. But even then, the grand, elite-packed memorial for a former plumber who grew fabulously rich during the reign of his older sibling turned out to be more like an homage to that same older sibling.

After that appearance came the release of Nazarbaev’s autobiography: My Life: From Dependence To Freedom. The book was not his first, but proved sensational in that the author acknowledged for the first time that he fathered children — sons, no less — by a woman other than his official wife, Sara Nazarbaeva.

Later this month, Nazarbaev addressed the seventh meeting of the Astana Club, his own geopolitical talking-shop initiative that included former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and ex-Afghan President Hamid Karzai among the speakers.

But it was his meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, likely in Moscow on December 19 — which Putin’s press spokesman Dmitry Peskov described as “absolutely private” — that really set tongues wagging and provided the context for comments by Yerlan Koshanov, chairman of the lower house of parliament, on December 27.

“Dual power does not exist today and cannot exist. Today, all decisions are made by the head of state, Toqaev, elected by the overwhelming majority of the people,” said Koshanov, who told journalists that people had “no reason for concern” over Nazarbaev’s activities as a “private citizen.”

Fulfilling Allah’s Task

Toqaev made similar comments about “dual power” in 2019, just months after he stepped into the presidential hot seat as Nazarbaev’s hand-picked, loyalist successor.

Nobody believed him then, and with good reason.

At that time, Nazarbaev was serving as the “lifelong” chairman of the Security Council — a role that raised questions about which of the two was commander in chief. And the former president also chaired the ruling party and enjoyed extensive perks and protections thanks to his constitutionally enshrined status as “elbasy,” or leader of the nation.

Subsequent “de-Nazarbaevification” was seemingly driven by two factors.

Firstly, protesters had signaled right before the January 2022 unrest turned deadly that they had had enough of the authoritarian who dominated Kazakh politics for more than three decades, beginning in Soviet times.

And Toqaev, having been constrained by his predecessor for the best part of three years, probably felt the same, not least because of the way the “dual power” situation had paralyzed the security apparatus, dividing loyalties in the process.

After the deadly January events, the power struggle was laid bare.

In addition to transferring his remaining power to Toqaev, Nazarbaev’s relatives and allies lost powerful and lucrative positions. At least three members of the president’s extended family were jailed on corruption charges. The capital, Astana, also got its old name back after spending three years as Nur-Sultan in Nazarbaev’s honor.

In public, the former president has said only positive things about Toqaev and his policies. But it can be assumed that in private he is less than happy — and probably worried for his family’s future. Notable then was the guest list at the closed-doors memorial for Nazarbaev’s brother, Bolat.

The younger Nazarbaev had been buried four days earlier in the family’s home village of Shamalgan in the Almaty region, more than 1,000 kilometers away.

And if Toqaev’s government was represented at the funeral by Prime Minister Alikhan Smailov — presumably as a courtesy to Nazarbaev — then the faces captured in footage from the Astana memorial luncheon were former officials: ex-police chiefs, prosecutors, defense and education ministers, as well as his ex-lawmaker daughter, Darigha Nazarbaeva.

“It was not easy for us to establish independence,” the former president told his appreciative audience after thanking Toqaev, “a number of heads of state,” officials, and ordinary citizens for their condolences.

“When the Soviet government fell in 1992, 1,500 manufacturing plants were shut down, leaving 2 million people unemployed,” Nazarbaev said. “The store shelves were empty, salaries and pensions were not paid. At a time when there was the question, ‘Will we be a country or not?’ [We] colleagues and comrades came together to lift up the country. In this way, I believe that I fulfilled the task assigned to me by Allah.”

Meet My Other Family

Even some of Nazarbaev’s critics give him credit for dealing with the manifold challenges of early independence.

Opinion is more divided over the subsequent repression that included the killing of opposition figures, the elbasy cult, and the excesses of relatives like Bolat, who allegedly acquired huge tracts of valuable land around the country’s largest city, Almaty, at little or no cost and had millions of dollars in luxury properties around the world.

After Bloody January, some of Bolat Nazarbaev’s businesses and land were returned to the state, while he was also named and shamed by the authorities as a participant in an illegal cryptomining venture. Yet despite strong public demands, he was not brought to justice before his death.

As November became December, Kazakhs were already discussing another family of the former president, which had been an open secret but was only officially revealed in Nazarbaev’s autobiography. His description of falling in love with Asel Qurmanbaeva (then Asel Isabaeva) — a woman some 40 years younger than him — certainly made for awkward reading.

His only legal wife, Sara Nazarbaeva, responded to her husband’s decision to tie the knot with Qurmanbaeva in an Islamic ceremony, “with nobility,” Nazarbaev wrote, adding that the pair’s three daughters — Darigha, Dinara, and Alia — had also understood.

Qurmanbaeva bore him two sons, his only confirmed male heirs. In an interview with RFE/RL, former diplomat Talgat Kaliev said that Nazarbaev’s book reveal was a bid to publicly legitimize the two boys “[so] it is officially possible to leave something to them…. Otherwise, their destiny would be very challenging.”

Qurmanbaeva — Miss Kazakhstan in 1999 — and Nazarbaev began their relationship when the former was just 19, and she is most often referred to as Nazarbaev’s third wife, with former air stewardess Gulnara Rakisheva reportedly bearing the president two more daughters.

And the elder of Nazarbaev’s two sons, 18-year-old Tauman Nursultan, has already been romantically linked to the daughter of Energy Minister Almasadam Satkaliev.

Responding to rumors that the young pair had married, the Energy Ministry published a statement in April calling the information “inaccurate,” stressing that the minister “does not have and did not previously have any family ties with the first president.”

The ministry’s press department was pressed into action once more last month to deny reports that Satkaliev was among the guests at Bolat Nazarbaev’s memorial.

Putin Meeting

One person who might be sympathetic to Nazarbaev’s complicated situation is divorced Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Putin, after all, is rumored to have fathered at least two children with Alina Kabayeva, a retired Olympic gymnast who was placed under sanctions by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union after Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine last year.

But there was no shortage of suspicion that the two men were talking about things other than family when they met in Moscow earlier this month.

This was not the first time the two have met since Nazarbaev formally retired from politics, famously declaring himself “just a pensioner.” They had previously met in June 2022, almost immediately after a constitutional referendum promoted by Toqaev that, among other things, removed all the basic law’s references to Nazarbaev as elbasy, a move that, in theory, made him more vulnerable to prosecution.

At the time, Russia’s Nezavisimaya gazeta speculated that Nazarbaev was seeking “assurances for himself and his capital,” and referred to “various estimations” of the octogenarian’s net worth at around $200 billion.

Before that, in late December 2021 — weeks before the unrest in Kazakhstan and two months before Russia launched its full-scale aggression against Ukraine — Nazarbaev and Toqaev held talks with Putin in St. Petersburg with Belarusian leader Alyaksandr Lukashenka along for the ride.

It was undoubtedly Toqaev, not Nazarbaev, who benefited from the CSTO peacekeeping intervention. But public figures and politicians close to the Kremlin were soon complaining that Toqaev had failed to show gratitude for the mission, after Astana chose to remain neutral in the Ukraine war.

In this light, Nazarbaev’s sudden return to prominence looks like something of a “cliffhanger” for Kazakhstan.

Source: RFERL

The post ‘Private’ Meeting With Putin, Public Appearances Stir Talk Of Nazarbaev Comeback appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

Colombo Supreme Court rules that former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his brother, former Prime Minister Mahinda, were among several government officials whose conduct contributed to Sri Lanka’s worst economic crisis in decades.

Sri Lanka’s top court says ex-president Gotabaya Rajapaksa and his brother, former PM Mahinda are amongst those who contributed to the country’s worst economic crisis in decades.

The court was ruling on a petition filed against 13 former officials by rights group Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) which said the Rajapaksa brothers and others were responsible for the crisis. “Their actions, omissions and conduct contributed to the crisis,” the ruling said. The court did not order any punishment, according to a statement by TISL.

The two Rajapaksa brothers, two former central bank governors and President Ranil Wickremesinghe were among those named in the landmark TISL petition. Wickremesinghe was prime minister at the time of the crisis.

“Looking forward, we hope that this acts as a warning to elected representatives and public officials as they make critical decisions that have serious implications on the lives of citizens,” said Nadishani Perera, TISL Executive Director.

Sri Lanka’s economy collapsed as it shrank 7.8% last year, pummelled by long power cuts, soaring inflation, a plunging rupee and record high interest rates caused by the worst financial crisis in over seven decades.

Source : Reuters

The post Sri Lanka Court Found Ex-President Contributed to Economic Crisis appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.