In this week’s address, US President Barack Obama discussed climate change and how the most ambitious climate agreement in history is creating private sector partnerships that are advancing the latest technologies in clean power. Reiterating his State of the Union call to invest in the future rather than subsidize the past, the President said the budget he will present to Congress on Tuesday will double funding for clean energy research and development by 2020 in an effort to help private sector job creation and lower the cost of clean energy. The President also highlighted ways American entrepreneurship is addressing one of the greatest challenges of our time, and called on leaders in Washington to do the same.

Remarks of President Barack Obama as Prepared for Delivery
Weekly Address
The White House
February 6, 2016

Hi everybody. One of the things that makes America great is our passion for innovation – that spirit of discovery and entrepreneurship that helps us meet any challenge.

One of the greatest challenges of our time is climate change. Over the last seven years, we’ve made historic investments in clean energy that helped private sector companies create tens of thousands of good jobs. And today, clean power from the wind or the sun is actually cheaper in many communities than dirtier, conventional power. It’s helped grow our economy and cut our total carbon pollution more than any other country on earth.

That leadership helped bring nearly 200 nations together in Paris around the most ambitious climate agreement in history. And in Paris, we also launched one of the most important partnerships ever assembled to accelerate this kind of clean energy innovation around the world. Investors and business leaders including Bill Gates, Meg Whitman, and Mark Zuckerberg joined us, pledging their own money to help advance new technologies to the market.

That’s important because we’ll only meet this challenge if the private sector helps lead the way.

As I said in my State of the Union address, rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future. That’s why the budget I will send to Congress this Tuesday will double funding for clean energy research and development by 2020. This will include new investments to help the private sector create more jobs faster, lower the cost of clean energy faster, and help clean, renewable power outcompete dirty fuels in every state.

And while Republicans in Congress are still considering their position on climate change, many of them realize that clean energy is an incredible source of good-paying jobs for their constituents. That’s why we were able to boost clean energy research and development in last year’s budget agreement. And I hope they support my plan to double that kind of investment.

Because it’s making a difference across the country. In Idaho, our Battery Test Center is helping electric cars run longer on a single charge. In Ohio, entrepreneurs are pioneering new ways to harness wind power from the Great Lakes. In Tennessee, researchers are partnering with utilities to boost storage and solar power to create a more resilient electric grid.

The point is, all across the country, folks are putting their differences aside to face this challenge as one. Washington should do the same. That’s how we’re going to solve this challenge – together. And that’s how we’re going to give our kids and grandkids the future they deserve – one with a safe, secure, and prosperous planet.
Thanks everybody, and have a great weekend.

By Florian Bieber*

The term “Balkans route” and images of thousands of refugees crossing Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, and Croatia brought the Balkans back onto Europe’s headlines and into its policy considerations. The hundreds of thousands of people crossing the region stretched governments and their support services to maximum capacity.

For fear of being “stuck” with unwanted and unwilling refugees, long-term planning was kept to a minimum with most governments acting as second-rate travel agencies, shipping refugees from their borders in the east or south to the north and west (or having private companies profit from charging refugees for the ride). A groundswell of civic initiatives compensated for government neglect. Every signal from Germany was nervously observed as affected countries contemplated whether opening or closing their borders should be the next step. In the end, the flow of refugees acted to spur the generation of bad blood among neighbors, while otherwise having a limited impact. The only elections to take place in the Balkans during the height of the refugee flow occurred in Croatia, and here the nationalist opposition, which openly called for the closure of Croatia’s borders, failed to benefit from the “crisis”.

Still, the refugee “crisis” has left its traces in the Balkan region. It highlighted a region without European leadership and without the EU as an important actor. When governments met to manage the refugee flow, they included EU and non-EU countries. The conflicts between countries involved both those that were EU and non-EU members, and there was little in the way of telling the difference. Hungary set up barbed wire fences not just on its border with non-EU Serbia but also with EU Croatia, and Slovenia equally reinforced its border with Croatia. The weakness of the EU in this instance sends a worrying signal to the region, whose main engine for reform has been the promise—however remote—of EU integration.

The impact of the war in Syria and the rise of ISIS in the Middle East has been the growth of terrorism in Europe. In Western Europe, this has led to the rising popularity of xenophobic, anti-Muslim parties and heated and often poisonous debates about the integration of immigrant populations. In the Balkans the main debate has revolved around the radicalization of young Muslims. The number of ISIS recruits from Kosovo and Bosnia has been high in comparison to the size of these countries’ populations, yet it is dwarfed by the total number of foreign fighters originating from West European countries. Despite a few incidents, in particular in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2015, these volunteers do not appear to pose a threat to regional security. However, they point to larger underlying challenges, namely the alienation of young Bosnians or Kosovars from their parents, the nation-building project, and the weakness of state and established institutions, including Islamic communities themselves.

The weakness of the state and the predatory control of political parties over state institutions remains the main risk in the region. The political crisis in Macedonia can be seen as the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Here, the opposition’s revelation of incriminating voice recordings involving the prime minister and leading party and government officials suggest massive abuse of office, including widespread corruption and the manipulation of the electoral process. It remains an odd coincidence that the shootout in the town of Kumanovo occurred in the midst of this crisis. While it raised the fear of renewed ethnic strife, the response thereto and its quick de-escalation suggest that the incident does not reflect a broader crisis in ethnic relations, but rather a distraction from the government crisis. In this case, the EU eventually hammered out a political solution for the country in the form of a transition period leading up to early elections. To date, it seems that this agreement has helped to secure the political survival of Prime Minister Gruevski, and it has certainly sent the signal that one can get away with perpetrating serious violations of democratic norms and still remain a partner of the EU.

In December 2015, Montenegro was invited to join NATO, thus constituting the first enlargement of the alliance since 2008. Together with the beginning of EU accession talks with Serbia, this could be seen as a signal that despite the multiple crises facing the Euro-Atlantic institutions, integration remains alive. Nonetheless, it is still worrying that EU and NATO institutions, as well as their constitutive member governments, have stayed relatively silent on the increasing authoritarianism in the region. In Montenegro, opposition protests have focused their attentions on NATO membership, but in effect they have actually been an effort to challenge the 25 year rule of Prime Minister Djukanović (in different functions). In Serbia, the government of Vučić has come to exhibit growing authoritarian reflexes, symptoms of which may be seen as the increased tendency towards self-censorship within the media and constant attacks by media outlets loyal to the regime on the political opposition, critical media, and independent institutions. As all of these regimes rely on informal mechanisms to consolidate their control, dissimilar to the constitutional re-designs a la Viktor Orban in Hungary, or recently in Poland, the authoritarian grip on power is less visible and difficult to quantify.

The Serbian government has been able to garner support from the West for its constructive engagement with Kosovo (while simultaneously engaging in massive campaigns against it, including that challenging its UNESCO membership) and moderate regional policies. In this context, high-profile anti-corruption campaigns complete with arrests can conveniently cover-up the lack of genuine reforms in the region. The result is a regional two-level game characterized by increasing regional cooperation on the one hand, as reflected in the successful Vienna summit in August 2015 that consolidated the “Berlin Process” bringing together the Western Balkans with supportive EU partners and the EU institutions themselves, and increasing authoritarianism at home on the other. To date, both processes have run in parallel and in fact enabled one another—the country with the weakest government, Kosovo, has also seen the most serious challenge to cooperation in the shape of the opposition’s rejection of compromises with Serbia.

However, there are structural tensions between good neighbourly relations abroad and populist-authoritarian rule at home. For now the main resource of authoritarian populists is the supposed reform and anti-corruption effort, but fear of the other can be conveniently revived when needed, and all populist governments of the region have resorted to this strategy at their convenience.

Thus, while renewed EU interest in the Western Balkans bore fruit in 2015, a way to address the structural risks facing the Balkans today has not yet been found—of course these challenges effect not only the Balkans, but other countries as well, including some EU member states.

Florian Bieber is a Professor of Southeast European History and Politics at the University of Graz, where he also directs the Centre for Southeast European Studies. He is also a coordinator of the Balkans in Europe Policy Advisory Group (BiEPAG).

**Turkish version of this op-ed was first published at Analist monthly journal’s January 2016 issue.

Petrona Choc, 75, did not falter as she told the court how soldiers dragged her and her young children out of her home in 1982, shot her husband and retained her against her will together with other women in a nearby military outpost, where she was repeatedly raped and forced to cook for her captors.

“One day the soldiers came for us and one of my sons, Abelino, said: ‘here come the soldiers; they’re going to kill us’. I rounded up my children and I told them we had to flee to the mountains. We were running when we heard gunfire and that’s when my husband was killed”, she told the High Risk Court A on February 3.

Choc is one of the 11 Mayan Q’eqchí women from the tiny hamlet of Sepur Zarco, in the eastern department of Izabal, who have come face to face with the two men who ordered them to cook, clean and submit to systematic rape over three decades ago: former base commander Esteelmer Reyes Girón and former regional military commissioner Heriberto Valdez Asij.

This is the first time ever and anywhere that a national court has heard charges of sexual slavery committed during an armed conflict.

The victims appeared in court with their heads covered in shawls to avoid being identified and only removed them when it was their turn to testify, as rape victims in rural communities are often shunned and ostracized. Many women from women’s and human rights organizations who have attended the trial have also covered their heads in a show of solidarity.

“They raped us; they caused us great suffering, and they told us that there was nobody left that would care about what happened to us”, said Choc. The witness accounts are so harrowing that on several occasions, the victims’ interpreter appeared visibly moved and on the verge of tears.

Reyes Girón and Valdez Asij are accused of ordering and allowing the rape, enslavement, forced disappearance and murder of non-combatants, crimes against humanity that are exempt from Guatemala’s 1996 amnesty law.

Violation as a weapon

The victims were abducted and enslaved in 1982, under the 1982-1983 dictatorship of Efraín Ríos Montt, who was convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity in 2013 and currently faces a retrial after the verdict was overturned on a technicality. Although short-lived, Ríos Montt’s de facto rule was one of the bloodiest phases of the Guatemalan armed conflict, as the armed forces intensified their onslaught against indigenous communities believed to be harboring guerrilla combatants.

According to the Historical Clarification Commission (CEH), until 1979, rape was selectively used by the armed forces against women belonging to guerrilla organizations. However, by the 1980s, it was systematically applied by the army’s onslaught against indigenous civilian populations. The CEH recorded 1,465 cases of rape committed during Guatemala’s 36-year-conflict. Eighty percent of the victims were indigenous.

During the opening hearing on 1 February, prosecutor Hilda Pineda said that sexual violence was used as “a weapon of war” against the civilian population. Three Mayan Q’eqchí men testified that soldiers separated men and women so that the women could be gang raped by soldiers. They also said they were left homeless after soldiers forced them to dismantle their shacks and carry the wood and aluminum sheets to the military outpost where they were used as construction materials. The three witnesses directly pointed to Valdez Asij and said he was present at the scene where these crimes were committed.

The Sepur Zarco trial is taking place in the same courtroom in which Ríos Montt genocide trial took place in 2013. As occurred during the genocide case, the defense has tried to stall the proceedings by filing an endless string of appeals, claiming that the presiding judge, Yassmin Barrios, is not impartial as she already delivered verdicts in other cases connected to human rights violations committed during the armed conflict.

Military officers detained

Two weeks before the Sepur Zarco trial began, another important step towards securing justice for the victims of wartime violations was taken with the arrest of 18 military officers for massacres and forced disappearances committed during the 1980s.

Fourteen of those arrested are charged with the forced disappearance and torture in relation to a mass grave containing the remains of 533 bodies from 84 clandestine graves discovered in 2012 in a former military base in the department Cobán. Among those detained was the army’s former chief of staff Manuel Benedicto Lucas García, the brother of dictator Fernando Romeo Lucas García (1978-1982).

Prosecutors also requested that Edgar Ovalle Maldonado, one of the retired army officers who founded the FCN party that brought Guatemala’s new president, Jimmy Morales, to power, in 2015, be stripped of his prosecutorial immunity as a lawmaker so that he could face charges for his alleged participation in the Cobán case. However, on January 28, the Supreme Court ruled that there were no grounds for Ovalle’s prosecution.

Forensic experts ascertained that the Cobán victims came from various parts of the country, suggesting that the site might have been an interrogation and detention center. Many of the bodies were blindfolded, with their hands and feet tied, suggesting they were executed. Some had gunshot wounds or broken bones that were healed and re-broken, suggesting they were tortured before being executed. Attorney General Thelma Aldana has referred to the case as “one of the biggest cases of forced disappearances in Latin America”.

The four remaining military officers were charged in relation to the forced disappearance of 14-year-old Marco Antonio Molina Theissen, kidnapped by members of the intelligence section of the military in 1981 in retaliation for his family’s activism as opponents of Lucas García dictatorship. Among those charged is retired colonel Francisco Gordillo Martínez who became one of the three members of the military junta led by Ríos Montt.

Meanwhile, the Ríos Montt retrial on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity faced yet another setback, after it was suspended on January 11 for the court to resolve outstanding legal petitions.

By Manoj Joshi*

Just how much difference an individual makes to a process is abundantly clear from the prolonged inability of the People’s Democratic Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party to form a government in Jammu and Kashmir following the death of Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. It is apparent now, if it wasn’t earlier, that it was Mufti’s personality and political skills that had kept the unlikely coalition of the PDP and the BJP going. Now that he is no more, they are finding it difficult to connect.

On Tuesday, the Governor N. N. Vohra has called a meeting with both parties to ascertain their views. On paper they are still a coalition and there is no reason why the state needs to be under President’s rule. But behind the drama are longer range calculations of Mehbooba Mufti, the person who built the party with her grit and effort.

Most observers agree that Mehbooba would find it difficult to work with the BJP, but thought that the crisis would come a year or so down the line. But clearly they are wrong, and this also tells us a lot about her filial loyalty since now it becomes clear that she did not see eye to eye with her father on the alliance, but yet she stuck it out till it came to the stage when she had to take the decisions. Perhaps there is something more to the fact that Modi did not find it convenient to visit Mufti while he was in his death bed at the AIIMS in New Delhi.

There is a lot of talk as to the PDP’s unhappiness about the BJP not fulfilling on its promises under their common minimum programme. But PDP spokespersons have been somewhat vague in specifying what these are. In any case, the government is not even a year old and so the coalition partner can hardly be held to account. Word coming out of the PDP last week was that the party was unhappy on a range of issues, from relations with Pakistan to the revocation of AFSPA and development projects.

Actually, all the indicators are that Mehbooba may be readying to stake all in a fresh election, rather than depending on the vehicle of a coalition and, that too, with the BJP. This is evident from her reported remarks following her party meeting last week in which she has spoken of adhering to the “core ideology” of the PDP and going “back to the people”.

In great measure, the current emerging crisis is an outcome of the fractured verdict of the state Assembly election of 2014. In itself, the election was quite unique. For one, it was highly credible, with a 66 per cent turnout, with even some separatist-dominated constituencies seeing an enhanced vote. The PDP, which got 28 seats, was actually hoping to get at least 35 out of the total of 87 seats and make a coalition with the help of a junior partner, perhaps the independents or the Congress.

However, the BJP did spectacularly well and came second at 25, soaking up all the seats in the Hindu-dominated areas of Jammu. But it did have the effect of consolidating the Muslim vote, and the National Conference, which was expecting a washout, actually got 15 seats. The Congress got 12, and became the only party to have a presence in all three sub-regions of the state — Ladakh, the Valley and Jammu. In other words, the election also indicated the huge divide that had taken place with two of the bigger winners confined to specific geographic areas — the PDP in the Valley and the BJP in Jammu.

The PDP could hardly ally with the NC, with whom it competes for the Valley Muslim votes. And the Congress was neither inclined to have a coalition with the PDP nor did it have enough seats to make this a stable coalition. In the end, the PDP went with the BJP because of the efforts of Prime Minister Modi and the Mufti. In any case, the stable formula for parties in states like J&K and Tamil Nadu is to go with the party that runs the country.

However, 10 months down the line, there is an estrangement and for this, New Delhi must accept the major part of the blame. Modi has been so busy with his domestic development agenda and his numerous foreign visits that he has had no time to devote to Kashmir affairs. The result is that the issues close to the political heart of the coalition leader, the PDP, remained unaddressed. These were primarily the need for political dialogue between New Delhi and Srinagar of the type that Manmohan Singh had inaugurated. There is a facile assumption that since violence is down in the state, there is no need for any special gesture towards the state. In any case, the BJP has always opposed any special status for J&K. However, realpolitik demands that New Delhi be seen to be addressing the issues raised by separatists, even if it does not actually do anything about them.

This article originally appeared in Mid Day.

By Harun Yahya*

Article 5 of NATO was first invoked following the horrifying 9/11 terror attacks. NATO member countries accordingly regarded that terror strike as an attack on themselves and decided to act together as one.

The issue of terror became NATO’s main preoccupation thereafter. There would now be no distinction between the world’s terror groups, and the fight against all terror groups would be waged collectively. In the wake of that decision, the US drew up lists of terror organizations. It included the PKK, which perpetrates bloody acts of terror in Turkey.

However, the list published by the EU was rather different. Separatist groups in Europe and radical groups in the Middle East appeared on that list, but not the PKK. Members of the PKK were still able to use European capitals as bases, organize anti-Turkish demonstrations on the streets of Europe and make use of those countries’ publishing and broadcasting organizations. The EU may have corrected that “error” following protest from Turkey in April 2002, but the PKK continued to be funded by various bodies in European capitals and continued to be illicitly supported by various means.

This double standard is less blatant today, but is still going on. Let us now have a look at what has been happening in Turkey in recent months: Anti-terror operations in the southeast of Turkey began in September 2015. The PKK had been active in various parts of the southeast; yet the dire situation in the region became much clearer once the operations began. It was then realized that the PKK had turned certain districts in the southeast literally its own bases, and the state had literally lost all influence in those regions. Turkish flags had been taken down and the population had been forced into dependence on the PKK. Local people in the region were forced to live in the shadow of the guns, while their homes, mosques and coffee houses were turned into places to store equipment. The PKK had begun to establish blatant sovereignty over parts of Turkish territory.

This horrifying picture made wide-ranging joint operations by the Turkish armed forces and security forces essential. The centers of these operations were Cizre, Silopi, Diyarbakır Sur, Dargecit, Nusaybin and Bitlis. Curfews were imposed one after the other. However, these operations were so wide-ranging that local people were evacuated from these areas for their own safety, and accommodation was arranged for them outside the cities. As always, the terror organization had no qualms about inflicting harm on the local population where it was present.

Kurdish families who refused to make their homes available were threatened at gunpoint, and some were killed by the PKK. Some families were made prisoners in their own homes, while other homes were used as storehouses for PKK’s equipment. The organization had no compunctions about bombing primary schools, with students still inside them, or opening fire on ambulances coming to rescue the injured. Let me also remind readers that foreign sharpshooters have also been found to be carrying out attacks alongside the PKK during these operations.

The Turkish military and police are continuing to take back the southeast of the country from these Stalinist terrorists. They are also suffering casualties in so doing. However, as a country living with terror it has always been a source of honor to give up martyrs in this cause.

“Events have shown how right we were to have initiated an operation against the PKK”. These words were spoken by Prime Minister Davutoglu, who went on to say, “For the first time, the military, the police and intelligence are acting together.” These words mean that there is to be no turning back on these operations for the government. Statements by the prime minister that the region will be rebuilt using a flawless architecture once the operations have come to an end are also to be welcomed.

The subject emphasized by President Erdogan is also very significant: “We have fulfilled our obligations in terms of international cooperation in the fight against terror. And we shall continue to do so in the future. Yet when there is an act of terror in a European country the world is outraged, so why does it sit back and watch when one happens in Istanbul or Gaziantep or Suruc? We must find the answer to that question. One of the most important principles in the fight against terror is to combat it without distinction.”

Sadly, “combating terror without distinction” is something we do not see in Turkey’s allies. Especially not when it involves Turkey, and the PKK that is terrorizing it.

Let us recall that when dreadful attacks were committed in Paris, the French government declared a 3-month “state of emergency,” in the scope of which more than 2,700 operations had been carried out by the end of 2015 and 700 mosques had been closed. The excessive use of force in some operations was documented by video clips. It was decided that measures permitting phone bugging would be introduced, and more than 3,000 people outside the country have been eavesdropped on. Governors have been given powers to close certain areas off to the public and traffic and not to admit people they regard as threats to specific areas. France is also able to impose censorship on newspapers, radio stations, TV channels, theaters and cinemas in times of emergency.

In addition to France, Britain is also now discussing a bill permitting the police access to all Internet data in the name of fighting terror, and schools are being advised to impose Internet filters. Similar measures have also been taken in Belgium.

The fight against terror is of course an emergency situation calling for comprehensive precautionary measures. When terror spreads to European capitals, such precautions are regarded as normal, and nobody interprets them as an attack on freedom of ideas or the right to liberty. When it comes to Turkey, however, double standards on the subject of terror immediately go into operation, and measures taken by Turkey to protect its own citizens in the fight against terror attract the most astonishing criticism. Still, Turkey is now sufficiently determined against terror not to take such criticism seriously.

*The writer has authored more than 300 books translated into 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He tweets @harun_yahya.

Multiple buildings, including a residential tower, have collapsed after a powerful 6.4 magnitude earthquake struck southern Taiwan early on Saturday. Authorities in the affected city have formed an emergency response center.

A building has half collapsed in Tainan as a result of the quake, with fire brigades now on their way to the site, Liu Shih-chung, Tainan City Government official, told Reuters.

The quake was initially reported as a magnitude 6.7.

The epicenter of the quake was located at a shallow depth of 6.2 miles (10 km), some 19 miles (31 km) east-southeast of Tainan, the USGS said.

There have so far been no reports about casualties or the destruction caused by the disaster. But the quake has been described as “enormous” and “a big one” on social media.

Local authorities in Tainan have said that they have formed an emergency response center following the quake.

The USGS has warned that a magnitude 6.4 earthquake is capable of causing “severe damage.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin will hold talks on February 8 with Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa who will be in Russia on a working visit, the Kremlin said on Saturday.

According to the Kremlin, the conversation between Putin the Bahrain royal is to focus on stepping up bilateral cooperation in trade, investment, energy, finance and the humanitarian sphere.

A detailed exchange is also expected on the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa, primarily in the context of combating international terrorism, the Kremlin added.

Somewhere I read a story about the energy giants ‘seven sisters’ that virtually control the global economy. Currently, analysts are talking about the declining earnings of these companies, but not about the benefits of low oil prices. The same is also true in Pakistan, where analysts are also worried about the lower earnings of half a dozen oil and gas exploration companies, but hardly demand the government to stop the persistent hike in taxes on petroleum products.

A few months back I raised a question in one of my articles that asked who are the beneficiaries of declining oil prices? At that time my own inference was that the US is the biggest beneficiary, being the largest consumer of energy products. After a lapse of a few months I still hold that point of view. I even go to the extent of saying that not only all the other oil producing countries are plunging into a serious financial crisis, but Saudi Arabia and Russia are the worst hit. And while lower oil prices may keep proceeds from oil exports low for Iran, it may gain the most after the easing of the sanctions it has endured for more than three decades. Iran’s non-oil exports are likely to increase substantially and Tehran may also succeed in attracting enormous foreign direct investment in virtually every sector.

Declining oil prices have enabled the US to increase its strategic reserves, with oil imports remaining high and indigenous oil production still hovering at record high levels, above 9.2 million barrels a day. Reportedly the US crude inventories have surpassed the 500 million barrels milestone. Two of the global benchmarks, WTI and Brent, bounced up and down throughout the week ending February 5. However, faltering global economies offer a chance for the US Fed to not hike the interest rate, resulting in weak dollar and pushing oil prices even higher.

The western media is trying to create an impression that the collapse in oil prices is now bleeding over into the broader global economy. They talk about the ongoing downturn in oil exporting countries, from Saudi Arabia to Russia, Venezuela, Iraq, Nigeria, and others. In doing so, they have a strange rationalization that cheap energy should bolster consumption, but the fact is that the drop in commodity prices has been so sharp that questions continue to arise about the credit-worthiness of some oil producers, with Venezuela topping the list. With billions of dollars in debt due this year and a rapidly shrinking ability to deal with the crisis, a debt default may not be too far off.

Citigroup added its voice to those concerned about the health of the global economy, citing four interlinked forces – a strong US dollar, low commodity prices, weak trade, and soft growth in emerging markets – for the sudden fragility and potential for a global recession. “It seems reasonable to assume that another year of extreme moves in US dollar (higher) and oil/commodity prices (lower) would likely continue to drive this negative feedback loop and make it very difficult for policy makers in emerging markets and developing markets to fight disinflationary forces and intercept downside risks,” Citigroup analysts warned.

ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) made news this week when it became the first US-based oil major to slash its dividend. Italian oil giant Eni (NYSE: E) was the only other oil major to have done so – it cut its dividend almost a year ago. ConocoPhillips cut its dividend by 65 percent this week, and the company’s CEO argued that the move would save $4.4 billion in 2016.

The oil majors are having trouble covering spending and also their shareholder payouts with their underlying cash flow. By and large, they are making up for the shortfall with new debt. Chevron took on an additional $9.6 billion in debt to cover dividend obligations, ExxonMobil added $10.8 billion in fresh debt, and BP took on another $4.6 billion. At some point, something has to give. S&P downgraded a long list of oil companies this week, including Chevron and Shell. It also put BP and ExxonMobil on review for a possible downgrade.

A quick rundown of the full-year earnings from some of the oil majors:

• BP (NYSE: BP) lost $6.5 billion in 2015, one of the company’s worst on record.
• ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) posted a loss of $4.4 billion in 2015.
• ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) saw profits halve to $16.2 billion.
• Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS.A) posted a profit of $3.8 billion, down 80 percent from 2014.
• Chevron (NYSE: CVX) reported a loss of $588 million, its first loss since 2002.

How is the new European Commission, led by Jean-Claude Juncker, facing up to the numerous crises that are besetting the EU?

By Salvador Llaudes*

Jean-Claude Juncker took office as President of the European Commission almost two years ago. The balance to date has been overshadowed by a string of crises that have called into question the viability of the European project itself.

On July 15, 2014, following a vote in the European Parliament in which he won the backing of 422 of the 751 Euro MPs, Jean-Claude Juncker became the President of the European Commission. He succeeded his Portuguese predecessor, José Manuel Durão Barroso, who had led the European executive for two consecutive terms.

Who is Juncker and how did he come by the Presidency of the Commission? The protagonist of this tale is a Luxembourger with a lengthy career both in his own country and in the EU’s institutions. The Christian Democrat was Finance Minister of Luxembourg for 20 years, Prime Minister for almost 20 years and President of the Eurogroup for around a decade.

Juncker ran in the European People’s Party’s primaries and beat Michel Barnier, at that time the Commissioner holding the powerful Internal Market portfolio. He then embarked upon an electoral campaign in which it was said that what Juncker really wanted was not to obtain the Presidency of the Commission, a position that requires a good deal of day-to-day work, but something of a more symbolic nature for this final phase of his political career, such as the Presidency of the European Council. This post, with fewer powers and less room for manoeuvre, finally fell into the hands of the former Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk.

Some months prior to Tusk taking the reins at the European Council, and against the background of serious economic crisis and the electorate’s disenchantment with the European project, there were elections to the European Parliament. The results of the votes cast in May 2014 confirmed the opinion pollsters’ direst predictions: the forces of Europhobia won in countries as important as France and the UK. It was an historic moment, in which those opposed to the common European project had more power than ever in the European institution par excellence, the European Parliament.

Juncker, the elections’ clear winner, viewed the situation with concern. Along with his German colleague, Martin Schulz, he decided to implement a strategy aimed at counteracting the poor image of Europe’s institutions. Both therefore took the decision to create an alliance comprising all the spitzenkandidaten (candidates to the Presidency of the Commission nominated by the various parliamentary groups), who endorsed Juncker’s right to try to garner the support of the European Parliament and in the process become the new President of the European executive.

This moment marked a key turning point, because when the spitzenkandidaten closed ranks they secured a clear victory against another European institution, the European Council, where there were those who argued that the task of electing the President of the Commission continued to be the prerogative of the European Council. Once Angela Merkel had overcome her doubts regarding Juncker and the process, opponents of allowing the electoral results to determine the Presidency of the Commission were left isolated, particularly the British Premier,David Cameron, who was only able to secure the backing of the controversial Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán.

The victory had two fundamental consequences. First, a precedent was set in the process of European integration. This means that from now on it will be extremely difficult for the Presidents of the Commission not to be indirectly elected via the results of the European parliamentary elections. Numerous ideas have been floated with the aim of lending importance to European elections, traditionally viewed as ‘secondary’, and it remains to be seen what decisions are taken in this regard, but it seems clear that the European Council has lost its capacity to veto the President of the Commission.

Secondly, a significant institutional innovation has occurred, namely an attempt to turn the European Parliament into a chamber that functions like national legislative assemblies, in the sense that the Commission –in its role as the European executive– has the support of the Parliament to carry out its initiatives. To ensure the smooth running of this institutional innovation an informal coordination structure has been set up that normally meets on a weekly basis and has taken the name –also informal– of the ‘G5’. This comprises Juncker and Frans Timmermans, representing the Commission, and Schulz, Gianni Pittella and Manfred Weber, on behalf of the Parliament. The latter are respectively the President of the Parliament, the leader of the European socialists and the leader of the European People’s Party. It therefore consists of a clear commitment to a twofold ‘grand coalition’: a coalition between the Commission and Parliament, and between the European People’s Party and the European Socialist Party in the Parliament itself, side-lining the liberals, greens and other groups.

Highs and lows of a tumultuous start

From the outset Juncker declared that he wanted a much more political Commission, one whose goal would be to enact one of the institution’s classic mantras: to be ‘big in the big things and small in the small things’. With this objective of better regulation, 23 initiatives were set in train over the course of 2015, compared with an average of 130 per year between 2010 and 2014. By the same token, no fewer than 80 measures were withdrawn in 2015, whereas the 2010-14 period saw an annual average of 26 withdrawals. The Commission has focused on prioritising 10 key strands that will guide its efforts throughout its term in office: (1) a new boost for jobs, growth and investment; (2) a connected digital single market; (3) a resilient Energy Union with a forward-looking climate-change policy; (4) a deeper and fairer internal market with a strengthened industrial base; (5) a deeper and fairer Economic and Monetary Union; (6) a reasonable and balanced free-trade agreement with the US; (7) an area of justice and fundamental rights based on mutual trust; (8) a new policy on migration; (9) becoming a stronger global actor; and (10) a Union of democratic change.

Despite his ambitious proposals, Juncker has run up against a more fraught reality, one that has brought one crisis after another and, if anything, throws the question of the sustainability of the project into even starker relief, particularly when national interests undermine the prospects for finding solutions to the crises.

The first of these crises could have cost Juncker his job. This was the LuxLeaks scandal, which broke out in November 2014 amid claims that Juncker was aware of practices –ethically questionable, to say the least– at the time he held government office in Luxembourg. The President of the Commission’s credibility fell to extremely low levels, but he managed to avoid the no confidence motion being mooted against him by promising to sponsor European changes that would forestall the prospect of similar events befalling the EU. In this respect, on 8 October, the European Commission launched a public consultation to promote a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base in the EU.

The crisis rapidly abated, but not so the one that loomed throughout the first half of 2015: the growing possibility that Greece would leave the euro. With the coming to power of Syriza at the start of 2015, the negotiations between creditors and debtors became increasingly fraught, to such an extent that they reached a situation of deadlock following a highly risky showdown between EU partners. The Greek government resorted to calling and winning a referendum that led it, perversely, to accepting worse conditions for a third bailout than those offered by its creditors in the first instance.

The outcome of the Commission’s work in the Greek crisis was ambiguous. It is true that it managed to avoid the real possibility of Grexit, and that Juncker played a very active role in the negotiations, sitting at the same table all the key players involved, including the Director General of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Christine Lagarde, the Governor of the Central European Bank, Mario Draghi, and the President of the Eurogroup, Jeroen Dijsselbloem. Furthermore, certain beneficial measures were included in the package of conditions, such as assessing the social impact of the steps to be taken and the modernisation of the Greek administration. The perception that a member of the club had been humiliated gained currency around the world, however, something that took its toll on the EU’s reputation.

The most problematic item to have landed in Juncker’s in-tray to date has been the refugee crisis. There is a striking lack of an EU-wide asylum system, something that has been a fundamental impediment to tackling an issue member states have viewed with alarming short-sightedness, beset by a belief that there could really be a national solution in erecting fences to halt the inflows of people fleeing their home countries (Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Pakistan and the like).

Between May 2015, when proposals were made to help Italy and Greece by resettling 40,000 people in other member states, and September, when a more ambitious request was tabled by the European Commission (involving the resettlement of 120,000 refugees), a genuine human catastrophe unfolded. This elicited a limited joint response only when images of the little Syrian refugee Aylan, drowned on a tourist beach in Turkey, appeared in all the news media. Since then the Commission has worked to turn the resettlement agreement into reality and sought ways of halting the inflows. To this end it has negotiated an agreement with Turkey, it has doubled emergency funding to help the member states most affected and has tabled a permanent relocation mechanism, among other measures.

Looking beyond these crises, which have called for an EU-wide response, notable progress has been made on the areas identified as priorities. These include the launch of the first projects under the so-called ‘Juncker Plan’, which aims to release €315 billion over three years; the definitive elimination of mobile roaming charges by 2017, the improvement of interconnections with the Iberian Peninsula and the Baltic, headway towards a Capital Markets Union, the endorsement of the Five Presidents’ Report, the progress made in negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the US, the submission of the European Security Agenda for 2015-20, the resettlement proposals for asylum seekers, the proposal of the creation of a EU border guard corps, a key role in the agreement reached on the Iranian nuclear programme and the improvement of the EU transparency register.

Spain and the Juncker Commission

Given that the Luxembourg politician was the candidate representing the European People’s Party, Mariano Rajoy’s government was gratified by Juncker’s election as President. However, this affinity was not sufficient to secure an appointment to what are widely regarded as the front-rank posts among the Commissioners, and Miguel Arias Cañete had to make do with the Climate Action and Energy portfolio. In the new reorganisation of the European Commission (divided into project-focused teams working on separate floors at Berlaymont, the Commission’s headquarters), Arias Cañete reports to one of the Vice-presidents, Maros Sefcovic, head of the Energy Union portfolio.

The results have not been overly negative, however, bearing in mind the visibility he achieved at COP21 (held from 30 November to 11 December 2015 in Paris) and the Spanish interest in energy interconnections, particularly when set against the longstanding neglect of the Iberian Peninsula in this area. The headway being made on the Energy Union is thus being closely monitored by Commissioner Arias Cañete and by the Spanish government itself.

Meanwhile, the acknowledged need for greater investment to improve the macroeconomic outlook, without side-lining the issues of fiscal responsibility and structural reforms, is also something that benefits Spain, with its pressing need to focus on reducing unemployment and adjust itself to its deficit and public debt targets. This, which would have been a lifeline for Spain some time ago, is still welcome now. In this context it is particularly worth highlighting the importance of the Juncker Plan and the greater flexibility in applying the regulations of the Stability and Growth Pact.

In the economic sphere there is another issue in which Spain has shown considerable interest: the successful conclusion of the TTIP, for which 11 negotiating rounds have been held so far. It so happens that the chief negotiator for the EU is a Spaniard, Ignacio García Bercero, but quite apart from this the Spanish administration has expressed great support for the success of the negotiations –just like countries such as the UK, traditionally staunch supporters of signing trade deals– and especially for an agreement with clear geopolitical implications.

It should be borne in mind that although he tries to conceal it for strategic reasons, Juncker is a pro-European convinced of the need to face shared challenges with common policies; this entails greater integration, something that not all member states are prepared to countenance. If there is one country where the elite (and the majority of its citizens) is committed to the European project, that country is Spain, strikingly devoid of any Eurosceptic parties with representation in parliament. The December elections have not changed much in this respect, as both Ciudadanos and Podemos (two emerging forces that have gained numerous seats in the Congress) are pro-European parties, although the latter is more critical of several steps taken by the EU in some topics, such as the refugee crisis.

Spain therefore has the potential to become a useful ally to the Juncker Commission’s way of working. It would be advisable in this regard to increase proactivity in the European debate, as the Spanish government did with the report published on 2 June 2015 calling for the creation of a Eurozone Minister of Finance, a more ambitious proposal than that put forward by Juncker in the Five Presidents’ Report, written jointly with Tusk, Dijsselbloem, Draghi and Schulz.

Another area to which Spain can make a contribution is migration. Spain is the only European country with a land border with Africa and it therefore has the utmost interest in developing a common policy in the most far-reaching terms. Prompted by the arrival of hundreds of thousands of people at Europe’s borders, escaping not only from civil wars but also from unsustainable socioeconomic situations, the EU is carrying out an in-depth examination of Spain’s response to the crisis it endured in the first decade of the 21st century, when it signed repatriation agreements with various sub-Saharan countries.

Conclusions: What legacy does Juncker wish to bequeath?

Juncker is an odd President. Apart from greeting various heads of state and government leaders at the Riga Summit with hugs and kisses, he is liable to call attention to himself by sending (and making public) a letter to his Commissioners requesting that they attend the weekly meetings of the Commission, emphasising that ‘absences should be limited to exceptional and justifiable circumstances’.

He has the clear intention of leaving his mark on the Commission, both in terms of its substance and its operating methods. Apart from the founding fathers, very few politicians have managed to achieve this since work on constructing the European project began. Among their number is one towering figure: Jacques Delors. Since he stepped down from high European office, many have held the Presidency of the Commission without exhibiting a similar level of charisma, let alone the same level of success.

In order to attain his goal Juncker must confront a set of circumstances that is far from propitious. As soon as he entered office he ran into the fact that the economic crisis had already altered the delicate balance of institutional powers, arming the European Council –and especially, but not exclusively, Germany– with much more power and restricting the Parliament’s and the Commission’s room for maneuver.

The President of the Commission wishes to reactivate his institution politically and put an end to the ‘business as usual’ approach. His policy priorities document and his working agenda, both for 2015 and for 2016, show this shift of direction in operational terms. As far as his legacy is concerned, however, the level of ambition will probably have to be trimmed given the landscape of continual crisis the EU is having to traverse. It will be a success if he simply ensures that the project does not founder. And the risk is not insignificant: it was conspicuous in the Greek crisis and will be evident again in the months ahead with the British and their ongoing Brexit saga.

The potential departure of member states adds to an economic crisis that has still not been overcome, the growing strength of Eurosceptic parties (in 2017 there are presidential elections in France and the victory of Marine Le Pen cannot at present be ruled out) and a refugee crisis that threatens to sweep before it one of the EU’s most highly-valued achievements: the Schengen area.

This, of course, was not the scenario Juncker imagined on taking the reins at the Commission. Even if his diagnosis in this year’s State of the Union address proves to be correct –‘more Europe is needed in the Union and more union in the EU’– the circumstances will have to change a great deal before he can put his plans into practice. If Juncker succeeds in pulling the European project back from the brink, he will have good grounds for congratulating himself. Being a new Delors is a tall order indeed.

About the author:
*Salvador Llaudes, Research Assistant, Elcano Royal Institute | @sllaudes

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute.

This analysis was previously published in Spanish in Política Exterior.

In a new Fox Business interview, host Kennedy asks Ron Paul the question many people have considered the last couple days: With Paul’s son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) having dropped out of the presidential race this week, how about the senior Paul jump into the 2016 presidential contest by seeking the Libertarian Party nomination?

Paul responds that such a run is “not in the cards.”

Watch the complete interview here:

Paul concludes in the interview that libertarians should “forget about the Republicans and Democrats” in the 2016 presidential race. The remaining Republican and Democrat choices in the race, explains Paul, “are all interventionists when it comes to war, when it comes to monetary policy, when it comes to civil liberties.” Thus, libertarians, Paul says, “are going to have to go to an alternative party.”

Paul, who is chairman and founder of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, first ran for president in 1988 as the Libertarian Party nominee. Paul won under one percent on election day in that race. Yet, his campaign — like his later two presidential runs in Republican Party primaries — introduced many people to the value of liberty and a peaceful foreign policy. Thus, the 1988 campaign achieved what Paul says in the interview was his purpose in politics — “to reach people, to try to change their minds.”

This article was published by the RonPaul Institute.

According to MTV Lebanon, the mother of Syrian President Bashar Al Assad and former First Lady of Syria “Anisa Ahmed Makhlouf” has died, at the age of 79 years.

Anisa Ahmed Makhlouf was born in the city of Latakia in 1934 and married the late President Hafez Al Assad in 1960. She had six children, Bushra Al Assad being the eldest, now deceased, and Basil Al Assad, who was intended to inherit his father’s rule but he died in a motorcycle accident in 1994 .

No official statement from the Syrian government has been released.

Original article

Executive orders for the execution of 80 persons have recently been announced in Iraq, with further possible execution orders to follow.

According to the EU’s External Office, the decision is a regrettable development as, following the formation of a new Government in Iraq in 2014, a review of all pending cases was undertaken.

“This review and a possible permanent suspension of all executions had been seen as a positive signal by the EU, in line with its principled opposition to the use of the death penalty,” said a spokesperson for the EU’s External Office in a statement.

According to the EU’s External Office, capital punishment is counter-productive as a crime deterrent.

“The EU strongly encourages Iraq to reinstate a de facto moratorium on the death penalty,” the EU’s External Office said.

European Union (EU) foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini has confirmed that she is planning “an important visit” to Iran following the implementation of a landmark nuclear agreement between Tehran and the P5+1 group of countries.

Speaking at a Saturday press conference in Amsterdam, the capital of the Netherlands, after a meeting of EU foreign ministers, Mogherini added that she was preparing the historic visit to Tehran in the near future but added that no exact date has been set yet.

She said preparations with Iran were well underway, adding that all 28 members of the bloc were backing the opening with Iran.

“It was very important to see the unity of the member states in the direction, intentions and preparations of this work we are doing with Iran,” Mogherini added.

“I can also confirm that I debriefed the [EU] ministers on the plans for my visit [to Iran], it’s going to be an important visit for sure, that we are preparing already with the Iranians,” the EU foreign policy chief stated.

Mogherini further said she would also host Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in Brussels on February 15.

Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the United States, France, Britain, China and Russia – plus Germany started to implement the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on January 16.

After JCPOA went into effect, all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran by the European Union, the Security Council and the US were lifted. Iran has, in return, put some limitations on its nuclear activities.

The nuclear agreement was signed on July 14, 2015 following two and a half years of intensive talks.

Original article

The second meeting of the Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG) of Afghanistan, Pakistan, the US and China on the Afghan peace and reconciliation process was held in Kabul, Afghanistan, on January 18, 2016, a week after the first round of discussions concluded in Islamabad, Pakistan. The second meeting of the QCG had called on all Taliban groups to “accept the government’s call for peace through dialogue” and end the senseless violence against the Afghan people.

The QCG meetings do not include Taliban representatives, and are part of a three-step process:

a. Formulating a roadmap
b. Inviting the armed opposition to the negotiating table
c. Implementing the peace plan

The roadmap would include identification of the Taliban factions for negotiations, a timetable and incentives to be offered. It is expected that two more rounds of these “preparatory meetings” will take place. The third QCG meeting will be held on 06 February 2016, in Islamabad.

Though the unstated objective of the QCG meetings is to build trust between Afghanistan and Pakistan, little progress has been made on this front, and consequently, there appears to be no clarity on how to shape the peace process. Also lacking is the consensus on incentives that can persuade the Taliban to give up violence and pursue a political approach. Furthermore, it is still unclear as to which Taliban groups are willing to join the peace process. The dissident Taliban faction under Mullah Akhund has already rejected the offer for peace talks, conditioning it with the withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan. The situation is also complicated by the fact that some Taliban have joined Islamic State–Khorasan (IS-K), the Islamic State’s franchise in Afghanistan.

Differences between Afghanistan and Pakistan

Regarding peace talks, there exist differences between Kabul and Islamabad on matters relating to the roadmap. The Afghan government believes that the onus is on Pakistan to see the deal with the Taliban while Pakistan feels it can only facilitate to the extent that it can convince but not compel the Taliban for negotiations. It is for the Afghan government to find common ground with the Taliban and clinch the deal through appropriate political concessions.

Differences also exist between the two countries on to methods to deal with irreconcilable Taliban factions. Furthermore, quite understandably, the Afghan government, given the territorial gains made by the Taliban in the recent fighting, wants a timeline approach. Conversely, Pakistan wants open-ended peace talks without pre-conditions. Afghans are reportedly looking at a two-month period for breakthrough in talks.

Other Tangibles

While a conditional ceasefire agreement in the next few weeks is extremely crucial to the continuation of the peace process given the Taliban fight-talk approach, the growing activities of the IS in Afghanistan too increase the importance of the current peace initiative and a time-bound progress.

The resurgence of al Qaeda, and its strengthening relationship with the Taliban, is another issue of urgent concern. First, al Qaeda chief Ayman al Zawahiri pledged allegiance to the new Taliban Chief Mullah Mansour, who accepted it. The latter also appointed al Qaeda affiliated Sirajuddin Haqqani as one of his two deputies.

Second, and more significantly, as per the US’ reports, in 2015, the Taliban permitted al Qaeda to run at least three training camps inside Afghanistan.

Pakistan adds to the density of the issue by claiming that terror strikes inside its territory are being orchestrated by militants based in Afghanistan, a part of the pattern of cross-border terrorism that is undermining peace efforts in the region.

Key Developments

There have been some key developments between the second and the third QCG meetings. The Taliban continues to increase its territorial gains both in the north and south of Afghanistan, with 40 Afghan districts under their direct control, and another 39 at the risk of meeting the same fate.

On 24 January 2016, the Taliban, met with Afghan lawmakers and civil society members at an informal two-day organised by Pugwash in Doha. They reiterated their preconditions for the resumption of peace talks with Kabul. These included removing from international terror blacklists their leaders, all bounties on their heads, and the release of an unspecified number of prisoners. The Taliban’s spokesperson called the talks “positive.” Afghan government officials did not attend the meeting.

The other “preliminary steps needed for peace” demanded by the Taliban includes the reopening of its political office in Doha and its recognition as the only entity authorised to carry out negotiations on its behalf. The Taliban said it is serious about peace and establishing an “independent Islamic system,” committed to “civil activities,” free speech, and “women’s rights in the light of Islamic rules, national interests and values.” The Taliban also claimed that it does not allow its territory to be used to “harm others,” and it is not open to power-sharing with the government in Kabul.

Significantly, while there appears to be an increased Chinese interest in the ongoing reconciliation process, the US is signalling that it is recalibrating its mission in Afghanistan to prolong its military presence.

Given the entrenched position on all sides, the third QCG in Islamabad appears headed down a blind alley.

This article was published at IPCS

Sociologists at Moscow’s Finance University surveyed residents of all Russian cities with populations greater than 250,000 to determine the level of “penetration of Orthodox culture in the lives” of such people. But the survey also identified where Islam and paganism are having an impact.

Specifically, the scholars asked Russian urban residents how much they were interested in or involved with religious practices. That allowed them to rank the cities in terms of their interest in Russian Orthodoxy, Islam, and paganism (sreda.org/2016/sotsiologi-opredelili-samyie-pravoslavnyie-i-samyie-musulmanskie-goroda-rossii/279875).

Using this measure, the scholars ranked the ten “most Orthodox” cities of the country. They are Lipetsk, Kursk, Saransk, Moscow, Belgorod, Voronezh, Tambov, Ryazan, Ulyanovsk and Kaluga. The ten “most Muslim” cities are Makhachkala, Grozny, Kazan, Naberezhny Chelny, Ufa, Sterlitamak, Stavropol, Astrakhan, Nizhnevartovsk, and Rostov-na-Donu.

The ten cities with the most interest in pagan and neo-pagan religions, including ancient Russian and pre-Christian faiths, the sociologists report, are Komsomolsk-na-Amure, Stavropol, Belgorod, Magnitogorsk, Sterlitamak, Lipetsk, Kostroma, Novorossiisk, Taganrog, and Tula.

Several cities are on more than one list. Muscovites display a high interest in both Orthodoxy and Islam. Residents of Lipetsk, Kaluga, Kursk, Belgorod, and Tambov show high interest in both Orthodoxy and neo-paganism. And residents of Stavropol, Simferopol, Nizhny Novgorod, and Magnitogorsk show high levels of interest in Islam and neo-paganism.

The only Russian city to be near the top on all three lists is Ulyanovsk.

These patterns may prove more important than one might think. On the one hand, the findings in some cases simply reflect the number of followers of each of these three faiths. But on the other, they may reflect a heightened interest in and thus a greater potential for conflict among these various religious trends.

Climate change may harm early-flowering plants not through plant-pollinator mismatch but through frost damage, a Dartmouth College-led study shows.

The findings appear in the journal Global Change Biology.

Climate change has many ecological effects, such as altering flowering phenology, or the blooming time of wildflowers, across the world. Altering blooming time often affects plant reproduction and survival, but the mechanisms behind these changes are not well understood.

The researchers used two large-scale field experiments to assess how altering the phenology of the western spring beauty affects plant-pollinator interactions and plant reproduction. The iconic white and pink mountain wildflower is visited primarily by native bees collecting nectar and/or pollen.

The researchers found that altering blooming time caused low plant reproduction, but the cause of the reduction depended on the direction that the blooming time was altered. Contrary to their predictions, advanced blooming time did not reduce pollinator visits but caused low plant reproduction due to frost damage.

Low reproduction due to disrupted plant-pollinator interactions was only achieved by delaying blooming time. Thus, plants face trade-offs with advanced flowering time: while early-flowering plants can reap the benefits of enhanced pollination, they do so at the cost of increased susceptibility to frost damage that can overwhelm any benefit of flowering early. In contrast, delayed flowering results in dramatic reductions in plant reproduction through reduced pollination.

“As phenology is advancing around the globe, there are concerns that plant-pollinator interactions may be disrupted through phenological mismatches, or mismatches in the timing of when flowers bloom and their pollinators emerge, leading to reduced plant reproduction,” said lead author Zak Gezon, who conducted the research as a doctoral student at Dartmouth and who is now a conservation biologist with Disney’s Animal Programs. “Our results suggest, however, that climate change may constrain reproduction of early-flowering plants mostly through the direct impacts of extreme environmental conditions rather than disrupted plant-pollinator interactions.”

Three years after first reported MERS-CoV death, long-awaited findings contradict previous assumptions and highlight the continuing importance of autopsies to understand disease, according to The American Journal of Pathology

Since 2012, at least 1,500 individuals have developed Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), resulting in more than 500 fatalities. Only now are results being reported of the first autopsy of a MERS patient, which was performed in 2014.

Not only do these findings, published in The American Journal of Pathology, provide unprecedented, clinically-relevant insights about how MERS progresses, they challenge previously accepted ideas about MERS and the relevance of current animal models. With the number of autopsies performed on the decline, these findings underscore the critical information autopsies can provide regarding emerging infectious disease.

“The article by Dianna L. Ng et al exemplifies the value of a well-performed study of an autopsy. The long interval between the emergence of this dangerous disease three years ago and the first autopsy reminds us of the lost opportunity that the decline of the performance of autopsies, particularly research-oriented post-mortem examinations in the United States represents,” commented noted expert in the field David H. Walker, MD, Director of the University of Texas Medical Branch (Galveston) Center for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases.

The 45-year-old male patient analyzed by autopsy was one of a large patient cluster treated at a hospital in the United Arab Emirates in April 2014. He worked in a storage room at a paramedic station, with no patient-care duties or exposure to camels. Between April 2 and April 10, 2014, he rapidly progressed from having fever, runny nose, and cough to death. On the last day of his life, he was treated with 100 mg of the steroid hydrocortisone every eight hours. The autopsy was performed 10 days after his death.

The autopsy showed that the lungs were the main target organs of MERS, with diffuse damage to the air sacs (alveoli) observed. Using immunohistochemistry, the researchers identified anti–MERS-CoV antibodies in specific cells in the lungs (pneumocytes and epithelial syncytial cells) and bronchial submucosal glands.

“Infection of bronchial submucosal glands is a likely source of viral shedding in respiratory secretions leading to human-to-human transmission,” explained lead investigator Sherif R. Zaki, MD, PhD, Chief of the Infectious Diseases Pathology Branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta).

Patients with MERS often show signs of acute kidney failure, and MERS-CoV has been found in the urine of MERS patients. In this case, although certain signs of pathology were seen in this patient’s kidneys, immunohistochemistry showed no evidence of MERS-CoV.

“This suggests that the acute renal failure in this patient was not caused by direct renal infection, but likely by other factors such as hypotension,” noted Dr. Zaki. Such new insights suggest that MERS researchers and clinicians treating MERS patients should focus their infectious control strategies on the lungs. Similarly, no sign of MERS-CoV infection was found in the brain.

In many ways findings from this autopsy differ from observations made using animal models. “In the case of MERS, development of numerous animal models was undertaken prior to knowledge of the human pathology,” remarked Dr. Walker. “Although these experimental studies were able to suggest the target cells of the virus and histopathology of MERS, only some of the features of the animal models conform to the observations in the human autopsy. Until the truth-testing of a large series of autopsies is reported, judgment will favor those models supported by the observations in a single postmortem examination.”

He cautioned that reliance on animal models can undermine the value of the results generated when they are used to test MERS vaccines or antiviral treatments.

Noting the dramatic reduction in the number of autopsies performed in the U.S. in recent years, Dr. Walker observed that the problem will worsen as pathologists’ expertise in autopsy erodes as more of their time is allocated to analyzing surgical tissue from a single organ rather than conducting comprehensive analyses of all organ systems.

The MERS coronavirus (MERS-CoV) was first isolated from the sputum of a patient who died of respiratory and renal failure in Saudi Arabia in 2012. Although more than three-quarters of MERS cases have originated in Saudi Arabia, including an outbreak of 515 cases in the spring of 2014, the syndrome has been reported in 26 countries including the U.S.

Clinically, patients may show symptoms of upper respiratory tract illness, severe pneumonia, and multi-organ failure, although some infected individuals may exhibit no symptoms. MERS is diagnosed most often in elderly men and patients suffering from other serious chronic illnesses, such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or chronic renal, lung, or heart disease. MERS is thought to spread to humans from infected humans or infected dromedary camels.

By Abayomi Azikiwe*

General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was quoted recently as saying that the United States is preparing, in conjunction with its imperialist allies, a renewed military campaign in Libya.

Speaking as if the US had a limited or even a non-existent role in the current military and security crisis in the North African state, Pentagon officials along with other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) including France, Britain and Italy, are saying they are motivated by the instability and threat of terrorism posed by the situation, particularly the seizure of territory along the western Mediterranean coast by the so-called “Islamic State”.

Gen. Dunford said with reference to a deepening interventionist policy toward Libya, ‘You want to take decisive military action to check ISIL’s expansion, and at the same time you want to do it in such a way that’s supportive of a long-term political process… I think it’s pretty clear to all of us – French, US alike – that whatever we do is going to be in conjunction with the new government,’ referring to the neo-colonial dominated regime that United Nations Libyan envoy Martin Kobler has been attempting to mould together.

There are two rival regimes stemming from a split within the political forces, which were installed in the aftermath of the war of regime change carried out in 2011. Rebel organisations, including many who had been labelled as “terrorists”, were funded, armed, given diplomatic support and media acceptance by the US State Department, the British Foreign Office and others in an effort to impose them as “legitimate” leaders of the oil-rich country.

At present the Pentagon and State Department efforts are ostensibly being carried out against the growing influence of the so-called Islamic State, which has taken control of several cities and towns on the Mediterranean coast. Washington has been fighting a low-level war against IS in Iraq, Syria and now Libya. Nonetheless, the intervention of the Russian Federation during the concluding months of 2015 has been rejected by the administration of President Barack Obama as unwarranted interference designed to bolster the internationally-recognised government of President Bahsar al-Assad in Damascus.

However, with specific reference to Libya, Gen. Dunford stresses that action needs to be taken soon, perhaps not days but weeks, he has emphasised in a statement to the press. ‘My perspective is we need to do more. Quickly is weeks not hours,’ the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff noted.

UNITY UNDER NEO-COLONIALISM

Setting the stage for such an intervention has been politically dependent upon the securing of a purported unity accord between the two rival factions claiming “legitimacy” in the North African state. Although there have been numerous announcements of an agreement, most ranking elements within the General National Congress in Tripoli and the House of Representatives in Tobruk have rejected the terms of the peace treaty.

In addition to problems between both Libyan camps, some have rejected the notion of a foreign military occupation. If the elements opposed to imperialist intervention maintain their position, it could easily signal a much more complicated and contentious tenure for the proposed force of 6,000 troops, which will ostensibly be led by Italy, the former colonial power in Libya prior to independence in 1951.

An article published by Colin Freeman on January 21 said: ‘A senior figure in Libya’s new unity government has warned that the country may be unwilling to accept British troops in its fight against Isil’s growing presence. Ahmed Mateeq, the newly appointed deputy prime minister, said that Libya “did not need” to take up the offer from Britain of 1,000 soldiers to train Libyan troops.” (The Telegraph, UK)

Such a statement delivered only a few days after the announcement of a unity accord aimed at ending a year and a half of civil war between the US-backed forces installed by Washington and Brussels, could signal the unravelling of the entire scheme. If imperialist forces are fired on by Libyan political groups who are supposedly party to the UN-brokered agreement, this could bring an even higher degree of instability to the country and the region.

Freeman in the same above-mentioned article pointed out that, ‘Mr Mateeq said that while Western help was welcome in terms of “logistical and technical support”, most Libyans would not accept the presence of foreign troops on their soil. This is highly sensitive for Libyans and we prefer to look after the Libyan soil ourselves. At the moment I don’t think we could accept that, although we do view the British as our friends and allies.”

Mateeq is a member of the 32-member ministerial regime established in late January capping off more than 18 months of heated talks mediated by Kobler, a German career diplomat who has been involved in other imperialist war scenarios including Iraq and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Even if Kobler and his Western backers can strong arm the divided rival regimes into accepting the unity accord this does not take into consideration the hundreds of other armed militias that are roaming the country acting, in many cases, as a law unto themselves.

The Telegraph correspondent Freeman emphasised that ‘Contrary to Mr Mateeq’s remarks, diplomats close to the UN negotiations on the new unity government said last weekend that they thought the new unity government was likely to accept the British offer [of indefinite foreign occupation], as long as the troops were confined to a training role.’

Nonetheless, he continued, ‘A previous British training arrangement for Libyan troops ended in chaos two years ago when Libyan soldiers stationed at Bassingbourn Barracks were accused of sexual assault. Diplomats say that with hindsight, the mission should have been carried out on Libyan rather than UK soil.’

Moreover, a report by the Al-Arabiya news website on January 23 claimed that Russian troops were also present in Libya purportedly in support of the unity accord negotiated by the UN envoy Kobler. This article says: ‘Dozens of British, Russia and American troops have arrived in Libya in support for the weak internationally-recognised government in Tobruk, London-based daily Asharq al-Awsat reported. The daily also said French troops are expected to arrive soon for the same purpose.’

This article also says, ‘The officers and soldiers are currently stationed in Jamal Abdulnasir military base south of Tobruk where the parliament is holding its sessions in the city. Witnesses in the base, meanwhile, said the number of foreign troops has grown to 500 in the past three weeks, but a security official, who spoke under the condition of anonymity, said they are just dozens.’

The claims of Russian involvement remain to be verified. Russia has played a critical role in defending the Syria Government by assisting the national military in retaking large swaths of territory inside the embattled state.

LIBYA AND THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS FOR 2016

These discussions are taking place amid the presidential primary campaigns where one leading Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, played a key role in the blockades, massive bombing and rebel ground war against the Jamahiriya Government led by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi five years ago. Apart from the Congressional hearings held last year over the attacks on the Benghazi compound occupied by Ambassador Christopher Stevens along with diplomatic personnel and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) personnel in September 2012, the question of the role of Clinton in the Libyan destabilisation, bombing and subsequent chaotic security situation, which has fostered instability across North and West Africa, has not been brought to the debates or evoked by the corporate media.

The region is far more unstable than at any time in over four decades when a war was fought between Egypt and Israel in 1973, prompting an oil embargo and the consequent economic crisis inside the US during this period. Later on in 1978-79, the Egyptian government of the-then President Anwar Sadat, under tremendous pressure from Washington, signed a separate peace agreement with Tel Aviv.

This agreement with Israel effectively neutralized the role of Cairo in the struggle for the independence of Palestine. At present the bulk of discussion centering around North African and Middle Eastern affairs focuses on the role of IS, al-Qaeda and other so-called “Islamist extremist organizations”.

This narrative provides a rationale and political justification for a permanent imperialist occupation of the regions negating the right to self-determination for the states involved.

* Abayomi Azikiwe is Editor, Pan-African News Wire.

By Mahendra Ved*

An opinion poll among its readers conducted by the influential Dawn newspaper on February 5, observed in Pakistan as “Kashmir Day”, asking “Do you believe in observing Kashmir Day?” brought forth over 86 percent “No” and 14.38 percent “Yes”.

The participation was modest, around 600, by the end of the working day, but could reflect the growing disenchantment among the readers who, of course, constitute a very small city-based English-reading minority. The mood may well be different among readers of Urdu and Punjabi media.

Whether or not India and Pakistan hold a formal bilateral dialogue, the current phase of uneasy relationship where both sides are ready to talk – but unable/unwilling to fix dates and the agenda for several reasons – worked to take the steam off Pakistan’s “Kashmir Day” observance.

Leaving out ‘official’ hotheads like LET and JUD chief Hafiz Saeed, the observance seemed a relatively tame affair. This may have to do with the widely perceived stance of the Pakistan Army that controls the India and Kashmir policy.

Whether or not it endorses Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s approach to India, it would like to avoid a confrontation in the aftermath of peace move triggered by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Lahore being scuttled by terror attack on India’s Pathankot air base. Nawaz Sharif himself struck a conciliatory note by emphasizing on the need for a dialogue as the solution to the vexed issue.

Addressing a joint session of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Assembly on Kashmir Day he said that the solution of all issues, including that of disputed Kashmir, lay in dialogue.

“Difference of opinion between two countries is not unheard of,” Sharif said, referring to Pakistan’s differences with India over Kashmir. “What is unusual is that for 6-7 decades, we have not been able to get rid of these differences,” Radio Pakistan quoted him as saying in Muzaffarabad.

This was unlike the fiery speeches most of his predecessors have made each year on this occasion. From Ayub Khan to Z A Bhutto and Zia ul Haq to Benazir Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf (“Kashmir is in my blood”), rulers have used the occasion to dare India and to complain to the world community and to the United Nations against India’s ‘occupation’ of Jammu and Kashmir.

Indeed, Nawaz Sharif referred to India in a totally different tone.

“I brought this up with the Indian leadership and would like to reiterate that the solution to our problems lies in dialogue. Unless we sit together and talk about these issues, they won’t be resolved,” Sharif told the assembly. He expressed hope that the Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue between Pakistan and India would see progress in days to come.

He said Pakistan has assured Indian leadership of cooperation on every issue, including terrorism. “Pakistan is most affected by terrorism. Who wants eradication of terrorism more than Pakistan?”

There has been a broad consensus in the world community, even among those who do not necessarily support the Indian standpoint on the Kashmir issue, that despite the disputed status, simmering tensions and violence, Jammu and Kashmir state that India rules has seen greater democracy and development compared to the part across the Line of Control.

Neglect of development is a long-standing issue in what India calls Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK). The “President of AJK”, Sharif said, “gave me a long list of delayed power projects”. He said he would “ask why there has been a delay and has progress been made on these projects.” Blaming earlier governments, he said: “If there is a power shortage somewhere, it is a not a problem that we have created, but rather one that we have inherited.”

Making no immediate commitment, he assured of future development and prosperity for the vast region that has seen lack of development and growing militancy.

“The benefits of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) will reach AJK, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Gilgit Baltistan, which are a big part of the CPEC. Development of roads and power projects has been planned to help end the power shortage and bring progress to these areas.”

The readers’ views on the report ranged from supporting the “Kashmiri Cause” to blaming India for its intransigence and condemning successive governments at home for not doing enough to ‘force’ India to yield to the ‘desire’ of the Kashmiri people.

“We are ‘celebrating’ Kashmir Day, while shutting down all economic activities, despite already having fragile & oblivious economy…shutting down all businesses on this particular day means hefty financial loss…damaging our own economy rather benefiting Kashmiris…what a ‘Nation’ we are….” said one reader.

“It’s not our core issue at all,” said another and a third said: “Dear PM please take care of Pakistan’s issues.” Ranged against this were many who blamed India for unleashing repression.

A blog with Srinagar dateline written by Gowhar Geelani for Dawn carried the views of many on the Indian side who were asked: “Is pro-Pakistan sentiment in Kashmir still alive?”

Geelani asked: “In the past, Kashmiris in their wills have requested their children and grandchildren to hoist the Pakistani flag on their graves once the region merges with Pakistan, but is the pro-Pakistan sentiment so deep in today’s Kashmir?

“Some observers say that in a suppressed environment like the one that prevails in Kashmir, wherein democratic spaces for expression and dissent stand choked, it is a difficult question to answer.

He quotes Ajazul Haq, a leading columnist on the Indian side, responding via email: “… the worsening situation in Pakistan is creating a bad feeling among Kashmiris and that is perhaps one of the reasons people don’t display their pro-Pakistan emotions as openly and plainly as they used to.”

However, many in Kashmir continue to express their love for Pakistan overtly through various symbolic gestures like cheering for the Pakistani cricket team, waving or hoisting the Pakistan’s national flag, setting Pakistan’s national anthem as the ring tone on their mobile phones, and attending funerals of militants of Pakistani descent in colossal numbers,” says Geelani.

Bashir Manzar, Editor-in-chief of Srinagar based English daily Kashmir Images, feels Kashmir Solidarity Day is “ritualistic” and meant only to address Pakistan’s domestic constituency.

Anuradha Bhasin, Executive Editor of Jammu based Kashmir Times, says that Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir is necessitated by the country’s internal political demands.

Zafar Choudhary, commentator and political analyst based in Jammu, says that over the last many years “jihadi elements like ‘Lashkar-i-Taiba’ (LeT) have hijacked the Kashmir Solidarity Day” in Pakistan.

The blogger quotes Shabnum, a lecturer by profession, who says that “pro-Pakistan sentiment among the new generation is on the decline and some of them have even started cheering for the Indian cricket team. She says several among the young generation also seem to see their economic future with India without surrendering their aspiration for Kashmir’s independence.”

The blogger concluded: “There is a mixed response from Jammu and Kashmir on February 5. Some say that Kashmir Day is of “great significance” whereas others believe that the observance has been reduced to mere ritual and that Pakistan’s official stance over Kashmir appears to be “wavering”.

*Mahendra Ved is a strategic analyst and commentator. He can be contacted at mahendraved07@gmail.com

Will the time come when Malaysians refuse to go out to vote? I suppose that is a very American question as it entails one’s understanding of the ridiculousness of politics and the believe that voting has become a meaningless act, although one may quote Plato who might say that the punishment for not going out to vote will be to be governed by inferiors.

But Malaysians are beginning to think like cynics, hopeless romantics, couldn’t care-less citizens, and people having enough of lies and empty promises fed to them by their elected representatives.

Maybe the young and the urban dwellers are beginning to feel that political life is hopeless and the future is bleak as we feel the country turning totalitarian. Maybe fear is also a factor, at a time when the government in power are threatening with arrests and jail those speaking about injustices, corruption, and abuse of power.

Maybe Malaysians are now more concerned with survival issues and how to feed their family or put food on their table and of the rising cost of living and how not to work a third job.

This past decade has seen that feeling of ‘dread’, as the Danish philosopher Soren Kiekergaard would term it as, engulfing.

It is a feeling mental fatigue of being fed with stories of abusers of power not getting punished, a steady diet of news reports on massive corruption, new tax imposed, ugly fighting between the Najib Abdul Razak and Dr Mahathir Mohamad camps, political murders most foul and brutal covered and unresolved, increasing unemployment, failure of government-linked companies that have public investments gravely affected, the country made famous by the international media by stories of money-laundering and political murders, threats of succession by states such as Johor, Sabah and Sarawak – all these are making the people feeling the dread and will plunge them into depression.

Malaysians are now living in an emotionally toxic environment. What will the coming elections mean to them, with the most recent revelation that their prime minister was given a generous donation by a Saudi king/prince to make sure that the government will continue to be elected?

The most recent ‘Kedah Move’, i.e. the replacement of the current chief minister perhaps because of vendetta and a ‘Godfather-movie’ plot of the Najib-Mahathir war is also an example of a national trigger of citizen depression created by endless conflicts.

But these conflicts are largely between old money and new money, old school and new school politics, and one to settle old scores. For the common man and woman, it has no meaning except to cheer for this and that camp once in a while and of course a good current issue topic for kopitiam and warong talk.

Julius Caesar and Brutus unplugged

Herein lie the new Malaysian predicament. We have always hoped that once new people are put into power to serve the rakyat, ideas should rule and move nations, not greed and the never ending political wars to get rich and get richer while the poor pay for the riches and to also pay for the popcorns or kuachi or dried watermelon seeds watching the wayangs and sandiwara of Malay Macbeths or Julius Caesar and Brutus unplugged.

So, are we Malaysians now hopelessly devoted to the dread and drama of desperation of the politicians who do not have an ounce of care of the people drowning not only in the wave of globalisation beyond our control. but possibly eaten by sharks and piranhas in the new blue ocean of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement?

Have we become a nation of spectacles watching circuses all day long, yet hopeless from fear as well as schizophrenia we are feeling as a consequence of the continuing unresolved issues brought about by the unmediated politics of race, religion, class, and creed?

Have we arrived at a point of no return, waiting for the complete restoration of a new government whose base and superstructure or commanding heights is a system hybridised by Oriental Despotism, Power Madness and Totalitarianism?

Is Malaysia is now a basket case of our own design? How did we get here? Whose fault is it that we have all trapped ourselves, locked in this political mad and haunted house and forced to swallow the keys, by the owners?

Is there a way out? Is there a Messiah hiding somewhere with a plan for an Exodus?

I don’t know. Do you? For sure, the rakyat deserves the government they help put into power. But is there still hope for radical and positive change?