By Friday, January 29, Palestinian journalist Mohammed al-Qeq had spent 66-days on hunger strike in Israeli jails. Just before he fell into his third coma, a day earlier, he sent a public message through his lawyers, the gist of which was: freedom or death.

Al-Qeq is 33-years of age, married and a father of two. Photos circulating of him online and on Palestinian streets show the face of a bespectacled, handsome man. The reality though is quite different. “He’s in a very bad situation. He fell into his third coma in recent days, and his weight has dropped to 30 kilograms (66 pounds),” Ashraf Abu Sneina, one of al-Qeq’s attorneys, told Al Jazeera. Al-Qeq was arrested under yet another notorious Israeli law called the ‘administrative detention’ law.

Ominous predictions of al-Qeq’s imminent death have been looming for days with no end in sight to his elongated ordeal. Unfortunately for a man who believes that the only tool of defense and protest he has against apartheid Israel is his body, the Red Cross and other international groups took many days to so much as acknowledge the case of this news reporter who had refused food and medical treatment since November 24, 2015.

Al-Qeq, works for Saudi Arabia’s Almajd TV network and was arrested at his home in Ramallah on November 21st. In its statement, issued more than 60 days after he entered into his hunger strike, ICRC described the situation as ‘critical’, unequivocally stating the reality of Al-Qeq’s “life being at risk.” On January 27, the European Union also expressed its view of being “especially concerned” about al-Qeq’s deteriorating health.

Under the ‘administrative detention’ law, Israel has affectively held Palestinians and Arab prisoners without offering reasons for their arrests, practically since the state was founded in 1948. In fact, it is argued that this law which is principally founded on ‘secret evidence’ dates back to the British Mandate government’s Emergency Regulations.

After Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in 1967, it clutched at straw in its desperate efforts to find whatever legal justifications it could for holding prisoners without trials. These efforts were eventually articulated in the Israeli Law on Authorities in State of Emergency in 1979.

This law was some sort of compromise between the internal intelligence (Shin Bet), the state and the court system, with the ultimate aim of providing the façade and apparent backing of a legal cover for what is considered in international law and most country laws as illegal. The Shin Bet was thus allowed to use whatever coercive measures – including physical and psychological torture – to exact ‘forced’ confessions from Palestinian prisoners over the course of six months, renewable by a court order without trial or charges.

Khader Adnan, 37, from Jenin, was held under administrative detention law for years. Israeli intelligence had no evidence to indict him of any particular charge, despite accusations that he was a valued member of the Islamic Jihad organization. He was set free on July 12, 2015.This occurred only after he too resorted to undergoing several hunger strikes, and two particularly long ones: early in 2012 a hunger strike lasted for 66 days, and another, in May 2015, lasted for 56 days.

Each time, Adnan reached the point where death, as is the case for al-Qeq, was also becoming a real possibility. When we asked him what compelled him to follow that dangerous path twice, his answer was immediate: “repeated arrests, the savagery of the way I was arrested, the brutality of the interrogation and finally the prolonged administrative detention”- without trial.

Administrative detentions are like legal black holes. They offer no escape routes and no rights for the prisoner whatsoever, but wins the interrogators time to break the spirit of the prisoner, forcing him or her to surrender or even admit, under torture, to things that he or she never committed in the first place. “It is our last and only choice,” says Mohammed Allan, 33, from Nablus, who underwent a hunger strike for so long that it resulted in brain damage, and nearly cost him his life.

“When you feel that all the doors are sealed, and you stand there humiliated and alone, knowing in advance that the court system is a charade, one is left with no other option but a hunger strike,” he says.

“First, I made my intentions clear by refusing three meals in a row, and by sending a written note through the Dover (Hebrew for a prisoner who serves as a spokesperson for a prison ward).” Then, the punishment commences. It is like a psychological warfare between the prison authorities, state and legal system apparatuses against a single individual,” which, according to Allan lasts for 50-60 days.

“Almost instantly, a hunger striker is thrown into solitary confinement, denied access to a mattress and blanket and other basic necessities. Only after six weeks or so, do Israeli prison authorities agree to talk to lawyers representing hunger strikers to discuss various proposals. But within that period of time, the prisoner is left entirely unaided, separated from the other prisoners and subjected to an uninterrupted campaign of intimidation and threats. Mental torture is far worse than hunger,” says Allan.

“You cannot even go to the bathroom anymore; you cannot stand on your own; you are even two weak to wipe the vomit that involuntarily gushes out of your mouth into your beard and chest.”

Allan almost died in prison, and despite a court order that permitted prison authorities to force-feed him (a practice seen internationally as a form of torture), doctors at Soroka hospital refused to act upon the instructions. In mid-August 2015, Allan was placed on life support when he lost consciousness. His severe malnutrition resulted in brain damage.

A third freed hunger striker, Ayman Sharawneh, originally from Dura, Hebron, but who has been deported to Gaza, describes hunger strikes as the “last bullet” in a fight for freedom that could possibly end in death. Sharawneh, like Adnan and others we talked to, was bitter about the lack of adequate support he received while dying in jail.

“All organizations, Palestinian or international, usually fall short,” he says. “They spring into action after the prisoner had gone through many days of torture.”

He says that 2 years and 8 months after he was deported to Gaza, he is experiencing severe pain throughout his body, particularly in his kidneys.

While undergoing the extended hunger strike “I started to lose my hair, suffered from constant nausea, sharp pain in my guts, threw up yellow liquid, then dark liquid, then I could hardly see anything. I had an excruciating headache and then I began to suffer from fissures all over my skin and body.”

He agrees with Adnan that ‘individual hunger strikes’ should not be understood as a self-centered act. “Mohammed Al-Qeq is not striking for himself,” says Adnan. “He is striking on behalf of all political prisoners,” whose number is estimated by prisoners’ rights groupAddameer at nearly 7,000.

According to Adnan, the issue of hunger strikes should not be seen as a battle within Israeli jails, but as part and parcel of the Palestinian people’s fight against military occupation.

While the three prisoners affirmed their solidarity with Al-Qeq, they called for a much greater support for the hunger-striking journalist and thousands like him, many of whom are held indefinitely under administrative detentions.

The list of well-known Palestinian hunger strikers exceeds Al-Qeq, Adnan, Allan and Sharawneh and includes many others, not forgetting Samir Issawi, Hana Shalabi, Thaer Halahleh and Bilal Thiab. But what all of these former hunger strikers seem to have in common is their insistence that their battles were never concerned with the freedom of individuals only, but of an entire group of desperate, oppressed and outraged people.

(With reporting by Yousef Aljamal)

The Vatican has held another round of negotiations with the Chinese government about the contentious issue of bishop appointments in China.

Officials from the Holy See sat down with a Chinese delegation in Rome Jan. 25 – 26 to discuss Beijing’s policy of having bishops elected by government-selected voters.

The meeting in Rome was the third round of negotiations on bishop appointments in China. The first was held in June, 2014 and the second in October, 2015.

Italian daily, Corriere de Sera, broke the news about the negotiations on Jan. 31 and described them as “breakthrough” talks with Pope Francis giving approval to three bishop candidates.

Observers in China doubt the claim but expected the three candidates to be Fathers Peter Ding Lingbin of Changzhi, Cosmas Ji Chengyi of Zhumadian and Joseph Tang Yuange of Chengdu. Both sides have approved the three priests and their names were raised on different occasions last year.

Bishop-designate Tang’s approval came in October, shortly after a six-member Vatican delegation visited Beijing.

A report in the state-run China Daily in late August mentioned Zhumadian Diocese fixing up a church as the venue for Bishop-designate Ji’s ordination. Ji was approved by the Vatican some years ago while his state sanctioned election took place in April 2015.

Bishop-designate Ding also received papal approval prior to his election in December 2013.

“When Wang Zuo’an, director of the State Administration for Religious Affairs, inspected Changzhi in late 2014, he told us that Ding would be the first bishop to be ordained the next year,” a local priest said.

The first and only episcopal ordination in 2015 turned out to be Bishop Joseph Zhang Yinlin of Anyang.

By Kalinga Seneviratne*

A Buddhist revival in China is fuelling a growing animal welfare movement across the country with the Chinese government poised to revise the decades-old animal welfare act. In January, the National People’s Congress (NPC) started soliciting public comments on four draft laws. One is the revision of the Wildlife Protection Law, which came into effect in 1989.

This law created a system of wild animal breeding permits, issued by what is now called the State Forestry Administration. The belief was that the best way to protect threatened wildlife was by developing a wild animal breeding and training sector. China’s success at breeding captive pandas is the global poster child for the success in this sort of conservation.

But, this law has been criticized by the animal welfare movement in recent years for having contributed to the rise of a wildlife exploitation industry in China. In a commentary in South China Morning Post on January 29, Professor Peter Li, a China policy specialist at the Humane Society International claimed that what the law has done was to make wildlife domesticated for commercial exploitation.

“In 2003, the State Forestry Bureau, the national government agency responsible for enforcing the law, announced glowingly that China had succeeded in domesticating 54 wildlife species as an accomplishment of implementing the law,” Prof Li noted.

“Indeed, more Asiatic black bears have been farmed in cages for bile extraction since the law’s adoption than before. Thousands more tigers have been raised in cages in northeast and southwest China,” he said and asked: “Does wildlife farming equal wildlife protection?”

The consumption of wildlife has continued unabated argues Prof Li, who points out that since most exotic animals are no longer found on the mainland, traders have headed to other regions for their prized supplies. Bear paws are smuggled from Siberia. Pangolins are shipped from Africa, Southeast Asia and South Asia. Freshwater turtles from North America and internationally protected sea turtles from the disputed waters of the South China Sea find their way to restaurants in China.

“A so-called ‘tiger trail’ connected to the Chinese market threatens the remaining tiger population on the Indian subcontinent,” he warns, adding, “it is no secret that China is the main destination of global ivory trafficking.”

Such criticisms that point out the futility of a toothless wildlife protection act that could be interpreted for other than to protect animals, has persuaded Chinese authorities to revise the law. Thus, in September 2013, the NPC decided to put a revision of the law on the legislative agenda and a draft revision has been released for public comment.

Before the advent of Communism to China, animal welfare was a major plank of China’s social interaction. All three major religious and philosophical traditions of China – Daoism, Confucianism and Buddhism – emphasize compassion towards animals. With Buddhism going through revival in China, many animal protection societies and groups have been established throughout the country. Keeping of pets is in a steep rise. Buddhist vegetarian restaurants flourish.

There are now an estimated 2 million pet dogs in Beijing, up from 1 million in 2006. This in a city where until 1994 the government strongly discouraged dog ownership and the animals could be killed if they were found on the streets.

As Professor Mang Ping of China’s Central Institute of Socialism said in a recent blog post, the Chinese are simply rediscovering their ancient culture and values. “Ancient manuscripts show that animal protection was the first activity to be regulated by the ancient dynasties, and people under the Qing dynasty were not allowed to kill cubs, pregnant females, or working animals,” she noted, adding, “today, we see bears riding bikes, animals cruelly treated in labs, and so on, but can we return to our traditional culture?”

“Our culture is embedded in benevolence, which is the core of Buddhism — and if we lose benevolence, we lose Chinese culture,” argues Prof Ping.

All the three Chinese philosophical traditions suffered during the strict Communist years under Mao Zedong. Active practice of religion was not allowed. Many Buddhist ideals were seen as harmful or counter-revolutionary. Keeping of pets was considered bourgeois-like hobby and it was strictly restricted. Caring for animals was seen as “counter-revolutionary” and they were seen as economic resources to be exploited.

But, today, China’s animal-protection movement is growing, particularly among young people, especially those in urban areas and on the Internet. While international NGOs may have played some role in igniting China’s animal welfare movement, local groups are increasingly taking over.

Buddhists with a growing sense of compassion embedded into them are now taking to the streets to protect animal rights.

In June 2014, devout Buddhists from across China strolled through Guangxi province’s Yulin city’s Dongkou wet market performing a religious rite to “console the souls of the slaughtered dogs”. Activists estimate that about 10,000 dogs are slaughtered at a summer event, in which thousands of locals and tourists consume barbecued, stir-fried and boiled dog meat served alongside lychees and grain alcohol.

In November 2013, animal rights activists scored a small victory when the Chinese authorities relaxed rules requiring animal testing of foreign beauty products that is sold in the country. To tap China’s $32 billion beauty market, multinationals have to test their products on animals to demonstrate there is no risk to humans that includes many practices that amounts to torture. China’s Food and Drug Administration will allow local companies to use other data, including results from overseas tests done without animals, to show that their products are safe.

In January, it was reported that leading experts are working on a revision to a national regulation on the management of laboratory animals, which, if adopted, is expected to greatly improve the management and protection of the animals. A draft of the new rules includes changes to the Regulation on the Management of Laboratory Animals, which was adopted in 1988.

“For decades, China’s ancient culture of compassion toward animals was eclipsed by ideologies that ignored animal welfare. There were the years under Mao, when sparrows were exterminated as pests and pet dogs branded bourgeois vices. Then there was the rush to get rich, when profit-driven dog meat dealers started stealing pets and poisoning strays,” observed Karen Lange, in an article in Humane Society of the United States’s website under the heading ‘Surge of Compassion’.

“Now, guided by Buddhism and their own hearts, activists are changing the way Chinese regard animals” she added.

*The author is a Sri Lanka born journalist and academic, who teaches regional communication issues at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

This article is the first in a series of joint productions of Lotus News Feature and IDN-InDepthNews, flagship of the International Press Syndicate.

By Jim Garamone

The situation is extremely complex in Afghanistan, but one simple truth is that 2016 cannot be a repeat of 2015, Army Gen. John Campbell told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

Campbell, the commander of NATO’s Resolute Support Mission and U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said the Taliban were emboldened by the U.S. withdrawal and the concomitant reduction in close air support. The Taliban “have fought the Afghan security forces very tough, and we can’t let that happen as we move forward,” he said.

Campbell told the committee that the current plan, which calls for a reduction in U.S. service members in the country to 5,500 by Jan. 1, 2017 – would limit the train, advise and assist mission in Afghanistan. “The 5,500 plan was developed primarily around counterterrorism,” he said. “There is very limited train, advise and assist [funding] in … those numbers.

“To continue to build on the Afghan security forces, the gaps and seams in aviation, logistics, intelligences, as I’ve talked about, we’d have to make some adjustments to that number,” he said.

Prepare, Adjust

Campbell said he is, of course, prepared to pare U.S. numbers in Afghanistan to 5,500 — from about 9,800 — by the end of the year. “I believe the right thing to do is to prepare to go to 5,500 as I am ordered, but at the same time take a look at conditions on the ground, look at the capabilities … not the number — and to provide those adjustments to my military leadership, and then make those adjustments to the capabilities,” he said.

“If we don’t have the capabilities, or if the assumptions that we made for the 5,500 plan don’t come out true, then of course, we have to make those adjustments,” he said.

Any adjustments would have to be made early this year, Campbell said, and preferably before summer.

Campbell stressed that Afghanistan is not a short-term problem and that it must be viewed in years. NATO and partner nations need time to prepare troops and equipment for deployment, he explained.

A five-year cycle “gives them the ability to plan, to resource,” Campbell said. “Again, any budget one year at a time is very, very hard to do. So I think NATO’s completely on board with that. All the countries continue to provide the assistance that they pledged at the Chicago 2012 conference. Again, the United States is the biggest contributor, but the NATO countries continue to provide and have done so.”

In addition to internal training requirements, the general said a long-term commitment also serves to give confidence to the Afghan government and people.

“It sends a message to Pakistan, it sends a message to the Taliban, and it sends a message to NATO,” Campbell said. “Talking those kind of terms, conditions based on the ground, is the way we need to move forward to enable the Afghans to have a predictability and stability.”

When we look at the night sky, we see stars as tiny points of light eking out a solitary existence at immense distances from Earth. But appearances are deceptive. More than half the stars we know of have a companion, a second nearby star that can have a major impact on their primary companions.

The interplay within these so-called binary star systems is particularly intensive when the two stars involved are going through a phase in which they are surrounded by a common envelope consisting of hydrogen and helium. Compared to the overall time taken by stars to evolve, this phase is extremely short, so astronomers have great difficulty observing and hence understanding it. This is where theoretical models with highly compute-intensive simulations come in. Research into this phenomenon is relevant understanding a number of stellar events such as supernovae.

Using new methods, astrophysicists Sebastian Ohlmann, Friedrich Roepke, Ruediger Pakmor, and Volker Springel of the Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies (HITS) have now made a step forward in modeling this phenomenon. As they report in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, the scientists have successfully used simulations to discover dynamic irregularities that occur during the common-envelope phase and are crucial for the subsequent existence of binary star systems.

These so-called instabilities change the flow of matter inside the envelope, thus influencing the stars’ distance from one another and determining, for example, whether a supernova will ensue and, if so, what kind it will be.

The article is the fruit of collaboration between two HITS research groups, the Physics of Stellar Objects (PSO) group and the Theoretical Astrophysics group (TAP). Prof. Volker Springel’s Arepo code for hydrodynamic simulations was used and adapted for the modeling. It solves the equations on a moving mesh that follows the mass flow, and thus enhances the accuracy of the model.

Two stars, one envelope

More than half the stars we know of have evolved in binary star systems. The energy for their luminosity comes from the nuclear fusion of hydrogen at the core of the stars. As soon as the hydrogen fueling the nuclear fusion is exhausted in the heavier of the two stars, the star core shrinks. At the same time, a highly extended stellar envelope evolves, consisting of hydrogen and helium. The star becomes a red giant.

As the envelope of the red giant goes on expanding, the companion star draws the envelope to itself via gravity, and part of the envelope flows towards it. In the course of this process the two stars come closer to one another. Finally, the companion star may fall into the envelope of the red giant and both stars are then surrounded by a common envelope. As the core of the red giant and the companion draw closer together, the gravity between them releases energy that passes into the common envelope.

As a result, the envelope is ejected and mixes with interstellar matter in the galaxy, leaving behind it a close binary star system consisting of the core of the giant and the companion star.

The path to stellar explosion

Sebastian Ohlmann of the PSO group explained why this common-envelope phase is important for our understanding of the way various star systems evolve, “Depending on what the system of the common envelope looks like initially, very different phenomena may ensue in the aftermath, such as thermonuclear supernovae.”

Ohlmann and colleagues are investigating the run-up to these stellar explosions, which are among the most luminous events in the universe and can light up a whole galaxy. But modeling the systems that can lead to such explosions is bedeviled by major uncertainty in the description of the common-envelope phase.

One of the reasons for this is that the core of the giant is anything between a thousand and ten thousand times smaller than the envelope, so that spatial and temporal scale differences complicate the modeling process and make approximations necessary. The methodically innovative simulations performed by the Heidelberg scientists are a first step towards a better understanding of this phase.

Ten US Senators pressed the Obama Administration on Wednesday to strengthen its climate commitments by dropping all new fossil fuel leases from the 5-year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program.

The letter, which was sent to Interior Secretary Sally Jewel, was signed by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Ben Cardin (D-MD).

“Our nation’s federal public waters should be managed for the benefit of the American public, and unlocking new carbon reserves in the Atlantic and Arctic Ocean, as well as continuing to offer new leases in the Gulf of Mexico, many of which have the potential to produce oil and gas for decades into the future, runs counter to the best interests of this nation,” wrote the Senators. “The proposed expansion of the 2017-2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program would contradict the President’s climate goals, and unnecessarily threaten local communities, resources, and ecosystems, all the while damaging the global climate.”

They concluded, “We strongly urge the Department of the Interior to critically examine the impact on climate change from expanded oil and gas production in the subsequent stages of developing the 2017-2022 plan. Given the prevailing science and critical need to quickly reduce carbon emissions, we believe it is imperative that the federal government does not offer new leases, and make every effort to terminate existing, nonproducing leases, for fossil fuel development in public waters.”

In November, Merkley, Cardin, Sanders, Leahy, Warren and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the Keep It in the Ground Act, landmark legislation to end all new fossil fuel leases on federal public lands and waters in the United States.

The full text of the letter follows below.

Dear Secretary Jewell:

We are writing in regards to the proposed 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program and the subsequent effects on our nation’s climate goals. We urge that the upcoming five year OCS leasing program refrain from opening any new fossil fuel reserves for development in order to keep with the President’s commitment to keep the planet’s average temperature rise under 2° Celsius. We believe that in order to maintain consistent climate policy, fossil fuel reserves in the OCS program should be permanently protected from new development.

In January 2015, the Department of Interior released a Draft Proposed Program (DPP) for the 2017-2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The DPP included three planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico, two in the Atlantic, and three in Alaska. While we are pleased the DPP did not open new carbon reserves off the Pacific Coast, the proposed planning areas still encompass nearly 80% of estimated undiscovered and technically available oil and gas resources on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, and have the potential to unlock the emissions of 90 billion barrels of crude oil and 405 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

According to the most current science, the world has approximately 1,000 Gigatons of CO2 emissions left before it hits the 2° Celsius warming threshold. The International Energy Agency estimates that if the world continues its current emissions course, we will exhaust our carbon budget by 2040, highlighting the pressing need to stop the development of new fossil fuel energy sources. Given the urgent timeline, it is even more important that most untapped reserves, such as oil in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, stay in the ground in order to avoid 2° Celsius of warming.

While we applaud the Administration’s efforts to combat climate change through the Clean Power Plan and other initiatives, we are troubled by the inherent contradiction in the Department of Interior’s proposal to expand the leasing of public waters and facilitate the development of new fossil fuels reserves.

Our nation’s federal public waters should be managed for the benefit of the American public, and unlocking new carbon reserves in the Atlantic and Arctic Ocean, as well as continuing to offer new leases in the Gulf of Mexico, many of which have the potential to produce oil and gas for decades into the future, runs counter to the best interests of this nation. The proposed expansion of the 2017-2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program would contradict the President’s climate goals, and unnecessarily threaten local communities, resources, and ecosystems, all the while damaging the global climate.

We strongly urge the Department of the Interior to critically examine the impact on climate change from expanded oil and gas production in the subsequent stages of developing the 2017-2022 plan. Given the prevailing science and critical need to quickly reduce carbon emissions, we believe it is imperative that the federal government does not offer new leases, and make every effort to terminate existing, nonproducing leases, for fossil fuel development in public waters in the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program.

We request that you report back to Congress on how your agency plans to incorporate climate change into the 2017-2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program, and explain how expanding fossil fuel development in federal waters complies with the Administration’s commitment to mitigate global climate change. We ask that you provide this information before your agency releases the Proposed Final Program and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the 2017-2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program.

Thank you for your consideration.

Scientists at the Helmholtz Zentrum München have discovered that extracts of the medicinal plant Cistus incanus (Ci) prevent human immunodeficiency viruses from infecting cells. Active antiviral ingredients in the extracts inhibit the docking of viral proteins to cells, the researchers said.

Antiviral activity of Cistus extracts also targets Ebola and Marburg viruses, according to the researchers. The results were published in Scientific Reports*.

Virus infections are among the ten leading causes of death worldwide and represent a major global health challenge. Their control requires the continuous development of new and potent antiviral drugs/therapeutic options. Despite the availability of numerous drugs for chronic treatment of HIV/AIDS, new drugs are needed to prevent the emergence of drug resistant viral variants. Furthermore, new antiviral drugs are required for rapid treatment of acute infections by viruses like Marburg and Ebola viruses during acute viral outbreaks.

A recent study by the team of Professor Ruth Brack-Werner and Dr. Stephanie Rebensburg from the Institute for Virology (VIRO) of the Helmholtz Zentrum München demonstrates that extracts of the medicinal plant Cistus incanus attack HIV and Ebola virus particles and prevent them from multiplying in cultured cells.

HIV: broad activity, no resistance

The Brack-Werner team found potent activity of Ci extracts acted against a broad spectrum of clinical HIV-1 and HIV-2 isolates. This also included a virus isolate resistant against most available drugs.

“Antiviral ingredients of Ci extracts target viral envelope proteins on infectious particles and prevent them from contacting host cells,” Brack-Werner said.

No resistant viruses were detected during long-term treatment (24 weeks) with Ci extract, indicating that Ci extract attacks viruses without causing resistance. The Brack-Werner study suggests that commercial herbal extracts from plants like Cistus incanus*or other plants like Pelargonium sidoides** are promising material for the development of scientifically validated antiviral phytotherapeutics.

“Since antiviral activity of Ci extracts differs from all clinically approved drugs, Ci-derived products could be an important complementation to current established drug regimens,” said Brack-Werner.

Antiviral activity of Cistus extracts also targets Ebola and Marburg proteins in virus particles

Ci extracts not only blocked different HIV isolates, but also virus particles carrying Marburg and Ebola viral envelope proteins.

Analysis of the antiviral components of the extract revealed the presence of multiple antiviral ingredients that may act in combination. These results firmly establish broad antiviral activity of Ci extracts against various major human viral pathogens, including previously reported activity against influenza viruses.

Potential applications of Ci extract for global control of lethal virus infections

Further development of these plant extracts may advance global treatment and control of virus infections in various ways. Thus these plant extracts may be useful starting material for the development of potent herbal agents against selected virus infections. Another application could be their development into crèmes or gels (i.e. microbicides) that prevent transmission of viruses like HIV during sexual intercourse. Finally, these plant extracts represent promising collections of natural antiviral agents for the discovery of new antiviral molecules.

Future work in the Brack-Werner lab will focus on investigating the antiviral potential of these plant-derived products for applications in humans and detailed analysis of their active antiviral ingredients.

*Rebensburg, S. et al. (2016) Potent in vitro antiviral activity of Cistus incanus extract against HIV and Filoviruses targets viral envelope proteins. Scientific Reports, doi: 10.1038/srep20394

**Helfer, M. et al. (2014) The root extract of the medicinal plant Pelargonium sidoides is a potent HIV-1 attachment inhibitor. PLOS ONE, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087487

A new species of tarantula named after the famous singer-songwriter Johnny Cash is one of fourteen new spiders discovered in the southwestern United States.

While these charismatic spiders have captured the attention of people around the world, and have been made famous by Hollywood, little was actually known about them. The new descriptions nearly double the number of species known from the region. Biologists at Auburn University and Millsaps College have described these hairy, large-bodied spiders in the open-access journal ZooKeys.

“We often hear about how new species are being discovered from remote corners of the Earth, but what is remarkable is that these spiders are in our own backyard,” said Dr. Chris Hamilton, lead author of the study. “With the Earth in the midst of a sixth mass extinction, it is astonishing how little we know about our planet’s biodiversity, even for charismatic groups such as tarantulas.”

Tarantulas within the genus Aphonopelma are among the most unique species of spider in the United States. One aspect of this distinctiveness that is particularly intriguing is the extreme size differences that can be found between species. Some species are quite impressive, reaching six inches (15 centimeters) or more in leg span, while others can fit on the face of an American quarter-dollar coin.

Within the United States, Aphonopelma are found in twelve states across the southern third of the country, ranging west of the Mississippi River to California. These spiders are conspicuous during the warmer months when adult males abandon their burrows in search of mates, yet very little was known about these spiders prior to the study.

Dr. Hamilton noted that more than fifty different species of tarantulas had been previously reported from the United States, but that many of them were poorly defined and actually belonged to the same species.

To gain a better understanding of the diversity and distributions of these spiders, the research team spent more than a decade searching for tarantulas throughout scorching deserts, frigid mountains, and other locations in the American Southwest, sometimes literally in someone’s backyard. They studied nearly 3,000 specimens, undertaking the most comprehensive taxonomic study ever performed on a group of tarantulas.

Because most species of tarantula in the United States are very similar in appearance and cannot be distinguished from each other using anatomical features alone, the research team implemented a modern and “integrative” approach to taxonomy by employing anatomical, behavioral, distributional, and genetic data. Their results indicate there are 29 species in the United States, 14 of which are new to science.

Johnny Cash. Photo by Joel Baldwin, Wikipedia Commons.

Of the new species, one has been named Aphonopelma johnnycashi after the influential American singer-songwriter Johnny Cash. Dr. Hamilton coined the name because the species is found in California near Folsom Prison (famous for Cash’s song “Folsom Prison Blues”) and because mature males are generally solid black in coloration (paying homage to Cash’s distinctive style of dress where he has been referred to as the “Man in black”).

While the researchers found that most species are abundant and have relatively large distributions, they also noted that some have highly restricted distributions and may require conservation efforts in the not-so-distant future, as they lose their habitats due to climate change and human encroachment.

“Two of the new species are confined to single mountain ranges in southeastern Arizona, one of the United States’ biodiversity hotspots,” said Brent Hendrixson, a co-author of the study. “These fragile habitats are threatened by increased urbanization, recreation, and climate change. There is also some concern that these spiders will become popular in the pet trade due to their rarity, so we need to consider the impact that collectors may have on populations as well.”

Tarantulas have gained notoriety for their imposing appearance and perceived threat to humans, but Dr. Hamilton noted that the fear is largely unfounded and that the species in the United States do not readily bite, are not dangerous, and are really just “teddy bears with eight legs”.

In addition to spider specimens collected by the research team, the study used a tremendous number of specimens gathered from museum collections across the United States, including the Auburn University Museum of Natural History (AUMNH). Project senior author Dr. Jason Bond, director of the AUMNH, noted that studies like these highlight the critical role that museum collections play in understanding our planet’s biodiversity. The AUMNH, located in Auburn, Alabama, possesses the second largest collection of Aphonopelma in the world, behind the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

By James Borton*

The upcoming US-ASEAN summit on February 15-16 in Rancho Mirage, California provides an opportunity for the Obama administration to boldly demonstrate its rebalance towards Asia, and for the U.S. Senate to assert America’s national interests by ratifying the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Since the ten countries that make up ASEAN are home to 660 million people and represent the world’s seventh largest economy, it’s vital to demonstrate proof of strategic commitment to US allies, to denounce China’s militarization of outposts, and to uphold freedom of navigation in the South China Sea.

It’s clear that more US military leaders, national security planners, policy pundits, and ASEAN members like the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam, are impatiently waiting for this treaty approval to effectively address and to manage China’s continued aggressive actions to expand its power and influence in the contested South China Sea.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, was adopted in 1982. One hundred and sixty-two countries, including China and Russia, are signatories to the treaty that governs the world’s oceans. The United States is not.

The time has come to put partisan politics aside, and focus on national interests. While the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet continues to reinforce freedom of the seas or rather ‘Freedom of Navigation Operations,’ in the South China Sea’s troubled waters, the formal treaty defines limits of a country’s territorial sea, establishes clear rules for transit through “international straits,” and “exclusive economic zones (EEZs).”

In short, as a signature to the treaty, it allows the US military complete freedom of action and does not interfere with critical American-led programs like the Proliferation Security Initiative. Washington has long declared our interests and respect for international law, freedom of navigation, and peaceful resolution of disputes.

With the ratification, the United States would have legal standing to bring any complaints to an international dispute resolution body and thus avoid possible confrontation with Chinese naval forces and paramilitary fishing trawlers around the Spratly Islands.

Furthermore, the treaty provides formal cooperation with other countries, because almost all of America’s allies, neighbors, and friends are party to the Convention. The political mantra is simple: the U.S. requires maximum freedom both for naval and commercial vessels to navigate and to operate off foreign coasts without interference.

With a ratification vote, America can secure its navigational freedoms and global access for military and commercial ships, aircraft, and undersea fiber optic cables. The U.S. currently asserts its rights to freedom of navigation through customary international law, which is subject to change and diplomatic interpretations.

The ratification of UNCLOS will enable the U.S. to regain its rightful strategic place in the Pacific and transform rhetoric into action. Despite the Administration’s lame duck status, it is imperative that our military treaty partners in Asia know that we remain the world’s pre-eminent maritime power. The present concern is that some UNCLOS member states are trying to re-shift the balance away from freedom of navigation and free transit of international waters.

UNCLOS membership grants the U.S. the power and credibility to support and promote the peaceful resolution of disputes within a rules-based order.

Of course, the exclusion of the U.S. last year from the Permanent Court of Arbitration hearings concerning the Republic of the Philippines vs. the People’s Republic of China is a warning of problems to come. By not ratifying the UNCLOS Treaty, America is cutting itself out of a considerable amount of leverage for international support for its concerns, such as freedom of navigation operations.

Naturally, the most pressing challenge facing the South China Sea is how to avoid any resort to violence among armed forces of the various claimant states that could lead to further escalation and to the possibility of military engagement by greater powers. There’s compelling evidence that UNCLOS provides guideposts on the rights of coastal states while offering little or no answers to territorial sovereignty.

Failure to join nets only wasted political capital for even nearby upstream environmental concerns. For example, Professor John McManus, a noted marine biologist at the University of Florida, claims that some of the lobsters being caught in Florida are believed to be transported in from other countries as larvae, such as from Antigua, Bermuda or Cuba, all upstream from Florida. If the U.S. were to establish that poor fishery management practices in those countries were damaging the lobster fishery and associated economy in Florida, then UNCLOS would be a rational basis for arbitration on the issue.

However, the U.S. currently relies on a hypocritical stance that UNCLOS standards should apply to international dealings on the seas despite its own lack of ratification. Next month’s summit offers an ideal venue to build on the deeper partnership that the United States has forged with ASEAN and may succeed in advancing the administration’s Asia rebalance. The announcement of a plan to ratify UNCLOS will inspire confidence and trust in America’s word.

Finally, accession would ensure America’s ability to address the benefits of the opening of the Arctic – a region of increasingly important in terms of maritime security and economic interests. It’s true that the UNCLOS establishes exclusive economic zones. While the United States insists on implementation of exclusive economic zones, it has refused to ratify the treaty, perhaps as some suggest because of deeply entrenched political disagreements over the International Seabed Authority, created under the UNCLOS, to regulate deep-sea mining in international waters. Since the United States hasn’t ratified UNCLOS, it hasn’t been able to formally claim any underwater boundaries. And Russia questions why if the United States isn’t bound by the restrictions the UNCLOS imposes, should Russia accept them?

This translates into another looming maritime territorial and politicized problem that America can ill afford. Joining the Convention will maximize international recognition and acceptance of America’s extended continental Artic shelf claims.

Make no mistake about it. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea may contribute to a solution, but it has also contributed to the scramble for maritime territory and resources.

Perhaps Professor of Law Bernard Oxman, former advisor on Oceans, Environment and Scientific Affairs to the US State Department and author of “The Territorial Temptation: A Siren Song at Sea” has it right when he writes,“ there is no plausible alternative to the system of territorial states, a system, that for all its limitations, continues to confer significant benefits on humanity.”

Let’s wait and see if the US-ASEAN Summit proves more than a mirage.

About the author:
*James Borton is a faculty associate at the Walker Institute at the University of South Carolina and a non-resident fellow at the Saigon Center for International Studies at the University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Ho Chi Minh City.

Source:
This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

In the realm of International Relations, over the last three years we have seen the apex of Albania’s strategic cooperation with the Republic of Turkey. Such a thriving partnership between Ankara and Tirana is not a mere coincidence; in fact it is due to a series of contributing factors: a mutually shaped history for over five centuries; both nations hold democratic elections and have democratic governments; and the effective public diplomacy embraced by the outgoing Albanian Ambassador in Ankara, Ambassador Genci Muçaj.

It is admirable to see that a representative of one of the smallest nations of Europe, with very limited resources, was able to arrange many official visits to Ankara and make his home country become a strategic partner to the Government of Turkey, regardless of their very different territorial size and somewhat geographical but not geopolitical distances.

Over the years, both nations have shared each others history and culture; in the same vein, Turkey is home to one of the largest Albanian Diasporas in the world.

The Turkish – Albanian community, although it is completely abandoned and ignored by the Albanian government has emerged as a natural entity of modern Turkey; members of this community have invested their lives in order to protect and build this great country under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk!

Albanians in Turkey are even more proud to be part of Turkey because of their Albanian roots. They are an indispensable factor of statehood and have contributed for the establishment of a strong, united and a democratic Turkey; it is no stranger that as Ankara becomes stronger and safer, it brings a great level of safety and security to Europe as a whole.

Over the last three years, Turkey became the fourth largest trading partner of Albania, reaching a total of US$ 400 million/year; hope remains high so that the upcoming Albanian Ambassador would genuinely contribute to maintain this dynamic trade cooperation between both countries.

The establishment of the Albanian Cultural Center founded under the leadership of Ambassador Genci Muçaj and other Albanian Ambassador of the Republic of Kosova is testimony to a great partnership that exists amid both countries.

The Albanian Cultural Center in Ankara was established two year ago thanks to a close partnership between the Albanian Embassy and the Embassy of Kosovo in Turkey. Both Ambassadors believed that culture is related to nation not states!

Moreover, Ambassador Muçaj has coordinated the signing of many bilateral agreements; worked closely with Ankara in order to increase and mature the direct aid and investment assistance that has reached a cumulative amount of US$ 1.5 billion (during the last twenty years).

During Ambassador Muçaj’s tenure (2013-2016), have taken place ten high level official visits including: three official visits of Albanian President, Mr. Bujar Nishani to Turkey; three official visits of Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama to Ankara; various official visits of Albanian Minister of Defense and Minister of Agriculture and Water Resources; and the official visit of Turkish President to Tirana on May 14, 2015.

Only recently was published a three thousand pages dictionary with words of Turkish – Albanian –Turkish and the Department of Albanian Language will be inaugurated at the University of Ankara 2016-2017 academic year, equipped with a substantial library that has over twenty thousand rare books.

It is well known that Ambassador Muçaj has always echoed the famous saying: “the Religion of Albanians is being Albanian” which has sparked furious reactions among religious radicals! Additionally, Ambassador Muçaj has given a rare impetus to Albania’s partnership with other countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kirgizstan.

In conclusion, it must be noted that Albania and Turkey stand side by side in the war against corruption, fight against terrorism and organized crime. Both countries and governments are very keen to further strengthen their bilateral ties. However the abrupt and unjustifiable changes in Albania’s diplomatic post in Ankara will certainly be felt especially in the vibrant communication that was established during the diplomatic tenure of Muçaj. Turkey and Albania, have reached the apex of partnership, however Tirana’s foreign policy remains shortsighted, imprudent and ungrateful to its hard working diplomats.

Let’s hope that under the remaining tenure of Prime Minister Edi Rama we will observe in fact the expulsion from Albania’s territory of Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic preacher and leader of a terrorist organization, a constantly ignored request made by the Turkish government to the current Albanian Government.

Following is the complete transcript of the speech that US President Barack Obama gave Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast as released by the White House.

By US President Barack Obama

(Washington Hilton, Washington, D.C.) — THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much. Thank you. (Applause.) You’re very kind. Thank you very much. Well, good morning.

AUDIENCE: Good morning.

THE PRESIDENT: Giving all praise and honor to God for bringing us together here this morning.

I want to thank everyone who helped organize this breakfast, especially our co-chairs, Robert and Juan, who embody the tradition of friendship, fellowship, and prayer. I will begin with a confession: I have always felt a tinge of guilt motorcading up here at the heart of D.C.’s rush hour. (Laughter.) I suspect that not all the commuters were blessing me as they waited to get to work. (Laughter.) But it’s for a good cause. A National Prayer Brunch doesn’t have the same ring to it. (Laughter.)

And Michelle and I are extremely honored, as always, to be with so many friends, with members of Congress, with faith leaders from across the country and around the world, to be with the Speaker, Leader. I want thank Mark and Roma for their friendship and their extraordinary story, and sharing those inspiring words. Andre, for sharing his remarkable gifts.

And on this occasion, I always enjoy reflecting on a piece of scripture that’s been meaningful to me or otherwise sustained me throughout the year. And lately, I’ve been thinking and praying on a verse from Second Timothy: “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

We live in extraordinary times. Times of extraordinary change. We’re surrounded by tectonic shifts in technology and in our economy; by destructive conflict, disruptions to our climate. And it all reshapes the way we work and the way we live. It’s all amplified by a media that is unceasing, and that feeds 24/7 on our ever-shrinking attention spans.

And as a student of history, I often remind people that the challenges that we face are not unique; that in fact, the threats of previous eras — civil war or world war or cold war, depressions or famines — those challenges put our own in perspective. Moreover, I believe that our unique strengths as a nation make us better equipped than others to harness this change to work for us, rather than against us.

And yet, the sheer rapidity of change, and the uncertainty that it brings, is real. The hardship of a family trying to make ends meet. Refugees fleeing from a war-torn home. Those things are real. Terrorism, eroding shorelines — those things are real. Even the very progress that humanity has made, the affluence, the stability that so many of us enjoy, far greater prosperity than any previous generation of humanity has experienced, shines a brighter light on those who still struggle, reveal the gap in prospects that exist for the children of the world.

And that gap between want and plenty, it gives us vertigo. It can make us afraid, not only of the possibility that progress will stall, but that maybe we have more to lose. And fear does funny things. Fear can lead us to lash out against those who are different, or lead us to try to get some sinister “other” under control. Alternatively, fear can lead us to succumb to despair, or paralysis, or cynicism. Fear can feed our most selfish impulses, and erode the bonds of community.

It is a primal emotion — fear — one that we all experience. And it can be contagious, spreading through societies, and through nations. And if we let it consume us, the consequences of that fear can be worse than any outward threat.

For me, and I know for so many of you, faith is the great cure for fear. Jesus is a good cure for fear. God gives believers the power, the love, the sound mind required to conquer any fear. And what more important moment for that faith than right now? What better time than these changing, tumultuous times to have Jesus standing beside us, steadying our minds, cleansing our hearts, pointing us towards what matters. (Applause.)

His love gives us the power to resist fear’s temptations. He gives us the courage to reach out to others across that divide, rather than push people away. He gives us the courage to go against the conventional wisdom and stand up for what’s right, even when it’s not popular. To stand up not just to our enemies but, sometimes, to stand up to our friends. He gives us the fortitude to sacrifice ourselves for a larger cause. Or to make tough decisions knowing that we can only do our best. Less of me, more of God. And then, to have the courage to admit our failings and our sins while pledging to learn from our mistakes and to try to do better.

Certainly, during the course of this enormous privilege to have served as the President of the United States, that’s what faith has done for me. It helps me deal with the common, everyday fears that we all share. The main one I’m feeling right now is that our children grow up too fast. (Laughter.) They’re leaving. (Laughter.) That’s a tough deal. (Laughter.) And so, as a parent, you’re worrying about will some harm befall them, how are they going to manage without you, did you miss some central moment in their lives. Will they call? (Laughter.) Or text? (Laughter.) Each day, we’re fearful that God’s purpose becomes elusive, cloudy. We try to figure out how we fit into his broader plan. They’re universal fears that we have, and my faith helps me to manage those.

And then my faiths helps me to deal with some of the unique elements of my job. As one of the great departed heroes of our age, Nelson Mandela, once said, “I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it… The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.”

And certainly, there are times where I’ve had to repeat that to myself while holding this office. When you hear from a parade of experts, just days after you’re elected, that another Great Depression is a very real possibility — that will get your attention. (Laughter.) When you tell a room full of young cadets that you’ve made a decision to send them into harm’s way, knowing that some of them might not return safely — that’s sobering. When you hold in your arms the mothers and fathers of innocent children gunned down in their classroom — that reminds you there’s evil in the world. And so you come to understand what President Lincoln meant when he said that he’d been driven to his knees by the overwhelming conviction that he had no place else to go.

And so like every President, like every leader, like every person, I’ve known fear. But my faith tells me that I need not fear death; that the acceptance of Christ promises everlasting life and the washing away of sins. (Applause.) If Scripture instructs me to “put on the full armor of God” so that when trouble comes, I’m able to stand, then surely I can face down these temporal setbacks, surely I can battle back doubts, surely I can rouse myself to action.

And should that faith waver, should I lose my way, I have drawn strength not only from a remarkable wife, not only from incredible colleagues and friends, but I have drawn strength from witnessing all across this country and all around this world, good people, of all faiths, who do the Lord’s work each and every day, Who wield that power and love, and sound mind to feed the hungry and heal the sick, to teach our children and welcome the stranger.

Think about the extraordinary work of the congregations and faith communities represented here today. Whether fighting global poverty or working to end the scourge of human trafficking, you are the leaders of what Pope Francis calls “this march of living hope.”

When the Earth cleaves in Haiti, Christians, Sikhs, and other faith groups sent volunteers to distribute aid, tend to the wounded, rebuild homes for the homeless.

When Ebola ravaged West Africa, Jewish, Christian, Muslim groups responded to the outbreak to save lives. And as the news fanned the flames of fear, churches and mosques responded with a powerful rebuke, welcoming survivors into their pews.

When nine worshippers were murdered in a Charleston church basement, it was people of all faiths who came together to wrap a shattered community in love and understanding.

When Syrian refugees seek the sanctuary of our shores, it’s the faithful from synagogues, mosques, temples, and churches who welcome them, the first to offer blankets and food and open their homes. Even now, people of different faiths and beliefs are coming together to help people suffering in Flint.

And then there’s the most — less spectacular, more quiet efforts of congregations all across this country just helping people. Seeing God in others. And we’re driven to do this because we’re driven by the value that so many of our faiths teach us -– I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper. As Christians, we do this compelled by the Gospel of Jesus — the command to love God, and love one another.

And so, yes, like every person, there are times where I’m fearful. But my faith and, more importantly, the faith that I’ve seen in so many of you, the God I see in you, that makes me inevitably hopeful about our future. I have seen so many who know that God has not given us a spirit of fear. He has given us power, and love, and a sound mind.

We see that spirit in people like Pastor Saeed Abedini, imprisoned for no crime other than holding God in his heart. And last year, we prayed that he might be freed. And this year, we give thanks that he is home safe. (Applause.)

We pray for God’s protection for all around the world who are not free to practice their faith, including Christians who are persecuted, or who have been driven from their ancient homelands by unspeakable violence. (Applause.) And just as we call on other countries to respect the rights of religious minorities, we, too, respect the right of every single American to practice their faith freely. (Applause.) For this is what each of us is called on to do: To seek our common humanity in each other. To make sure our politics and our public discourse reflect that same spirit of love and sound mind. To assume the best in each other and not just the worst — and not just at the National Prayer Breakfast. To begin each of our works from the shared belief that all of us want what’s good and right for our country and our future.

We can draw such strength from the quiet moments of heroism around us every single day. And so let me close with two such stories that I’ve come to know just over the past week.

A week ago, I spoke at a ceremony held at the Israeli Embassy for the first time, honoring the courage of people who saved Jews during the Holocaust. And one of the recipients was the grandson — or the son of an American soldier who had been captured by the Nazis. So a group of American soldiers are captured, and their captors ordered Jewish POWs to identify themselves. And one sergeant, a Christian named Roddie Edmonds, from Tennessee, ordered all American troops to report alongside them. They lined up in formation, approximately 200 of them, and the Nazi colonel said, “I asked only for the Jewish POWs,” and said, “These can’t all be Jewish.” And Master Sergeant Edmonds stood there and said, “We are all Jews.” And the colonel took out his pistol and held it to the Master Sergeant’s head and said, “Tell me who the Jews are.” And he repeated, “We are all Jews.” And faced with the choice of shooting all those soldiers, the Nazis relented. And so, through his moral clarity, through an act of faith, Sergeant Edmonds saved the lives of his Jewish brothers-in-arms. (Applause.)

A second story. Just yesterday, some of you may be aware I visited a mosque in Baltimore to let our Muslim-American brothers and sisters know that they, too, are Americans and welcome here. (Applause.) And there I met a Muslim-American named Rami Nashashibi, who runs a nonprofit working for social change in Chicago. And he forms coalitions with churches and Latino groups and African Americans in this poor neighborhood in Chicago. And he told me how the day after the tragedy in San Bernardino happened, he took his three young children to a playground in the Marquette Park neighborhood, and while they were out, the time came for one of the five daily prayers that are essential to the Muslim tradition. And on any other day, he told me, he would have immediately put his rug out on the grass right there and prayed.

But that day, he paused. He feared any unwelcome attention he might attract to himself and his children. And his seven year-old daughter asked him, “What are you doing, Dad? Isn’t it time to pray?” And he thought of all the times he had told her the story of the day that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rabbi Robert Marx, and 700 other people marched to that very same park, enduring hatred and bigotry, dodging rocks and bottles, and hateful words, in order to challenge Chicago housing segregation, and to ask America to live up to our highest ideals.

And so, at that moment, drawing from the courage of men of different religions, of a different time, Rami refused to teach his children to be afraid. Instead, he taught them to be a part of that legacy of faith and good conscience. “I want them to understand that sometimes faith will be tested,” he told me, “and that we will be asked to show immense courage, like others have before us, to make our city, our country, and our world a better reflection of all our ideals.” And he put down his rug and he prayed. (Applause.)

Now, those two stories, they give me courage and they give me hope. And they instruct me in my own Christian faith. I can’t imagine a moment in which that young American sergeant expressed his Christianity more profoundly than when, confronted by his own death, he said “We are all Jews.” (Applause.) I can’t imagine a clearer expression of Jesus’s teachings. I can’t imagine a better expression of the peaceful spirit of Islam than when a Muslim father, filled with fear, drew from the example of a Baptist preacher and a Jewish rabbi to teach his children what God demands. (Applause.)

For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. I pray that by His grace, we all find the courage to set such examples in our own lives — not just during this wonderful gathering and fellowship, not just in the public piety that we profess, but in those smaller moments when it’s difficult, when we’re challenged, when we’re angry, when we’re confronted with someone who doesn’t agree with us, when no one is watching. I pray, as Roma* so beautifully said, that our differences ultimately are bridged; that the God that is in each of us comes together, and we don’t divide.

I pray that our leaders will always act with humility and generosity. I pray that my failings are forgiven. I pray that we will uphold our obligation to be good stewards of God’s creation — this beautiful planet. I pray that we will see every single child as our own, each worthy of our love and of our compassion. And I pray we answer Scripture’s call to lift up the vulnerable, and to stand up for justice, and ensure that every human being lives in dignity.

That’s my prayer for this breakfast, and for this country, in the years to come.

May God bless you, and may He continue to bless this country that we love. (Applause.)

Loss of ice in Antarctica caused by a warming ocean could raise global sea levels by three meters, research by Northumbria and Edinburgh universities suggests.

Scientists carrying out fieldwork in the region have assessed the landscape to determine how the West Antarctic ice sheet might respond to increasing global temperatures.

In the first study of its kind, researchers were able to gauge how levels of ice covering the land have changed over hundreds of thousands of years. They did so by studying peaks protruding through ice in the Ellsworth Mountains, on the Atlantic flank of Antarctica.

The team assessed changes on slopes at various heights on the mountainside, which indicate levels previously reached by the ice sheet. They also mapped the distribution of boulders on the mountainside, which were deposited by melting glaciers. Chemical technology – known as exposure dating – showed how long rocks had been exposed to the atmosphere, and their age.

Their results indicate that during previous warm periods, a substantial amount of ice would have been lost from the West Antarctic ice sheet by ocean melting, but it would not have melted entirely. This suggests that ice would have been lost from areas below sea level, but not on upland areas. The research shows that parts of the West Antarctic ice sheet have existed continuously for at least 1.4 million years.

The study, published in Nature Communications, was carried out by researchers at Northumbria University and the University of Edinburgh, alongside the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre. It was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council and the British Antarctic Survey.

Professor John Woodward, Northumbria’s Associate Dean (Research and Innovation) in Engineering and Environment, co-led the study.

According to Woodward, “It is possible that the ice sheet has passed the point of no return and, if so, the big question is how much will go and how much will sea levels rise.”

Dr Andrew Hein, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of GeoSciences, joint leader of the study, added: “Our findings narrow the margin of uncertainty around the likely impact of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet on sea level rise. This remains a troubling forecast since all signs suggest the ice from West Antarctica could disappear relatively quickly.”

Cold and paleo environments are one of Northumbria’s research specialisms in the Department of Geography. Research involves field based projects in cold regions across the globe, including Antarctica, a range of high Arctic European and Canadian sites, New Zealand, the Alps, Alaska and Chile.

The group applies novel techniques to field data collection, including ground-penetrating radar, new borehole radar technologies, seismics, NIR camera techniques, meteorological monitoring technologies, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and terrestrial laser scanning (TLS), to address fundamental questions in Earth Systems Science. Cutting-edge physical and numerical modelling, remote sensing and laboratory techniques for palaeo-environmental work are also applied.

By Michael R. Matheny

Civilization began because the beginning of civilization is a military advantage.”1 This observation by Walter Bagehot is not far off the mark. Warfare certainly matured along with civilization as a violent expression of political will and intent. We currently view the art of warfare in three levels—tactical, operational, and strategic—but it was not always so. In the beginning, there were strategy and tactics. Strategy outlined how and to what purpose war might be used to achieve political objectives. Tactics directed how the violence was actually applied on the battlefield.

For most of military history, tactical art was able to achieve strategic objectives as tribes, forces, and armies marshaled on the battlefield to destroy the enemy’s ability to resist their master’s political will. Although much debated, operational art was born at the end of the 19th century when the size of armies, made possible by the development of the nation-state, rendered tactics unable to bring about political results. Civilization has moved on. From a doctrinal, theoretical, and practical point of view, it is now time to consider a fourth level of war—the theater-strategic level of war.

Doctrine

There is little written about theater strategy in U.S. doctrine. Joint Publication 5-0, Joint Operation Planning, includes only a single paragraph on what would seem an important subject. U.S. doctrine acknowledges the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war. However, doctrine also includes a theater-strategic level in an overlapping area that suggests this level bridges the operational and strategic levels.2 Yet the operational level is defined as linking “strategy and tactics by establishing operational objectives needed to achieve the military end states and strategic objectives.”3 So what is the theater-strategic level of war? What is theater strategy? The problem in placing theater strategy in some useful context is that we already have so many kinds of strategy and no real consensus on what they are.

On the menu of strategies, we can find grand, national, national security, national military, just plain military, and theater strategies. All of these are harnessed to serve policy, but each varies in its objectives and means. There is a wide range of definitions of strategy, most of which illustrate an attribute rather than its essential nature. They range from the general: Art Lykke’s famous “strategy equals ends plus ways plus means”; to Lawrence Freedman’s more poetic “a story told in the future tense”; to Colin Gray’s more specific “the use or threat of military power for political purposes.”4 The Department of Defense (DOD) asserts that strategy is “a prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and multinational objectives.”5 This suggests that strategy involves the whole weight of the U.S. Government in the pursuit of national policy. Does theater strategy likewise involve all elements of national power?

In the pursuit of U.S. national policy, DOD has divided the world into six geographic combatant commands. Combatant commanders oversee these areas of responsibility and develop theater strategies. By doctrine, a theater strategy is “an overarching construct outlining a combatant commander’s vision for integrating and synchronizing military activities and operations with the other elements of national power to achieve national strategic objectives.”6 Combatant commanders can only seek to synchronize and integrate, not to direct other elements of national power in the pursuit of unity of effort. Theater commanders conduct business in the complex environment of national, international, coalition, and alliance policy. The theater is where policy meets the joint force. How is this done and to what purpose?

Combatant commanders work for the Secretary of Defense and President through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Charged with geographic responsibilities, they employ “theater strategy to align and focus efforts and resources to mitigate and prepare for conflict and contingencies in their AOR [area of responsibility] to support and advance U.S. interests.”7 A theater campaign plan details the strategy and usually employs security cooperation, building partner capacity, and force posture, among other activities, to achieve the commander’s vision, advance U.S. interests, and prepare for possible contingencies. This is eminently reasonable and desirable and is arguably effective, but it largely addresses steady-state or peacetime requirements. There is no doctrine based on theory or practice for developing or executing theater strategy in war. Specific contingency plans, whether directed by DOD or self-generated by combatant commanders, address specific threats, generally with operational campaign planning. Where does theater strategy fit in wartime, particularly with multiple theaters of operations? Does the scale of effort—the intermediate theater objectives as opposed to theater of operations objectives—justify a fourth level of war?

Theory

The assertion that it is time to consider another level of war directly relates to how these levels are linked and why they now need to be expanded. The oft-quoted Prussian philosopher of war, Carl von Clausewitz, helped to establish the relationship between the levels of war when he noted that “the concepts characteristic of time—war, campaign, and battle—are parallel to those of space—country, theater of operations, and positions.”8 Indeed, the relationship between the levels of war includes time, scale, objectives, effect, and, significantly, the influence of policy. All of these factors are interrelated—that is to say, interactive. For example, there is a temporal relationship between the levels of war. Things happen much faster at the tactical level than at the operational or strategic levels. Likewise, the conduct and results of operational campaigns take less time than the full implementation of national strategies. Indeed, strategic results may take years to fully realize or even manifest. Clausewitz pointed out that this is a natural consequence of the scale and objectives—the relationship between battle, campaign, and war. To better illustrate the temporal relationship, the classic diagram of the levels of war should depict wheels of increasing size. At the tactical level, the wheels and events turn much faster than at the larger operational and strategic levels.

Size matters. War is waged in a geographic context. Each level of war has been historically associated with scale and scope of effort. The tyranny of distance contributes to the temporal relationship between the levels. Tactics is the application of technology to the battlefield to defeat the enemy and thereby gain immediate or cumulative military results. Operational art is applied to a spectrum of operations, connecting or synchronizing battles and major operations to achieve strategic effect. This is particularly the case when a single major operation such as Urgent Fury in Grenada (1983) or Just Cause in Panama (1989) can achieve strategic objectives. Theater strategy in war should seek to synchronize and arrange multiple campaigns in a theater of war or area of responsibility to achieve national strategic objectives. In other words, theater strategy synchronizes multiple theaters of operation.

Levels of war are also distinguished by objectives—how each level contributes to achieving the ultimate policy objectives. In cases where only one theater of operations is engaged in combat operations, there will be almost complete congruence between national, theater, and theater of operations objectives. Theater of operations planning and operations will dominate national attention. Theater of operations objectives and national objectives will be virtually synonymous, and theater strategy will be cast largely in a supporting role. This relationship and the role and function of theater strategy may well change, however, when the theater has multiple theaters of operations conducting military operations.

If, for example, war erupts on the Korean Peninsula, the national, theater of operations, and theater objectives will perfectly align, leading to a victory in Korea. The U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) commander will be cast largely in a supporting role while the Korean theater of operations commander garners national attention and, likely, direct or close supervision by the Secretary of Defense and President. In this case, the USPACOM commander will be cast in a supervisory role, although it will be a largely supporting role. If, however, at the same time a conflict erupts with the Chinese over Taiwan or elsewhere in the region, the theater commander must now actively balance, prioritize, and synchronize major operations or campaigns in the theater to achieve national strategic objectives. In this scenario, theater strategy becomes an essential intermediary level of war due to the scope, scale, and nature of the conflict. Despite this critical theater-strategic role, political scrutiny will inevitably gravitate toward the theater of operations with the most domestic and international political consequences. This is an example of the critical role of policy as a distinguishing feature in the levels of war.

There is an ascending quality to the role of policy in the levels of war that provides both context and constantly exhibits influence. This, of course, is nothing more than reiterating Clausewitz’s most famous insight that war is simply a continuation of policy by other means. But the role of policy varies with the level of war. The tactical art largely involves the application of technology to the battlespace, so technology has more influence than does policy at this level. Progressing from operational to strategic, the influence of policy grows, and at the strategic level, it predominates. Again, Clausewitz anticipated this relationship when he asserted that “Policy, of course, will not extend its influence to operational details. Political considerations do not determine the posting of guards or the employment of patrols. But they are more influential in the planning of war, of the campaign, and often even of the battle.”9

The extent of policymaker involvement in operational details has often been a sticking point in civil-military relations. Should the President be picking target points or making tactical decisions from Washington, DC? The answer invariably lies with the question of the potential strategic or political effects of the tactical action. President Lyndon Johnson was famously involved in picking targets in North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.10 His concern was not tactical effects but the potential of hitting Soviet or Chinese advisors or personnel, which could catastrophically escalate the war. Likewise, President Barack Obama ordered and then watched the tactical raid that took out Osama bin Laden. In both cases, the effects of the action matched to policy objectives determined the relationship between the tactical, operational, and strategic.

Finally, the levels of war are distinguished by their tactical, operational, theater-strategic, and strategic effect. Chance and the unique nature of violence give war a nonlinear character, but the notion of levels of war enables us to visualize and arrange resources to purpose in a fairly linear or conceptual way. The purpose of each level of war is action—to get things done. In a practical reality, this calls for some orderly approach to thinking, planning, and executing military operations. Bounded, directed, and constrained by policy while wrestling with an adaptive animate enemy, planners and commanders seek to stack the odds in their favor. The levels of war are a construct that helps them achieve this. The theater-strategic level is no less a tool than the operational or tactical framework for planning and execution.

What is the relationship of the levels of war in terms of effects? Do we need success at the tactical level to assure success at the operational? Likewise, do we need operational success to achieve theater-strategic or strategic effect? Logic suggests that success at one level makes success at the next level more likely, but it in fact may be insufficient. History is full of cautionary examples where tactical or operational success does not guarantee strategic success. German military history in the 20th century is certainly a case in point. The list of U.S. tactical or even operational success in the limited wars since 1945 leading to equally limited strategic effect might also be cited.

All the levels of war function simultaneously. Some may argue that there is no linear relationship between the levels of war. Indeed, even doctrine recognizes that tactical events may result in immediate strategic effect. This may have increased in recent years due to the pervasive nature and potential influence of media coverage of world events. As an example, the raid to capture or kill bin Laden certainly comes to mind. This tactical or strategic compression is usually rare and the effects are most likely transitory. Despite the impact on U.S. public morale, al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists fight on without bin Laden. The temporal relationship between the levels of war, if true, would suggest that the most enduring effects at each level of war are most likely cumulative. In the planning and conduct of operations with enduring results, the relationship between the levels of war remains useful in arranging operations, assigning tasks, and allocating resources.

Practice

Theater strategy is as old as empires contending for power and influence in distant corners of their reach. The leaders of the Roman, British, and French empires, as well as of succeeding empires, all sought to tailor strategy to specific regions while harmonizing those actions with the greater national purpose. As war spread around the world, beginning with the rise of the nation-state in Europe, theater strategy became ever more necessary. Some nations were better at it than others. In the 18th century, for example, the British won and retained India but lost the United States. World War I demonstrated—and World War II confirmed—that theater strategy was a critical path to national strategic objectives and success. Much like operational art, however, historians have largely ignored theater-strategic art as a specific area worthy of interest and study. Narratives of battles, campaigns, and national strategies continue to dominate the story of military history.

For the U.S. military, current practice is rooted in World War II and postwar solutions to filling the power vacuums left by the destruction of the German and Japanese empires. Even before the war ended, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff decided to retain the unified command system that had proved so successful. In June 1945, the Joint Chiefs issued a directive appointing General Dwight D. Eisenhower as commanding general of U.S. forces in the European theater of operations. In December 1946, President Harry S. Truman approved the Unified Command Plan, which established seven geographic theater commands.11 Over the years, these commands have changed a great deal, but the requirement for geographic responsibilities and the need to plan and orchestrate both daily and potential military activities remain the same. The distinguishing factors among the levels of war—scale, objective, policy, time, and effect—have also been evident at the theater-strategic level of war.

Scale. Over the last decade, U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) has been involved in multiple theaters of operations in the war on terror. In terms of scale, USCENTCOM established separate theaters of operations as the war spread across the Middle East, South Central Asia, and Africa. Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Horn of Africa account for three separate theaters of operations. The potential for multiple and simultaneous theaters of operations within the same geographic combatant commander’s area of responsibility is obvious, particularly in the case of the Pacific and European commands. These potential separate theaters of operations span the full range of conflict, from state to nonstate to hybrid, in every region.

Time and Effects. The temporal relationship between the tactical, operational, theater-strategic, and strategic levels remains constant. Most of the various campaigns in the Middle East and South Central Asia over the last decade have involved counterinsurgency (COIN), building partner capacity (BPC), and counterterrorism operations. Things still happen quickly at the tactical level, but COIN and BPC are inherently slow and expensive. Counterterrorism operations may be less expensive and more discrete but, like COIN and BPC, the effects are cumulative. The strategic decision to surge troops into Iraq in 2007 enabled the operational decision to first secure Baghdad. The many tactical actions that actually extended security to Iraq’s capital took place daily, accumulating to achieve operational effect. The tactical, operational, theater-strategic, and national-strategic effects were linked but not simultaneous and remain separated in time.

The tactical effects were undeniable and came quickly as U.S. forces worked to expand security in the capital region. The operational effects took more time, however, as the number of violent incidents decreased, providing an appearance of incremental progress that did not reflect the reality on the ground.12 It has also been argued that the troop surge allowed the operational consequence of supporting or enabling the Sunni Awakening that developed over the following year.13 Regardless of the debate about the operational effects of the surge, the strategic effects remain contested. Did military operations in Iraq achieve our national objectives of establishing a sustainable, friendly, and democratic Iraq? What is missing is a discussion of theater-strategic effects beyond the national objectives. How did our actions stabilize or destabilize the region? What effect did our conduct of operations in Iraq have on the other theaters of operations? How synchronized was our theater strategy? Clearly, the effects of the U.S. campaign in Iraq are still playing out in the region and continue to resonate across the theater.

Objectives and the Role of Policy. The theater commander will rarely be able to prioritize the theaters of operations within his area of responsibility. This is due to the increasing influence of policy at the theater-strategic level. With regard to objectives, the notion that theater and national objectives are absolutely congruent was confirmed as political attention swayed from Afghanistan to Iraq and back to Afghanistan. Domestic and international politics and Presidential and national credibility all circumscribed the theater commander’s ability to plan and execute operations over time and across the theater.14 In other words, the role of policy was certainly evident and increasingly influential at this level of war, so much so that the role of the theater—that is to say, the combatant commander—often seemed eclipsed.

This has been the case historically. For example, General William Westmoreland, USA, is remembered as the U.S. commander in Vietnam, but few can recall admirals Ulysses S. Sharp, John S. McCain, Jr., or Noel Gayler as USPACOM commanders during the same war. Similarly, few may recall the name of the USCENTCOM commander while General David Petraeus, USA, commanded in Iraq in 2007.15 To win in Vietnam and Iraq was the theater of operations, theater, and national objective. What, then, is the role of the theater commander? Is he an enabler or a supporter? Someone has to be looking after the region, not just the hot war. What have our military actions in the Middle East, taken as a whole, done for our position and our interests in the region? Did we single-handedly pursue the transitory main effort at the risk of losing perspective and balance in the region as a whole? Did we synchronize and orchestrate multiple campaigns in various theaters of operations across the entire theater?

If we look back at the last decade and ask why we may have failed to achieve our objectives, there are many possible reasons for the lack of complete success. One that is considered less often than others is the failure to think hard about the doctrine, theory, and practice of theater-strategic art. The theater-strategic level shares the same defining criteria in the relationship between the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war—those of scale, time, objectives, effects, and the role of policy. If, in the future, we can expect near-simultaneous challenges or conflicts in multiple theaters of operations within a single combatant command, we may well profit from paying more attention to the fourth level of war.

Source:
This article was published in the Joint Force Quarterly 80, which is published by the National Defense University.

Notes:

1 Quoted in Richard A. Preston and Sydney Wise, Men in Arms (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979), 15.

2 Joint Publication (JP) 3-0, Doctrine for Joint Operations (Washington, DC: The Joint Staff, 2011), I-13.

3 JP 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States (Washington, DC: The Joint Staff, 2013), I-8.

4 Arthur F. Lykke, “Defining Military Strategy,” Military Review 69, no. 5 (May 1989); Lawrence Freedman, Strategy: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); Colin Gray, Modern Strategy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

5 JP 1, I-7.

6 JP 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (Washington, DC: The Joint Staff, 2010, as amended through March 2015), 249.

7 JP 5-0, Joint Operation Planning (Washington, DC: The Joint Staff, 2011), II-7.

8 Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), 379.

9 Ibid., 606.

10 See Dennis M. Drew, “Rolling Thunder 1965: Anatomy of Failure,” CADRE Paper, Report No. AU-ARI-CP-86-3, October 1986, available at <www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/readings/drew2.htm>; Sarah Gordon, “Lunch with Robert Caro,” Financial Times, January 4, 2013, available at <www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/5dae469c-50eb-11e2-b287-00144feab49a.html>.

11 Ronald H. Cole et al., The History of the Unified Command Plan 1946–1993 (Washington, DC: Joint History Office, 1995), 11.

12 Peter R. Mansoor, Surge: My Journey with General Petraeus and the Remaking of the Iraq War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 209.

13 Ibid., 263.

14 Bob Woodward, Obama’s Wars (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010), 280: “What is militarily possible must be politically possible.”

15 “In beginning a partnership with Dave Petraeus that would last nearly four and half years in two wars, I would tell him that Iraq was his battlespace and Washington was mine.” See Robert M. Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War (New York: Knopf, 2014), 49.

“Apartheid in Palestine” is a valuable guidance in the struggle for justice in Palestine. Ghada Ageel gathered activists, indigenous Palestinians, and scholars, which do not represent the worn out media views that the public is so tired of hearing. The authors believe that peace to the region can only come if justice is done to Palestinians and their rights, which have been denied for decades by Israel and the international community.

Ghada Ageel is a visiting professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and an active member of Faculty for Palestine/Alberta, Canada. She has gathered authors such as Reem Shaik, Ramzy Baroud, Tali Shapiro, Reza Masali, to name a few from the activist and indigenous side, and scholars such as Keith Hammond, James Cairns, Susan Ferguson, Edward C. Corrigan and others. They present for the readers a deep understanding of the Palestinian narrative that centers around the traumatization of the loss of their homeland and the dispossessions which came along with the expulsion. To non-Palestinians, this narrative hasn’t been widely known, especially in the U. S., because it competes with the Israeli Holocaust narrative of eternal victimization.

Ghada Ageel (ed.), Apartheid in Palestine. Hard Laws and Harder Experiences, University of Alberta Press, Edmonton 2016, $ 59,95.

In this anthology, indigenous voices, activists, and scholars present their views from their very different vantage points. Drawing on personal stories and meticulous research, their common accomplishment is a better understanding of the situation and what needs to be done to achieve equality and a just peace. Palestinian and some Israeli writers document the dispossession that took place since 1948 and continues unabated up until now.

Richard Falk, the renowned Professor emeritus for International Law from Princeton University, sets the right tone in his foreword saying with the Oslo accords in shambles new ideas on both sides are becoming evident. Israeli society is moving to the far-right where ideas of transfer and Bantustanization are wide-spread. The best the Palestinians can expect is a status of second-class citizens. And reasonable Israelis who call for a viable Palestinian sovereign state are like “politically irrelevant voices in the wilderness”.

According to Falk, on the Palestinian side, the focus is shifting from “the level of governments to that of people and popular mobilization”. The Palestinian Authority (PA) has been marginalized due to its collaboration with the Israeli occupier and the U. S. Hamas can’t act politically owing to its ghettoization in the Gaza Strip. One bright spot is the recognition of a Palestinian state by more and more European countries, although they keep repeating the Oslo-mantra of a two-state solution, which is de facto as dead as a dodo.

Some authors write about their life story, which is determined by the traumatic experiences of the loss of a homeland, others talk about their political struggle for justice, which is part of their identity, and a further part of the authors interpret the Palestinian struggle from the perspective of international law and international relations. Many articles describe a hair-raising political situation of Palestinians, which has been applicable designated by Eva Illouz in an article in the Israeli daily Haaretz as “conditions of slavery”.

In her introduction, Ghada Ageel describes her impressions on the horrific onslaught brought about the people of Gaza by the Israeli military machinery in 2014. Shortly the ceasefire came into effect, the author entered the Strip to see her family. She was shocked by wreaked havoc. Despite the increasing support of the BDS movement worldwide and international protest by the United Nations, different relief organizations and a protest letter by sixty-four influential figures, among them seven Nobel laureates, who called for an arms embargo on Israel, the Netanyahu government keeps expanding the colonies in the Jordan Valley. Since Israel rejects all peace options, Israel is either becoming an apartheid state or the Palestinians are facing another ethnic cleansing, as Abeel writes. The topics “Apartheid”, “Nakba” (the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948) and BDS pervade many articles.

The presentation of the authentic Palestinian story by Palestinians in Western media is almost absent, in academia it is hardly better, writes Ramzy Baroud, a consultant for Middle East Eye in London. The Palestinian narrative appears as an annex to the dominant Zionist one or is presented fractional and in a disconnected language that has nothing to do with reality. The Israeli approach seems always cohesive. According to the author, in occupied Palestine, the settlers go on daily rampages under the watchful eyes of the Israeli military in order to cause damage to farmers and to try to break the bond between the inhabitants of Palestine with their land. Baroud mentions the precarious and dismal situation of Palestinian refugees in neighboring Arab countries. “Palestinian refugees are also prisoners, of a precarious legal status, of Israeli intransigence, of international negligence, and of Arab betrayal.” The resistance in Palestine will go on until the people acquire their human rights and dignity.

Keith Hammond, who lectures philosophy in the Open Studies Center of the University of Glasgow, asks the question of Israel’s Legitimacy. Great Britain has the longest engagement with Zionism than any other country in the world, writes the British holocaust expert Cesarani. Hammond mentions Israel’s close incorporation into European institution, although the country violates every value the EU pretends to stand for. He traces British support for the Zionist back to late 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, especially that of the Labor Party. According to Hammond, the “most effective opposition to Zionism in the UK before 1948 came from those inside Jewish communities”. Since the call for a boycott on Israel in 2004, the labor movement started communicating with their Palestinian counterparts. The author calls for a moratorium in order to put pressure on Israel “to change its persecution and dispossession. The right of return for Palestinians has to be honored and the whole nature of politics in Israel shifted.”

Edward C. Corrigan, who works as a specialist in citizenship and immigration law, evaluates Israel’s occupation policy in the light of different international conventions and comes to the conclusion that they are all violated by the occupation regime. His criticism is lodged in the words of Moshe Gorali, the legal analyst for Haaretz: “To describe a situation where two populations, in this case, one Jewish and the other Arab, share the same territory but are governed by two separate legal systems, the international community customarily uses the term “apartheid”.

The anthology could trigger a process of rethinking the last colonial conflict under the premise of justice and overcoming repression. All contributors make clear that the situation in occupied Palestine is intolerable, politically, economically, personally and morally. The international community should seriously consider a general boycott if the right-wing Netanyahu government progresses on its path of colonization of Palestine. An extremely valuable book and a must read.

By Julio S. Amador III and Jeremie P. Credo*

At the sidelines of the APEC Summit in Manila in November of 2015, Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario and Vietnam Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pham Binh Minh signed the strategic partnership agreement on behalf of their respective governments on the sidelines of a bilateral meeting between President Benigno S. Aquino III and Vietnam President Truong Tan Sang.

This strategic partnership is expected to go beyond the security dimension and urges the Philippines and Vietnam to cooperate more closely in areas that will deepen the ties between them.

Converging strategic interests: not anchored

Convergence of interests in preserving and promoting peace, stability and the rule of law in the South China Sea have paved the way for the establishment of the strategic partnership. However, the existence of common challenges is not the sole consideration for the strengthening of bilateral relations as it does not ensure the sustainability of a partnership. A strategic partnership anchored on the South China Sea issue is not the be-all and end-all of the relations. Equally important is the need to go beyond the South China Sea issue and develop the political, economic and socio-cultural aspects of the relations as national interests are not confined within the bounds of the security realm. This is aimed at further deepening cooperation, particularly in the areas of economic, agricultural, defense, and maritime engagement—areas that are truly vital to the strategic interests of both nations.

Engagement between the two countries will be sustained through increased dialogue at high levels. This is stated in the Joint Statement on the Strategic Partnership issued by the Philippines and Vietnam, which states that there will be an increase in the frequency and modes of bilateral exchanges at all levels, including political parties, heads of state and government, national agencies, the legislature, local government units, and technical working groups. A hotline between senior leaders is also to be established. Hence, the strategic partnership will facilitate avenues for cooperation and reinforce people-to-people links.

The strategic partnership is holistic and not just security-oriented. The Philippines and Vietnam are seeking to work closely together in the pursuit of common interests and objectives.

People-to-people ties

The partnership opens doors to broaden the two sides’ people-to people relationship. The bedrock of state-to-state relations is people-to-people linkages. Having a sense of appreciation and understanding of each other’s culture and values can potentially broaden and deepen mutual understanding between states and peoples. In 2014, amidst tensions in the South China Sea, Vietnamese and Filipino naval personnel played football, volleyball, and tug-of-war. Both sides displayed the importance of camaraderie through sports diplomacy.

The rise of bilateral and regional educational and cultural exchanges (e.g. ASEAN Youth Cultural Forum, ASEAN Youth Summit, ASEAN University Network Scholarships, joint Philippines-Vietnam human resource development and training cooperation programs), influx of tourists brought about by visa-free travel and direct flights between Manila and Ha Noi have also facilitated close interaction between peoples. Increased dialogues between and among the business sectors, experts and policy makers, and among other concerned stakeholders have paved the way for the sharing of best practices. Hence, experiences obtained from these opportunities could increase improved perceptions, preferences, and the capacity to make informed reactions among decision makers from both sides. These opportunities for interaction and cooperation contribute to confidence-building as sustained cooperation between states requires a high level of trust.

Economic and socio-cultural cooperation

For the strategic partnership to be sustainable, both sides should also intensify their economic cooperation. Vietnam is a fast-growing developing country with a GDP per capita of USD 2,052.3 as of 2014.1 The country’s low wage and cost of utilities have attracted foreign direct investments, especially in the export-oriented manufacturing sector. This has helped Vietnam accelerate its economic growth to 6.0 percent in 2014. Vietnam’s main exports include telephones and mobile phones, textiles and garments, consumer electronics, footwear, crude oil and fishery.2 Moreover, Vietnam is one of the largest exporters of rice in the world (e.g. Vietnam supplies a third of the Philippines’ rice imports).3

As Vietnam’s government prioritizes the development of electronics, textiles, food processing, agricultural machinery, and tourism industries, it is seen to be a bright investment spot in Southeast Asia which the Philippines could take advantage of. Retail systems like supermarkets, traditional markets, shopping malls, and online services are identified as a developing sector in Vietnam. It is a potential market for investment activities along with the food and agricultural processing sector.4 Philippines-Vietnam economic relations could further progress when mutually favorable conditions for the entry and expansion of investments, in accordance with respective laws and regulations, are created and maintained.

Moreover, the easing of restrictions on foreign investment in real estate in July 2015 is expected to revive the property market in Vietnam. These developments will likely result in an upsurge in demand for well-planned residential and commercial properties, and therefore for professionals (e.g. architects, landscape designers, and engineers), technology transfer, and more importantly, investment in the infrastructure sector (including telecommunications and electricity services).

On the socio-cultural front, as ASEAN integrates, the need for English language services will be crucial. This is an opportunity for the Philippines to work with Vietnam in the field of education, particularly in English language skills training.

Further steps

Beyond the strategic concerns, the two sides agree that other functional areas are ripe for further cooperation and engagement. In the years ahead, the Philippines-Vietnam strategic partnership should bear fruit for the peoples of the two countries and benefit the wider ASEAN region through shared peace and stability.

*About the authors:
Julio S. Amador III is the Deputy Director-General of the Foreign Service Institute. Mr. Amador can be reached at jsamador@fsi.gov.ph

Jeremie P. Credo is a Foreign Affairs Research Specialist with the Center for International Relations and Strategic Studies of the Foreign Service Institute. Ms. Credo can be reached at jpcredo@fsi.gov.ph

Source:
This article was published by FSI. The views expressed in this publication are of the authors’ alone and do not reflect the official position of the Foreign Service Institute, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Government of the Philippines.

Notes:
1 The World Bank, “GDP per capita of countries” http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD (accessed December 17, 2015).

2 Vietnam Briefing, “Vietnam’s export and import industries,” (2015), http://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/introduction-vietnams-export-import-industries.html/ (accessed December 28, 2015); and Vietnam Trade Promotion Agency, “Export” http://www.vietrade.gov.vn/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=777&Itemid=77 (accessed December 18, 2015).

3 Export Marketing Bureau, “Philippine-Vietnam Bilateral Trade 2012-2013,” http://www.emb.dti.gov.ph/marketbriefs/vietnam.htm (accessed December 18, 2015).

4 Philippine Retailers Association, “Philippine enterprise seek investment opportunity in Vietnam’s retail market”, (August 2015), http://www.philretailers.com/philippine-enterprise-seek-investment-opportunity-in-vietnams-retail-market/ (accessed January 4, 2016).

ArcelorMittal Europe reported Friday its results for the full year 2015 and the fourth quarter ended 31 December 2015, with the Europe segment reported an operating profit of €145m. This compares with an operating profit of €549m in 2014, reflecting the impact of lower steel prices on the business. Full-year Ebitda for 2015 was €2,158m, compared with €1,730m in 2014.

For the fourth quarter of 2015, ArcelorMittal Europe said it recorded an operating loss of €465m, compared with a profit of €122m for the same quarter in 2014. However, the Q4 2015 performance was impacted by impairments of €366m, primarily in connection with the temporary idling of ArcelorMittal Sestao in Spain, as well as €316m of inventory write-downs following the rapid decline of steel prices.

The company said that Ebitda in Q4 2015 improved by 12.5% year-on-year, mainly due to lower costs and efficiency improvements partly offset by lower average steel selling prices (-10.2%) and lower steel shipments (-1.4%).

In terms of production, crude steel production fell by 8.2% to 10 million tonnes in the final quarter of 2015, compared with the previous quarter, primarily due to lower demand and maintenance works including the reline of a blast furnace in Dunkirk, France, and repairs to a blast furnace in Gent, Belgium.

The business’ 2015 performance has been significantly impacted by the drop in steel prices in Europe, as a result of lower demand in China which has caused record levels of unfairly priced imports into the European Union.

ArcelorMittal said that, together with all steel producers in Europe, it has been consistently calling for the European Union to use trade defence instruments to impose tariffs on unfairly priced steel imports, in order to ensure a long-term future for the steel industry in Europe.

Commenting on the earning, Aditya Mittal, CEO ArcelorMittal Europe, said, “ArcelorMittal Europe has today reported an operating profit of €145m for 2015, but we recorded an operating loss of €465m for the fourth quarter of the year, which included €316m of exceptional charges relating to the write-down of inventories following the rapid decline of steel prices. We have now recorded two consecutive quarterly losses as a result of this price deterioration in the second half of the year, following six consecutive quarters of profit. It is now widely known that the steel industry in Europe is suffering as a result of record levels of low-priced unfair imports.”

In terms of the economic outlook, ArcelorMittal said expects the modest European economic recovery to continue in 2016, with EU28 GDP growth up to 1.9% year-on-year from 1.8% in 2015. Real steel consumption is expected to continue to grow in 2016, but a build-up of stocks has led to a lower apparent steel consumption (ASC) forecast, of below 1%.

The Paris Agreement on Climate Change hailed as the first truly universal and unanimous agreement on climate was celebrated as progress in humanity’s collective fight against climate change. But what did the 195 countries agree on? And does it go far enough?

By Maxim Shrestha*

The 21st United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties (COP21) in Paris ended on 12 December 2015 by adopting an agreement on climate that was hailed as universal and unanimous. Celebrated as progress in humanity’s collective fight against climate change, the agreement committed the 195 countries signing up to it to limit their collective emissions so that the effects of global warming would not exceed 2 degrees Celsius with a further aspiration to try and keep it within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

A lot of attention was on whether the world would finally come to an agreement after many failures in the past, the most notable being in Copenhagen in 2009. There was no guarantee that Paris would be any different. However after multiple revisions and iterations to the core text of the agreement, all the delegations were finally able to find it acceptable.

Notable achievements

Hailed as “historic, durable and ambitious” the Paris Agreement also committed financing of US$100 billion per year (starting in 2020) to be provided to poorer countries (by the developed world) to help them cut their emissions and cope with the impact of extreme weather. There would also be provisions for countries already affected by extreme weather to gain urgent aid. Both these finance mechanisms are to be separate from existing and other forms of non-climate related foreign aid.

Among other notable achievements at COP21, as per the agreement beginning 2020, all countries will be required to regularly report their emissions and progress in nationally determined contributions (NDCs) towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Likewise countries will have to reaffirm their NDCs every five years and “represent a progression” from previous commitments. Lastly, it was agreed to take steps towards establishing and promoting carbon trading.

Another prominent feature of the Agreement was in terms of inclusion. It explicitly acknowledged climate change as “a common concern of humankind”, and that all Parties should respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights and other rights as well as “intergenerational equity” when undertaking any form of climate action. Secondly there was also acknowledgement of all stakeholders including non-party actors in mobilising and promoting climate actions, including “civil society, the private sector, financial institutions, cities and other sub national authorities, local communities and indigenous peoples”.

Not far enough

Despite the achievement made in Paris, there are some major concerns. The first and most notable of issues is that the agreement is not technically binding; in other words there is no legal mechanism to ensure that countries adhere to the commitments made. This is both in terms of promised reductions in emissions as well as the annual $100 billion climate funding pledged. Secondly, the sum of all existing NDCs is expected to lead to warming of between 2.7 and 3 degrees Celsius, which is above the 2 degree threshold that scientists predict is the point beyond which catastrophic climate impact will become irreversible.

Many groups, especially in more vulnerable countries, believe that the agreement does not go far enough. From Paris to the Philippines, hundreds of civil society groups, environmental NGOs and ordinary citizens participated in protests and demonstrations highlighting the weakness of the agreement; they maintained that it should have been much bolder and legally enforceable if it were to seriously check the impact of climate change. Many also worry that the promised money, should it materialise, would not be nearly enough to protect the vulnerable populations of poorer countries from climate related disasters like flooding, sea-level rises, drought and heatwaves.

The US$100 billion per annum starting in 2020 as the base to build on was welcomed and appreciated by the developing countries. However it was not made clear where the funds will come from, how much contributions are to be made by the developed versus rich, rapidly industrialising countries, and lastly how the funds will be allocated and distributed. These, arguably the most important details, have been left for future negotiations down the road with no certainty these potentially thorny issues will be unanimously agreed upon when the time comes.

Legacy of Paris

Lastly, concerns have been raised especially in the scientific community that the fact that “commitments” do not start until 2020 has not been highlighted enough. The worry is that should global emissions continue on the current trajectory for the next five years, the 2 degree goal may longer be valid or significant. And the fact that it is non-legally binding also means there are no guarantees that future governments do not renege even on the commitments made in Paris.

Overall, the Paris Agreement produced at COP 21 was a major political and diplomatic success which the negotiators should be proud of. COP 21 will go down in history as the first time the world at least agreed to acknowledge and show some resolve on the issue of climate change. And maybe that in itself is a small victory for mankind.

From an environmental standpoint, however, the Paris Agreement is probably far from being worthy of the self-congratulatory praises and jubilation witnessed.

*Maxim Shrestha is an Associate Research Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Developments on the Turkish-Syrian border give serious grounds to suspect that Ankara is planning a military invasion in Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

“We have serious grounds to suspect intensive preparations by Turkey for a military invasion on the territory of the sovereign state of Syria,” Major General Igor Konashenkov, Defense Ministry spokesman, told journalists.

“We are recording more and more signs of concealed preparations by the Turkish military,” he added.

The spokesman reminded that Moscow had previously provided the international community with irrefutable video evidence of Turkish artillery firing on Syrian populated areas in the north of Latakia Province.

“We are surprised that the talkative representatives of the Pentagon, NATO and numerous organizations allegedly protecting human rights in Syria, despite our call to respond to these actions, still remain silent [on the shelling by Turkey],” he said.

Turkey is supplying terrorists in the Syrian cities of Idlib and Aleppo with manpower and weaponry, Konashenkov said.

The spokesman showed the media a photo of the Reyhanli checkpoint, saying that “through this very border crossing – mainly at nighttime – the militants, who seized the city of Aleppo and Idlib in northwestern Syria, are being supplied with arms and fighters from the Turkish territory.”

Turkey is trying to conceal its illegal military activity on the border with Syria and has canceled an agreed Russian observation flight over its territory because of that, Konashenkov said.

“Such steps carried out by a country, which is a NATO member state, in no way contribute to the strengthening of trust and security in Europe,” the spokesman told journalists.

Konashenkov called the cancellation of the Russian observation flight over Turkish territory “a dangerous precedent and an attempt to conceal illegal military activity near the border with Syria.”

The violation of the Open Skies Treaty by Ankara won’t go without a proper response from Moscow, he said.

Konashenkov also said Russia has boosted all kinds of intelligence and surveillance activities in the Middle East.

“So if someone in Ankara thinks that the cancellation of the flight by the Russian observers will enable hiding something then that’s quite amateurish.”

The spokesman reminded that 32 foreign observation flights took place in Russian air space in 2015, in accordance with the treaty, with four of them carried out by Turkish observers.

The earlier agreed observation flight over Turkish territory was canceled on February 3, after Russian experts revealed the route, which would have included airfields and areas near the Turkish-Syrian border.

The terrorists in northern Syria are suffering losses and retreating to the Turkish border, the Defense Ministry spokesman said.

According to Konashenkov, terrorist commanders have made major efforts to evacuate injured fighters and regain control of their units.

Russia still hasn’t received any data from Turkey concerning the alleged incident with the Russian warplane, which Ankara accused of violating its airspace, Konashenkov said.

“Just a few minutes ago, another Turkish official said the data was passed to Moscow… No materials were passed to us by either military or diplomatic channels,” he stressed.

Syria’s largest city, Aleppo has been surrounded by the Syrian Army. With the help of the Russian AF, the main supply route to Turkey has also been cut off. The urgency expressed by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey shouldn’t be mistaken for some kind of benevolent regard for the lives are lost each and every day the war drags on. Rather, Washington, Riyadh, and Ankara know that if Aleppo falls, that’s it for their “moderate” opposition.

Is China actively building up its maritime presence in the Arabian Sea, to dominate vital sea lanes and perhaps encircle India with a chain of naval bases? There can be little doubt that China views Gwadar as a potentially useful asset. China, however, will know better than anyone that Gwadar has two considerable limitations.

By Tim Willasey-Wilsey*

Gwadar from the air is an intriguing sight: a city on the southwest of Pakistan’s Balochistan province jutting out into the blue and turquoise of the Arabian Sea. Just visible are the narrow strips of road leading along the coast towards Karachi in one direction, the Iranian border in the other, and a third, snaking northwards. Yet inland, all you can see are hundreds of miles of brown sand and darker, angrier volcanic hills–some of the most inhospitable territory in the world–navigated only by occasional camel convoys and four-wheel-drive trucks. Only the hardiest people live here: the fiercely independent Baluch, who have infuriated rulers for centuries.

The received wisdom is that Gwadar is a vital strategic Chinese interest: one component of a “string of pearls” by which China will ensure the security of its imports if ever the Straits of Malacca were closed. But where do these theories come from? And do they stand up to any serious scrutiny?

The “string of pearls” sounds like a suitably ethereal Chinese term, but has more prosaic origins. Consultants Booz Allen produced a report titled “Energy Futures in Asia” for the U.S. Department of Defense in 2004 and, according to Washington Times, postulated that “China is building strategic relationships along the sea lanes from the Middle East to the South China Sea in ways that suggest defensive and offensive positioning to protect China’s energy interests, but also to serve broad security objectives”.[1] The report listed two of the “pearls” as Chittagong in Bangladesh and Gwadar just before  speculating about eavesdropping bases: a canal in Thailand, an oil pipeline in Burma, and a railway line in Cambodia.

Since then, the string of pearls theory has caught the imagination of armchair strategists. An additional component grafted onto an already alarmist theory is that it is a strategy to encircle India. To support this notion of encirclement, writers on the subject choose from a menu of Chinese civilian infrastructure projects: in Sittwe in Burma, Chittagong, Hambantota in Sri Lanka, Marao in the Maldives, and in Woody Island in the Paracel Islands of the South China Sea.

So, let us test this theory by looking at Gwadar, which most analysts will attest to being the most alarming of the “string of pearls”. It is due west of Karachi and sits only 250 kilometres from the Strait of Hormuz. According to the British Guardian newspaper in 2005, “Gwadar’s ambitious plans hinge on a giant deepwater port whose money, bricks and mortar come from China. Last year 400 Chinese labourers worked 24-hour shifts to complete the project, intended to serve Afghanistan and Central Asia…”.[2] But according to a Pakistani daily, it provides “an energy and trade corridor that would connect China to the Arabian Sea and Strait of Hormuz, a gateway for a third of the world’s traded oil, overland through an expanded Karakoram Highway… ”, thereby cutting “hundreds of kilometres off the distance which oil and gas imports from Africa and the Middle East have to travel to reach China…”.[3]

Now, the reality. Pakistan bought Gwadar from Oman in 1958 precisely because of its potential as a port. Far from the suggested urgency of the Guardian article, it must be one of the slowest port construction projects: only a small wharf was built between 1988 and 1992. A plan to develop it further was approved in 1993, and work on Phase I began in 2002 with significant Chinese financing. At the start of Phase II in 2007, the administration of the port was handed over to the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA International), hardly the actions of a China wishing to use it as a strategic naval base. After several disputes, the contract was re-awarded in 2013 to state-run China Overseas Port Holding Company.

There can be little doubt that China views Gwadar as a potentially useful asset. Why else would it have financed the project so generously? China, however, will know better than anyone that Gwadar has two considerable limitations: far from being a heavily fortified rock like Gibraltar, it is vulnerable both from the sea and land; secondly, the concept of roads and oil pipelines stretching through Baluchistan and eventually connecting, via the Karakorum Highway to Xinjiang province is rather ambitious. China has had enough difficulty protecting its workers at the Saindak Copper-GoldMine, and knows full well that the writ of the Pakistan Army does not run throughout Baluchistan. Furthermore, the one province where China would not choose to send its vital strategic resources from Gwadar is to its troubled, mainly Muslim Xinjiang.

A couple of years ago, a retired American admiral observed to this writer that, before too long, 85% of oil tankers leaving the Strait of Hormuz “will turn left towards Asia”. It is only a matter of time, he added, before a U.S. president will ask why the U.S. finances, at enormous expense to its taxpayers, carrier battle groups to protect China’s energy imports! I reflected that, at this point, Gwadar might become useful as a base for Chinese naval vessels to keep the vital international sea lanes open. Yet when China assisted in patrols against Somali pirates in recent years, it used Karachi instead.

During his visit to Islamabad in April 2015,President Xi Jinping announced the development of a $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, but in a new world of cheaper oil and China’s own sharply reduced GDP growth, it remains open to question whether Gwadar will ever become a strategic Chinese port on the Arabian Sea.

About the author:
*Tim Willasey-Wilsey is a visiting senior research fellow at King’s College London and former senior British diplomat.

Source:
This feature was written for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

References
[1] Washington Times, China builds up strategic sea lanes, 17 January 2005, <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jan/17/20050117-115550-1929r/?page=all>

[2] Guardian, US uneasy as Beijing develops a strategic string of pearls, 10 November 2005, <http://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/nov/10/china.internationalnews>

[3] Express Tribune, Gwadar Port handed over to China, 18 February 2013,  <http://tribune.com.pk/story/509028/gwadar-port-handed-over-to-china/>

With the emergence of a new generation of Uighur militants drawn to conflict in the Middle East, there has been a shift in the threat landscape of China. Chinese investments and citizens in conflict-ridden countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq may become a potential target for the current transnational network of Uighur militants.

By Nodirbek Soliev*

The execution of a Chinese hostage identified as Fan Jinghui, a freelance consultant from Beijing, by ISIS in Syria in November 2015 has sent a clear message to the Chinese government of the risks of investing in unstable areas. Although this has been the first and so far only known case of deliberate killing of a non-combatant Chinese citizen by jihadist groups in the Middle Eastern theatre, it is unlikely to be the last.

In recent months, Uighur jihadists, who have been trained, armed and sheltered by Al Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS in the Af-Pak and the Middle East regions, have shown their efforts and intentions to strike at China’s overseas interests. To meet its growing demand for critical energy and mineral resources, China through its state-owned enterprises has been investing or promised to invest heavily in a number of conflict-affected countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. As these countries’ security remains fragile, lacking the capacity to provide sufficient security, Chinese investment projects and citizens are likely to become easy targets for Uighur militants operating in or near these areas.

Uighur militancy in a new phase

The ongoing turmoil in Syria and Iraq has been a key factor behind the expansion of Uighur militancy from China and the Afghanistan-Pakistan region to the Middle East. As such, the terrorist threat to China has become transnational and multi-faceted. At present, nearly 1,000 Uighur fighters and their family members from China’s Xinjiang province have joined both Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate al-Nusra Front and its rival ISIS in the Middle East.

Afghanistan, on the other hand, remains a traditional battlefield of the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP)/the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) which is the most prominent Uighur group with close links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. TIP is believed to have approximately 300-500 militants in Afghanistan. There has been no evidence to suggest that ISIS has any Uighur members in Afghanistan.

While the majority of Uighur fighters in the Middle East have joined the TIP’s Syrian branch known as Turkistan Islamic Party in the Levant (TIP-L), a few hundred Uighurs appear to have aligned with ISIS. TIP-L as a close ally of al Nusrah Front is now part of “Jaish al Fatah” (‘Army of Conquest’), the new coalition of jihadists which has been fighting against the Syrian government force in Syria’s northern Aleppo and Idlib provinces since March 2015.

Economic interests under TIP Threat

TIP militants have been strengthened by their experience of fighting against government and coalition forces in Afghanistan and the Middle East. They have gained significant advances in tactics and strategy as a result of their ideological and operational engagement with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and al-Nusra Front.

Since its creation in 1997, TIP’s ultimate goal has been the establishment of an independent Islamic state by the name of ‘East Turkistan’ in Xinjiang. Undoubtedly, TIP has perpetrated several acts of violence across China operating from the Af-Pak region. However, currently, such organised entities pose only a limited threat to China’s domestic security because they lack widespread support and high security measures at borders prevent their entry from overseas.

A dearth of opportunities to fight at home against China seems to make Uighur militants overseas turn to targeting Chinese economic interests in various conflict-ridden areas in which they are operating. In August 2015, a propaganda video issued by TIP featured Uighur militants ambushing vehicles carrying local security personnel of Chinese state-owned copper mine “Mes Aynak” in Afghanistan’s Logar province, close to the capital Kabul.

The Metallurgical Group of China (MCC) has a USD 3 billion deal with the Afghan government to mine and process copper from Mes Aynak, the largest undeveloped copper field in the world. Given the drawdown of the Western forces in Afghanistan, the threat from TIP to any prospective Chinese infrastructure projects in Afghanistan and Pakistan is likely to grow.

Uighur’s Global jihad rhetoric

In recent years, TIP’s propaganda has adopted global jihad rhetoric to publicise the Uighur minority cause and call for violence against China’s global interests. In July 2015, TIP commended al-Shabaab, Al Qaeda’s branch in Somalia, when al-Shabaab’s car bomb attack on a hotel in the capital Mogadishu damaged the Chinese embassy nearby, killing at least one embassy staff member and injured three others. Although the strike on the Chinese embassy appeared to be unintentional, TIP claimed that it was a “practical response to the Chinese aggression” in Xinjiang and encouraged al-Shabaab to carry out more of such attacks.

The safety of the growing Chinese investment and workers in Iraq is also under threat. Beijing has heavily invested in Iraq’s petroleum sector. In 2014, Iraq was China’s fifth largest oil exporter. Chinese companies own five oilfields, four of which are located in the southern and one in the central parts of Iraq. Moreover, there are more than 10,000 Chinese workers in Iraq, mostly with Chinese oil companies.

Although Chinese and Iraqi officials expressed their confidence that oilfields in the southern regions are “completely safe”, the possibility of ISIS, which now controls large swathes of northwest of Iraq, striking major oilfields in the south cannot be ruled out. Uighur fighters who appeared in the ISIS propaganda video in August 2015 claimed that they are “fully aware of how Uyghurs are being oppressed” in China, Thailand and elsewhere and warned that they will target China wherever possible.

Need for Better Response

The protection of its overseas economic interests is crucial for a rising China. Although Chinese state-owned enterprises and workers based in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq have been protected primarily by local military and police, these countries’ domestic security remains volatile and inadequate.

Given the capacity and intentions of the current transnational network of Uighur militants, the threats to Chinese investment and citizens in these countries are expected to increase. China’s new anti-terrorism law that was enacted on 27 December 2015 has paved the way for Beijing to deploy its military for overseas counter-terrorism purposes.

To effectively deal with evolving risks, China now needs to take pre-emptive measures and recalibrate its responses within the framework of its longstanding non-interference foreign policy. In the long run, there is a need to develop comprehensive counter-radicalisation and community engagement strategies, relying less on hard power and more on winning “hearts and minds” of its Uighur minority community in Xinjiang.

*Nodirbek Soliev is a Senior Analyst at the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR), a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.