Residents of Wink and neighboring Kermit have grown accustomed to the two giant sinkholes that sit between their small West Texas towns.

But now radar images taken of the sinkholes by an orbiting space satellite reveal big changes may be on the horizon.

A new study by geophysicists at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, finds the massive sinkholes are unstable, with the ground around them subsiding, suggesting the holes could pose a bigger hazard sometime in the future.

The two sinkholes — about a mile apart — appear to be expanding. Additionally, areas around the existing sinkholes are unstable, with large areas of subsidence detected via satellite radar remote sensing. That leaves the possibility that new sinkholes, or one giant sinkhole, may form, said geophysicists and study co-authors Zhong Lu, professor, Shuler-Foscue Chair, and Jin-Woo Kim, a research scientist, in the Roy M. Huffington Department of Earth Sciences at SMU.

“This area is heavily populated with oil and gas production equipment and installations, hazardous liquid pipelines, as well as two communities. The intrusion of freshwater to underground can dissolve the interbedded salt layers and accelerate the sinkhole collapse,” said Kim, who leads the SMU geophysical team reporting the findings. “A collapse could be catastrophic. Following our study, we are collecting more high-resolution satellite data over the sinkholes and neighboring regions to monitor further development and collapse.”

Lu and Kim reported the findings in the scientific journal Remote Sensing, in the article “Ongoing deformation of sinkholes in Wink, Texas, observed by time-series Sentinel-1A SAR Interferometry.”

The research was supported by the U.S. Geological Survey Land Remote Sensing Program, the NASA Earth Surface & Interior Program, and the Shuler-Foscue Endowment at Southern Methodist University.

Unstable ground linked to rising, falling groundwater

The sinkholes were originally caused by the area’s prolific oil and gas extraction, which peaked from 1926 to 1964. Wink Sink No. 1, near the Hendricks oil well 10-A, opened in 1980. Wink Sink No. 2, near Gulf WS-8 supply well, opened 22 years later in 2002.

It appears the area’s unstable ground now is linked to changing groundwater levels and dissolving minerals, say the scientists. A deep-seated salt bed underlies the area, part of the massive oil-rich Permian Basin of West Texas and southeastern New Mexico.

With the new data, the SMU geophysicists found a high correlation between groundwater level in the underlying Ogallala Aquifer and further sinking of the surface area during the summer months, influenced by successive roof failures in underlying cavities.

Satellite images and groundwater records indicate that when groundwater levels rise, the ground lifts. But the presence of that same groundwater then speeds the dissolving of the underground salt, which then causes the ground surface to subside.

Everything’s bigger in Texas, and the Wink sinkholes are no exception

Officials have fenced off the two sinkholes near Wink, a town of about 940 people, and Kermit, a town of about 6,000 people. The giant holes are notable features on the area’s vast plains, which are dotted mostly with oil pump jacks, storage facilities, occasional brush and mesquite trees.

Based on modeling of satellite image datasets, SMU’s researchers report that Wink Sink No. 1, which is closer to the town of Kermit, appears to be the most unstable. The smaller hole of the two, it has grown to 361 feet (110 meters) across — the length of a football field.

“Even though Wink No. 1 collapsed in 1980, its neighboring areas are still subsiding,” say the authors, “and the sinkhole continues to expand.” An oval-shaped deformation circling the sinkhole measures three-tenths of a mile (500 meters) wide and is subsiding up to 1.6 inches (4 centimeters) a year.

Wink Sink No. 2, which is nine-tenths of a mile south of No. 1 and which sits closer to the town of Wink, is the larger of the sinkholes. It varies from 670 feet to 900 feet across.

Wink No. 2 is not experiencing as much subsidence as Wink No. 1. However, its eastern side is collapsing and eroding westward at a rate of up to 1.2 inches (3 centimeters) a year.

“Wink No. 2 exhibits depression associated with the ongoing expansion of the underground cavity,” the authors report.

Some ground that doesn’t even border the edges of the two sinkholes is also subsiding, the scientists observed. An area more than half a mile (1 kilometer) northeast of No. 2 sank at a rate of 1.6 inches (4 centimeters) in just four months.

Ground northeast of sinkholes is subsiding, suggesting new ones forming

The largest rate of ground subsidence is not at either sinkhole, but at an area about seven-tenths of a mile (1.2 kilometers) northeast of No. 2. Ground there is subsiding at a rate of more than 5 inches (13 centimeters) a year.

It’s aerial extent, the researchers report, has also enlarged over the past eight years when a previous survey was done.

“The enlarged deformation could be an alarming precursor to the potential future development of hazards in the vicinity,” said the authors.

Additionally, ground along a road traveled by oil field vehicles, about a quarter mile (400 meters) directly north of No. 2, is subsiding about 1.2 inches (3 centimeters) a year.

Ground’s movement detected with radar technique

The satellite radar datasets were collected over five months between April 2015 and August 2015. With them, the geophysicists observed both two-dimension east-west deformation of the sinkholes, as well as vertical deformation.

The SMU scientists used a technique called interferometric synthetic aperture radar, or InSAR for short, to detect changes that aren’t visible to the naked eye.

“From 435 miles above the Earth’s surface, this InSAR technique allows us to measure inch-level subsidence on the ground. This is a monumental human achievement, and scientists will not stop endeavoring to improve this technique for more precise measurements,” said Lu, who is world-renowned for leading scientists in InSAR applications. Lu is a member of the Science Definition Team for the dedicated U.S. and Indian NASA-ISRO InSAR mission, set for launch in 2020 to study hazards and global environmental change.

InSAR accesses a series of images captured by a read-out radar instrument mounted on the orbiting satellite Sentinel-1A. Sentinel-1A was launched in April 2014 as part of the European Union’s Copernicus program.

Simply put, Sentinel-1A bounces a radar signal off the earth, then records the signal as it bounces back, delivering measurements. The measurements allow geophysicists to determine the distance from the satellite to the ground, revealing how features on the Earth’s surface change over time.

“Sinkhole formation has previously been unpredictable, but satellite remote sensing provides a great means to detect the expansion of the current sinkholes and possible development of new sinkholes,” said Kim. “Monitoring the sinkholes and modeling the rate of change can help predict potential sinkhole development.”

Sentinel-1A data were obtained from Sentinels Scientific Data Hub – Copernicus. Groundwater well data came from the Texas Water Development Board.

The Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Council (KCBC) has expressed concern about the uncertainty over the release of Father Tom Uzhunnalil, the Salesian Father who was abducted by a terror group in Yemen.

KCBC urged both India’s Central and State governments to ensure safe release of the priest as early as possible.

“KCBC is very much concerned about prolonged uncertainty in the release of Father Tom Uzhunnalil. We request the Central and state governments to continue their sincere efforts to make possible his safe release from the captivity of militants in Yemen,” a press release said after a two-day meeting of the Catholic bishops in Kochi, Kerala.

India’s Minister of State for External Affairs, Gen V K Singh, said last month that there was no “adverse” report about the 57-year-old Salesian priest.

Mercedes-Benz said unit sales in May increased by 12.9% to 170,625 vehicles. In the period of January through May, 818,175 vehicles with the three-pointed star were delivered to customers (+12.3%), more than ever before in the first five months of a year.

“Our double-digit growth in Europe and Asia-Pacific made a major contribution to the strong unit sales of Mercedes-Benz in May,” said Ola Källenius, Member of the Board of Management of Daimler AG responsible for Mercedes-Benz Cars Marketing & Sales. “And we have big plans. Following the strong market launch of the E-Class Saloon in Europe, we are now presenting the new E-Class Estate to the public for the first time. More than 1.6 million Saloons and Estates of the 212 predecessor series have been sold by today. We are sure the new generation of the E-Class will continue its strong heritage successfully.”

Sales in Europe increased by a strong 14.2% to 74,268 units in May. This was primarily due to double-digit growth in the major markets of Great Britain, Italy, Spain and Belgium. In Germany, the domestic market, 23,343 vehicles were delivered to customers (+4.9%).

In the Asia-Pacific region, Mercedes-Benz handed over 57,438 vehicles to customers in May (+24.2%). In China, the biggest market, Mercedes-Benz achieved a new record of more than 38,000 vehicles sold (+38.9%). Also in Japan, Taiwan and Australia, the Stuttgart-based company with the three- pointed star achieved its highest May to date. In Japan, Australia and Taiwan, Mercedes-Benz continued to defend its market leadership among the premium manufacturers last month.

In the NAFTA region, 34,323 units of Mercedes-Benz models were sold in May. 29,299 of those automobiles were delivered to customers in the USA. In the USA and Canada, Mercedes-Benz was the market leader among the premium manufacturers in May.

Sales of Mercedes-Benz compact cars increased to a new high in May, with a total of 53,618 units delivered to customers (+15.6%). The A- and B-Class, the CLA, CLA Shooting Brake and GLA were particularly popular in China, where unit sales more than doubled in May.

The E-Class Saloon and Estate were among the best-selling Mercedes-Benz models in May. Growth was especially strong in Europe last month, the first full month of sales of the new E-Class Saloon. The sixth generation of the E-Class Estate is being presented to the public for the first time in Stuttgart today. Since 2009, more than 1.6 million Saloons and Estates of the predecessor model of the E-Class have been delivered to customers.

The SUVs continued to make significant contributions to the growth of Mercedes-Benz, with sales of 58.517 units last month. This means that May of last year – the previous strongest-selling May – was surpassed by 42.0%. In Great Britain, Australia and South Korea, unit sales more than doubled compared with the prior-year month. The strongest growth in May was posted by the GLC, which is meanwhile available to customers around the world also as a plug-in hybrid: the GLC 350 e 4MATIC.

By Jonathan Hoogendoorn

National interests for the United States in the Asia- Pacific region are paramount. The leading regional power, China, is the world’s second largest economy at $10,360,105 (USD millions) in 2014 (World Bank). With the massive and unprecedented growth of the Chinese economy over the last few decades, new challenges and opportunities have arisen for US involvement. In the past the U.S. has utilized the Asian powers to create a domestic import­-based economy, but the geopolitical system in a progressing Asia can no longer sustain the current trade infrastructure.

The development of the Asian trade economy has resulted in a “noodle bowl” of Free Trade Agreements, a form of progressive trade liberalization, of which the U.S. is already a part. Involvement in agreements like TIFA, which deal directly with ASEAN, are models for future trade liberalization. Though the United States has been both for and against liberalization in the past, and remains divided, it is now more important than ever that the United States involve themselves. On the basis of the U.S.’ place within APEC structures and developing FTA’s, this article will present an analysis of two areas of national interest which should be heavily considered in the creation of future policy: Economic and Security/Political.

The so-called “noodle bowl” is the product of trade liberalization in Asia. With China as the flagship, the Asia-Pacific region has undergone a massive change from bilateral relations to liberalization in order to sustain Asia as a single entity. Though China is the powerhouse of Asian trade, prominent entities such as ASEAN are leading examples of smaller countries forming partnerships so as to encourage healthy trade with China and other larger world economies. This structure centrally organizes all export and import needs, aligning them with appropriate FTAs. From the United States’ perspective, it is becoming increasingly difficult and inefficient to trade bilaterally in the Asia-Pacific, nor may it be in the country’s best interests. So the question remains: is it more in the national interest of the United States to pursue further liberalization in the Asian region, or to maintain the old bilateral and multilateral styles of trade to protect the stability of its own economy?

The economic national interest in the Pacific region cannot be understated. According to Matthew Goodman, recent US policies towards Pacific involvement have been motivated by three factors: Promoting growth, strengthening the global rules­-based system, and sustaining the U.S.’ long-term presence in the region. Trade liberalization has caught on in America, as proven by the passing of the TPP and the development of the TTIP. As for the creation of jobs and economic growth, the U.S. has already started to understand the implications of an enabled Chinese workforce. Loosening of trade with China in the 1990s led to a massive influx of cheap-labor goods from Asia, and thus the China­US trade deficit was born. As reported by the United States Census Bureau, the deficit has risen steadily even through August of 2015, arriving at $48.3 billion. This clearly means that the United States has become comfortable as an import­-based economy, but this is not the way towards a healthy U.S. economy and domestic labor market.

Asia holds great potential for the future of the US economy, but it must be viewed from the correct lens. The goal is not to create an increasingly import-based system in the U.S., but to foster equality in trade between the United States and those economies which will complement its own. A balance must be found so as to not once again flood the US market which cheaper goods, but create a market for US exports in Asia, while importing quality Asian goods at a sustainable level. The TPP is a significant attempt to foster economic relations with smaller economies that have little bargaining power with China. Through these liberalized trade methods, the U.S. can hope to liberalize its own trade economy, safely increasing its own exports across the Pacific.

The potential of a liberal Free Trade Agreement of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) has risen. This would be created by way of either the TPP or RCEP structure. This end result would be favorable for the United States, but perhaps the time has not yet come to seek the FTAAP. Currently, both the US-based TPP and Asia-based RCEP could serve as structural tracks towards the FTAAP, but many differing opinions have kept it from implementation. If the U.S. sees the TPP as a viable path towards a healthy FTAAP, it must commit to this path for its own success in this rapidly expanding region. The United States Congress may find it useful to maintain bilateral or non-liberal trade methods with some strategic partners (S. Korea, Japan etc.), while actively pursuing a grand liberal trade strategy with the rest.

The high production rate and low cost export of nations such as Cambodia are examples of potential stumbling blocks to US production and exportation, as many smaller Asian nations are able to produce at a vastly cheaper rate. The U.S. should not foster bilateral trade with these nations, but should seek to combine these relationships with higher-value economies in the region, thereby creating a balancing mechanism to protect the U.S. labor market. Strategic partnerships with regional groups in Asia (i.e. ASEAN) are positive ways to seek US economic growth in Asia trade. ASEAN has the second fastest-growing economy in Asia, commanding $2.57 trillion in 2014. Participating in trade with these already-established and regulated partnerships is a secure way to pursue and protect national interests in Asia.

Based on this, the U.S. must participate in the growing Asia-Pacific region, and it should encourage trade liberalization while maintaining traditional methods of bilateralism and multilateralism. This sounds simplistic enough, but it must be asked, by what means can the U.S. achieve this strategy? The U.S. has commanded the rule­-based system of global trade, and has also dominated economic hegemony worldwide for decades. It is obvious, however, that the U.S. is losing its hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region. With the massive growth of China and other Asian states, the United States must keep its own political goals in mind. It would be simple enough to integrate the Asia region through economic methods only, but we have long sustained an interest in a constant political presence. As Matthew Goodman states, U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific region has been vital to national security. The U.S. maintains relations with Japan, S. Korea and other steadfast allies in the region, and it remains in its interest to promote their growth along with its own

This political perspective also introduces an element of national security. In order to protect U.S. presence and political influence in the region, it must continue to display its resilience in the Asia-Pacific. By maintaining a consistent military force in S. Korea and Japan, and continuing to practice freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, it will sustain its hands-on surveillance of the region, and send the message that the U.S. is a permanent fixture and balancer in Asia. By way of this, the U.S.’ other partners will be able to protect their own freedom of trade, thereby providing strength to the entire regional trade infrastructure.

Lastly, these strategies are in no way meant to marginalize or weaken the influence of China. They are meant to uphold and encourage existing structures which allow smaller states to trade as equal partners in the region. China provides the central power for trade across the continent, and smaller states would do well to follow their initiatives in Central Asia and the Middle East. The role of the United States is to protect its own interests, which lie throughout all of its trade partners in the region.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

Urban ridesharing services could be much more effective, efficient and have greater uptake if they were more dynamic and took into account all the major factors associated with running such as a service, according to research published in “Progress in Industrial Ecology – An International Journal”.

Giovanni Zenezini of the Department of Management and Production Engineering at the Politecnico di Torino, and colleagues there and in the research labs of Telecom Italia explain that there are four major considerations involved in ride sharing services. The first is that a third-party provides a matching platform managing the interactions between the two users, driver and passenger. Secondly, the ride-sharing platforms make one-time ride matches that are generally not repeated and take place at random points and at random times. Thirdly, a ridesharing system must be flexible in order to match users at very short notice. Finally, the purpose of the trip being taken is irrelevant to the match.

The team points out that services such as Uber and Lyft match users at short notice and make one-time ride matches, but in reality, they directly match drivers with passengers, without taking into consideration the trip accommodation of either party. In this sense, they satisfy the first three consideration but do not take into account the fourth and so cannot be considered to be dynamic ridesharing system by definition.

Ride-sharing has the potential to reduce urban pollution and emissions and vehicular congestion, nudging cities and towns towards a more sustainable transport solution. These systems exploit the near ubiquity of smart phones and location services, such as GPS in many cities around the world to help drivers and passengers arrange shared rides and broker information exchange and remuneration as appropriate. Ride-sharing schemes face a “bootstrap” problem in that they need a good supply of drivers to encourage passengers to use the service but in order to recruit people to be drivers there needs to be sufficient demand, which means encouraging passengers to use such a service.

“Ridesharing services need to reach a critical number of users, especially in the initial phase, in order to provide a desirable level of matching between drivers and passengers,” the researchers explained. Only then can they pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The team’s case study reveals that essentially an initial boost from advertising is critical to whether or not a new ridesharing service can become viable. Subsequently, penetration rate depends on rapid growth of the driver and passenger communities. Pushing the benefits to future drivers is also paramount as is providing a backup service for passengers as and when the primary service fails to find a suitable journey match.

Zenezini pointed out that, “Consolidating demand can be achieved when selected group of individuals have the same destination, as in the case of employees of one company or maybe for a special event (e.g. a concert). This means that this selected group of users also share the purpose of the journey, such as commuting or leisure.”

By Matt Hadro

After a gunman pledging allegiance to ISIS carried out the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union pointed their finger toward Christians in blame.

But leading Christians from organizations across the country rejected this characterization, stressing that while they disagree with gay marriage, they promote the dignity of every human life, no matter the sexual orientation.

Early Sunday morning, 29-year-old Omar Mateen of Port St Lucie, Florida, opened fire in a gay night club in Orlando. He took hostages and engaged in an hours-long standoff with police before being killed. At least 49 people were killed and 53 injured, the highest death toll of any mass shooting in the nation’s history.

Mateen had pledged allegiance to ISIS in a 911 call he made from inside the nightclub, authorities said.

He had “strong indications of radicalization,” according to FBI director James Comey. President Barack Obama, in his remarks Monday morning, acknowledged that the shooting “is being treated as a terrorist investigation. It appears that the shooter was inspired by various extremist information that was disseminated over the Internet.”

In the hours after the shooting, ACLU attorney Chase Strangio skewered those who offered their “thoughts and prayers” for the victims and their families. “You know what is gross — your thoughts and prayers and Islamophobia after you created this anti-queer climate,” he tweeted.

He continued by lambasting “the Christian right” for pushing legislation to protect the conscience rights of individuals and business owners. “The Christian Right has introduced 200 anti-LGBT bills in the last six months and people blaming Islam for this. No.”

Another ACLU member, Eunice Rho, chastised GOP lawmakers expressing solidarity and offering prayers after the shooting. Rho accused them of sponsoring the “extreme, anti-LGBT First Amendment Defense Act.”

Yet conservative Christian leaders rejected the idea that policies protecting the right to decline participation in same-sex weddings were somehow tied to the Orlando massacre.

Matthew Franck, director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute, told CNA that upholding Christian teaching on marriage is not equivalent to violence.

“Christians who have resisted the redefinition of marriage, and who now want to be free to live what their faith teaches them is the truth about marriage, do not hate anyone, and legislation to protect their freedom is not ‘anti-LGBT’ except in the minds of the intolerant enforcers of coerced conformity,” he told CNA.

“The worst response to an atrocity is to take it as validation of one’s own political passions and an excuse to demonize one’s political opponents,” he said. “Sadly, this is what some representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union have done.”

“In the wake of the horror in Orlando, the temptation to demonize any group making arguments for its rights in the public square – LGBT, Christian, or Muslim – should be steadfastly resisted by all people of decency.”

Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, co-author of the book ‘What is Marriage?’ agreed. “Anti-LGBT bigotry exists and is wrong. It should be condemned,” he told CNA. “But supporting man-woman marriage and male-female bathrooms aren’t examples of it.”

Dr. Robert George, a law professor at Princeton University and senior fellow at the Witherspoon Institute, said the accusations would normally be considered “outrageous and defamatory” but “can be forgiven” since they were issued shortly after a mass shooting that was a “truly traumatizing event,” and at a time “when people are angry and grieving.”

Americans must mourn together and not point fingers at each other, he insisted.

“Now is not a time for returning rhetorical fire or trying to make a person who has said something regrettable look foolish. It is certainly not a time for people on either, or any, side of a moral or political dispute to attempt to score points or advance an agenda,” said George, who also co-authored the book ‘What is Marriage?’

Rather, “it is a time for grieving” and “a time for prayer and a time for solidarity,” he said.

After the shooting, Christian leaders expressed their condolences for the victims and their families.

Catholic bishops have asked for prayers for all involved. Masses are being offered for victims, both in Orlando and around the country. “The merciful love of Christ calls us to solidarity with the suffering and to ever greater resolve in protecting the life and dignity of every person,” said Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, head of the U.S. bishops’ conference, in a statement.

“We weep with those who mourn their loved ones as we also weep with those who mourn the presence of such violent evil in the world. Rom 12:15,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, tweeted on Monday.

“Like all Americans, I am deeply saddened and outraged by the murder of 49 Americans in ‎Orlando,” Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, stated on Monday in a Facebook post.

“Our prayers go out to all those affected by the Florida shooting,” the National Organization for Marriage tweeted on Monday.

The US Departments of State, Transportation, and Commerce announced Tuesday that the United States and Azerbaijan completed an exchange of diplomatic notes that brought into force the US-Azerbaijan Open Skies Agreement, which was signed on April 6, 2016.

The Open Skies Agreement, which liberalizes the bilateral aviation relationship between the two countries, will facilitate trade and travel between the US and Azerbaijan, according to the US State Department.

The signing of this agreement was the result of more than three years of negotiations, led by the Department of State, with the Department of Transportation and the Department of Commerce.

According to the US State Department, the new Open Skies Agreement deepens commercial and economic ties between the US and Azerbaijan.

“The agreement will benefit US and Azerbaijani airlines, travelers, businesses, airports, and localities by allowing increased market access for passengers and cargo. By allowing air carriers to better meet increasing demand in both countries, the Open Skies Agreement will create opportunities for economic growth in sectors beyond aviation, including tourism and manufacturing,” the US State Department said in a statement.

The independent UEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) announced Tuesday its decision to fine the Russian Football Union
€150,000 following disciplinary proceedings.

The CEDB met Tuesday in Paris to deal with the disciplinary proceedings opened against the Russian Football Union (RFS) following the incidents that occurred inside the Stade Vélodrome in Marseille at the UEFA EURO 2016 match against England on June 11 that resulted in a 1-1 draw.

Charges relating to crowd disturbances, use of fireworks and racist behavior had been brought against the RFS, and the CEDB decided to impose the fine, as well as a suspended disqualification of the Russian national team from UEFA EURO 2016 for the crowd disturbances.

UEFA noted that in accordance with Article 20 of the UEFA Disciplinary Regulations, this disqualification is suspended until the end of the tournament. Such a suspension will be lifted if incidents of a similar nature (crowd disturbances) happen inside the stadium at any of the remaining matches of the Russian team during the tournament.

The decision of the UEFA Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body is open to appeal.

The attack of Russian football louts against English fans in Marseilles was a well-organized action that was part and parcel of Vladimir Putin’s “hybrid war” against the West and one that has grown out of his longstanding ties with the kind of fans other countries are ashamed of but that Russian leaders celebrate, according to Ilya Milshteyn.

At a minimum, that should lead to Russia’s disqualification from the European Cup competition, to the stripping of Russia of the right to host the World Cup in 2018, and to a realization in the West that the Putin regime is completely contemptuous of all rules of the game in all segments of life and must be ostracized until it changes.

In a commentary on the Grani.ru portal, Milshteyn says that what happened in Marseilles was the logical outcome of the rapprochement of the Russian power elite with Russian football fans. The first to promote that was LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky but he was followed by the sports ministry and then Vladimir Putin (graniru.org/opinion/milshtein/m.252202.html).

Sports Minister Vitaly Mutko oversaw the creation of the All-Russian Union of Sports Fans, and three years later, he led its leadership to a meeting with Putin who declared that the fans had become a force and urged them never to allow anyone to manipulate them, a clear indication that Putin intended to be the only one who would and could.

French officials have pointed out that “Russian hooligans who fought with English fans were ‘well-prepared’” to shift from watching the competition to fighting the other side. And English ones have noted that the Russian football fans were ready to fight. One can only conclude, Milshteyn says, that this was “a diversionary special operation.”

No one should be surprised. Unlike in normal civilized countries, football louts in Russia are not the objects of shame. Instead, they are celebrated and even encouraged in their actions, as has happened in this case as well. Consequently, there is clearly a directing intelligence behind them; and the world needs to recognize that reality.

No one should be surprised by this Russian behavior, the Moscow commentator continues. “Like the tractor drivers and miners in the Donbass, Russian football fans in recent times have become figures in a big political game, first domestically and now already on the international arena,” Milshteyn says.

That is why the state supports and even trains them alongside athletes and for the state’s own purposes. In fact, the commentator concludes, “this is [properly] called hybrid war, and sport as is well zone serves as a replacement to war during times of peace.”

“It cannot be excluded,” he says, that some of those who fought the British fans included in their ranks the very same people who fought in Crimea and sought to create “Novorossiya.” After all, they are part and parcel of the very same war that the Kremlin leader has chosen to fight against the rest of the world.

The US took another scalp from its enemy on May 21 when its drones incinerated the new Taliban chief Mullah Mansour on Pakistani soil. This is another dead leader on Pakistani soil. The presence of its enemies in Pakistan frustrates the US since it pays Pakistan to take action against them.
Americans keep asking Pakistan to ‘do more” against the Taliban leaders and Haqqani Network that has safe havens in Pakistan. In response, Pakistan shows a figure of over 60,000 Pakistanis killed in terrorism related incidents in a desperate bid to prove that it is their war and they are paying huge cost.

The dreadful insurgency that has denied Afghanistan peace and killed and maimed US/NATO troops has its command and control structure within Pakistan. This is no more an allegation, since most of the leaders of Al-Qaeda, Taliban and HN were either killed or captured in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden was hiding near 500 meters of Pakistan’s military academy in Abbotabad. Mullah Omar died in Karachi while his successor Mullah Mansour was killed in Baluchistan.

Pakistan too has accepted the presence of Taliban leaders on its soil. Sartaj Aziz, advisor to the prime minister on foreign affairs, has publicly accepted that Pakistan has leverage with Taliban, since their leadership hide and seek medical help in Pakistan.

Pakistan’s toleration of Taliban presence or alleged support baffles and antagonizes policy makers in Washington since Pakistan is also an ally in War on Terror and receives hefty funding for cooperation. Americans protest that the dollars they put in Pakistan’s kitty to kill or capture Taliban and HN are used to rather fund them to kill US soldiers. This duplicitous role of Pakistan is what irks so many.

This policy approach of Pakistan is often dubbed as Pakistan’s double game. Yet, there is little effort to understand why Pakistan does what it does.
To understand Pakistan’s approach towards Afghanistan is to understand how foreign policy decisions are made in Pakistan. Traditionally, foreign policy, especially regarding Afghanistan, is dominated without dispute by Pakistan’s powerful army. One has to understand the vision of Pakistan army to understand its approach towards Afghanistan.

Pakistan;s army looks into Afghanistan from its strategic lens. The core concern in Afghanistan for army is to deny India any influence. Pakistan army firmly and rightly believes that in Post-Taliban Afghanistan the influence of India has grown. Pakistan has traditionally considered Afghanistan as strategic depth. The influence of India is considered as encirclement of Pakistan by its archrival.

India has been Pakistan’s defining reason of statehood and establishment of huge and powerful army. As Georgetown University Professor Christine Fair puts it, Pakistan’s conflict with India is civilizational, which trumps all rational and realistic politics. In other words, Pakistan’s real interests may be subservient to ideological interests.

On the other hand, Pakistan also believes that the US does not care for its interests except her own. The US has failed to address its concern of Indian influence. Rather, the US has warmed up to India by making strategic partnership with India as well as giving it a free hand in Afghanistan.

Pakistanis do not trust Americans when it comes to its geopolitical and geostrategic interests in the region. Pakistan feels betrayed whenever it builds alliance with the US. The conception of the US betrayal is hardwired to the minds of Pakistanis in general and army in particular. Their tale of betrayal goes back to Pakistan’s several wars with India where Pakistan expected support from its Cold War ally.

Pakistan also believes that when the US needs Pakistan—for instance during the Afghan war and War on Terror—its carrot and stick policy undermines Pakistan’s own strategic interests. The incentive is peanuts compared to the loss Pakistan incurs in such alliances. The US taps into Pakistan’s weak spots like its dependence on the US for military hardware and aid that help sustain its economy.

Having this mindset at work, Pakistan’s powerful military establishment also believes that its strategy of harboring Taliban can really work. Their confidence is derived from the fact that so far Taliban have shown resilience and have sustained their insurgency for 15 years. They now control most of the rural areas of Afghan districts and hold formidable power position.

This emboldens them and gives them more reasons to pursue their policies. They also know that they can get away with this since the US continues to bankroll its army and provide weapons and funds.

The army establishment knows the weakness of the US. The US is more concerned with the stability of a nuclear Pakistan. It fears that instability and state collapse can put its nuclear arsenals in dangerous hands of terrorists. Pakistan is a huge country of 180 million where radicalism is ripe. State collapse will trigger further instability and insecurity which can further ignite extremism.

Some experts call it nuclear blackmailing by Pakistan.

Pakistan and the US have different national and strategic interests in Afghanistan which makes them frenemies of each other. But how can the US make Pakistan do what it wants.

That would require a strategic shift of thinking in the US administration. The US need to stop its dependence on Pakistan army and support and invest in the civilian and democratic forces of Pakistan. Traditionally, the US has always supported and bankrolled Pakistan’s military rulers. When the military is not directly in power, the US still conducts its business with them which undermines the civilian administration. This policy is still in place.

A democratic Pakistan can best serve interests of the US as well as Pakistan. Democratic leadership has always wanted peace with Afghanistan and India. Their decisions are reached after political consensus and popular will to serve the long term interests of the country.

If the US wants to bring a change in Pakistan’s attitudes it has to change its partners in Pakistan and support the democratic forces. A political change towards democratization can bring a positive outcome for both Pakistan and the US.

About the author:
*M. Sheharyar Khan, Ph.D., has a doctorate degree in International Relations from Ankara University and is Research Fellow at the Center for Peace, Development and Reforms, Islamabad. He writes on Defence and Security issues with focus on violent non-state actors.

On April 7th, 2016, Saimir Beqiri was found gunned down outside a bar near the city of Elbasan. Witnesses say that two men wearing wigs and driving a Mercedes Benz had shot him in the head five times. His brother, Gentian Beqiri, while inside his own home and under police surveillance, was also gunned down in 2012. In addition to being a hakmarrje, or revenge killing, current investigations reveal this incident may have been a contract killing, meaning that Beqiri’s death was me porosi, or simply put: purchased. Unfortunately, these cases are common in Albania, and reflect a deeper societal problem: ineffective investigative and judicial institutions, and a reluctance by community members to come together to fight organized crime.

In its 2015 report on Enlargement Strategy in Albania, the European Commission admitted that:

“the police remain vulnerable to political pressure and corruption, thus hindering the effective investigation of organized crime cases. Substantial efforts are still needed to strengthen the capacity and improve the performance of all law enforcement authorities. Prosecutors dealing with sensitive cases related to organized crime should be granted special protection and ensured independence from any external and internal interference”.

While most Europeans today worry that Muslim majority countries like Albania and Bosnia & Herzegovina are source countries of terrorists, thus increasing a security risk for EU enlargement eastward, I argue that organized crime in Albania is the real threat. Highlighted from the 2007 accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU, as well as the 2013 accession of Croatia, organized crime in the Balkan Peninsula is rampant, leaving police and policymakers with protracted internal issues that will only continue to spread to other EU countries. Reflected in other societal epidemics, such as Italy’s Tangentopoli, organized crime in the Balkans may further enlarge the web of organized criminal groups in EU member states and undermine the rule of law. The growth of authoritarian style governments in Eastern Europe has already caused alarm, as concerns about the connections between these groups and politicians are cogent.

As mentioned in my article on burner phones, the Weberian “monopoly on violence” is under strain and organized crime thrives from it. In Albania, organized crime and contract killings often come hand-in-hand, allowing the country’s economic void to be filled by those with the means of violence. Assassinations are disturbingly common today, as the 2014 murder of Albanian businessman Artan Santo reminded us. Santo was shot in the head by masked men on a motorcycle in the center of Tirana and investigations regarding this killing have been effectively stalled.

More recently, in February 2016 in the city of Fier, businessman Nuredin Suli barely escaped an organized attack, in which explosive material activated via mobile phone under his car had a delayed detonation. Rudin Haxhia, the owner of a nightclub in the coastal city of Saranda, survived his fifth attack in December 2015 by an unknown shooter wielding an automatic weapon (previous attacks included shootings, explosives, and stabbings).

Not all homicides have explicit connections to contract killings, but many do. In January 2015, three young men admitted to being hired to place explosives under cars, in police commissaries, and on electrical voltage poles. Business was in such high demand, that one man admitted to being owed 16,000 euros by customers.

While the current economic malaise and a byzantine reform process are surely causal factors to much of the organized crime in Albania today, we should fear how frequent trends and habit lead to perpetuity and vested interests. Organized criminal groups are beginning to understand that the rate of return on criminal activities far exceeds the risk. If Albania and the EU are serious about future enlargement, a new policy direction must be pursued. A greater foreign vetting of investigative and judicial institutions must be carried out, as domestic capacity building and nominal investigate reporting are not sufficient. And most crucially, Albanian citizens need help to see how coming together is their best weapon against organized crime.

*Christopher T. Barber is a recent American graduate student of Johns Hopkins SAIS and consultant in South East Europe. Much of his work has focused on Albania and Kosovo, in addition to the former Yugoslavia and CIS countries.

The Philippines’ new president Rodrigo Duterte will act differently from his predecessors. There is a need for a more layered understanding of the man and his policies.

By Barry Desker*

Since the election of Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte as the next Philippine President in a landslide victory on 9 May 2016, the regional and international media have highlighted his outrageous remarks on various sensitive topics. For instance he backed the extra-judicial killings of drug dealers, alleged that journalists were killed because they were corrupt and called Philippine bishops critical of him “sons of whores”, among other crude comments. None of these remarks have dented his domestic support. But they have attracted international attention and provided a negative one-dimensional view of the 71-year old new leader.

While his main opponents, former Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas and Senator Grace Poe, conceded defeat even before all votes were counted, the vice-presidential race was closer. Congresswoman Leni Robredo, with a reputation for fiscal probity and a simple lifestyle, narrowly defeated Senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr, the son of the former dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Duterte has indicated that Robredo will not be given any role in the new Administration as he had favoured the election of Marcos.

How Duterte Will Be Different

Duterte will act differently from his Philippine predecessors. But there is a need for a more layered understanding of the man and his policies. He is the first Philippine President who is not from the traditional land-owning elite, which has dominated the critical centres of power in the capital Manila since independence. His base is in Davao City in the traditionally neglected Southern Philippines and he claimed that he will continue to stay in Davao, commuting daily by commercial aircraft, until he is comfortable in Manila. To stress this point, he was in Davao when he was officially proclaimed by a joint session of the Philippine Congress on 30 May as the winner of the election and the next President.

His election signals a shift away from Manila-centred politics and an effort to reach out to hitherto marginalised sectors of Philippine society. His speeches and public comments are in English rather than Tagalog, the lingua franca of Greater Manila, which has been promoted throughout the archipelago as the national language. He has emphasised his links with Mindanao and several of his cabinet appointments hail from the region.

Duterte also draws support from the Philippine left wing and has close ties with the founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) Jose Sison, under whose leadership the CPP waged a Maoist-influenced guerrilla insurgency and who has been in exile in the Netherlands since 1987. Duterte has welcomed Sison’s plans to return home. Although government negotiations with the CPP since 2011 are currently at an impasse, Duterte is more likely to reach an agreement with the CPP and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA).

This opening to the left is seen in two of Duterte’s cabinet appointments who were nominated by the National Democratic Front, an NPA ally. Judy Taguiwalo, a University of the Philippines professor and women’s rights advocate, is the secretary of social welfare and development while Rafael Mariano is secretary of agrarian reform. Incoming Cabinet Secretary Leoncio Evasco Jnr, a former NPA rebel and ex-priest, served as Duterte’s campaign manager and has enjoyed close ties with Duterte since the 1990s.

Pro-business Technocrats

These appointments are balanced by pro-business technocratic appointments to key economic portfolios including secretary of finance Carlos Dominguez, who served in the cabinets of Presidents Cory Aquino and Fidel Ramos and is a close friend of Duterte from Davao City. Alfonso Cusi, secretary of energy, served in the Administration of President Cory Aquino.

The secretary of economic planning, Ernesto Pernia, was lead economist at the Asian Development Bank. Based on Duterte’s effective economic management in Davao City, economic policy is likely to follow the growth-oriented policies of outgoing President Benigno Aquino with greater emphasis on decentralisation, poverty alleviation and land reform.

Former President Fidel Ramos, who served from 1992 to 1998, was an early supporter of Duterte and has been influential in pushing pragmatic policy choices. Ramos’ influence is positive as his tenure was marked by an economic transformation in the Philippines as well as a significant outreach to the NPA and Muslim rebel movements. Ramos appointees now holding Cabinet posts include peace process adviser Jesus Dureza, who held this post under Ramos.

Because of Duterte’s unwillingness to accommodate the preference of the Manila political elite for business as usual, his Cabinet includes more nominees with close personal ties to the President and who hail from Davao and the surrounding Cotabato region. Other friends or former classmates of the President include secretary of transportation and communications Arthur Tugade, secretary of justice Vitaliano Aguirre, executive secretary Salvador Medialdea and chief of police Ronald Dela Rosa, the former police chief of Davao City.

Domestic Priorities

Duterte’s priorities are domestic. Law and order, anti-corruption and crushing the drug problem are at the top of his agenda. He aims to devolve power from the central government to the provinces. By working out of Davao so far, Duterte is symbolically reminding Manila politicians that a political revolution is underway. He intends to shift to a federal-parliamentary system and the constitution will have to be revised.

His appointment of Major General Delfin Lorenzana as the secretary of defence reflects a desire to maintain ties with the United States even as the Philippines moves to restore its relationship with China. Lorenzana has spent most of the past two decades in Washington as defence attache and, after his retirement in 2004, as presidential representative at the Embassy from 2004 to 2009 and again since 2013.

Duterte’s foreign policy is still unclear. Perfecto Yasay, former head of the Securities and Exchange Commission whose roots are in Davao City, is the new Foreign Secretary. As Yasay is not linked to the pro-American policies of the outgoing Administration, a tilt away from the US towards a more even-handed approach is possible.

Managing China Relations

Yasay’s first challenge will be the management of the bilateral relationship with China. So far, mixed signals have been sent by the new Administration. During his election campaign, Duterte called for bilateral talks on South China Sea claims. Post-election, he proposed a multilateral dialogue involving claimant states as well as other states including the US, Japan and Australia.

He has also said that he would not surrender the Philippines’ right to Chinese-occupied Scarborough Shoal. Yasay has said that relations with China should improve as long as China “adheres to the rule of law, respects our territorial integrity and sovereignty”.

With the eclectic rainbow coalition of cabinet appointees, no clear foreign policy and national security policy outlook can be discerned at this time. ASEAN is not a focus of his attention. But Duterte is likely to be persuaded by his advisers to make the usual round of courtesy visits to his ASEAN counterparts. ASEAN leaders at the next ASEAN Summit in Vientiane in November will have to deal with a disengaged leader unless issues directly concerning the Philippines are on the agenda.

One worrying possibility is the revival of the Philippines claim to Sabah, reflecting the influence of Duterte’s power base in Mindanao. Nevertheless, while his priorities may be domestic, international developments may intrude and shape the priorities of his administration.

*Barry Desker is Distinguished Fellow, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. This appeared earlier in The Straits Times.

Hundreds of Daesh (Islamic State) extremists attempted to take advantage of the ongoing evacuation of the besieged city of Fallujah by blending in with fleeing civilians.

More than 500 alleged Daesh terrorists have been arrested by Iraqi forces as they tried to flee Fallujah, one of the terrorist group’s strongholds in the western Anbar province, Daily Sabah reported.

According to police in the Anbar province, extremists tried to leave besieged Fallujah by using fake IDs.

“We have arrested 546 suspected terrorists who had fled by taking advantage of the movements of displaced families over the past two weeks,” said Hadi Rzayej, the police chief for Anbar province.

“Daesh (IS) is fleeing among the civilians, we have arrested many and are investigating the suspects,” said Lieutenant General Abdelwahab al-Saadi, the commander in charge of the operation to recapture Fallujah.

There are estimated to still be 1,000-2,000 Daesh members at the scene of fighting. Government forces are thoroughly screening the fleeing civilians, separating teenagers and adults.

Fallujah, located about 65 kilometers to the west of Baghdad, was seized by Daesh in the beginning of 2014. On May 23, 2016, the country’s authorities announced the start of an operation to liberate the city.

On June 11 the Iraqi Army opened a safe corridor on the southwest of the city, allowing thousands of civilians seek shelter from the fighting. UN deputy representative to Iraq Lise Grande said Monday that over 7,000 people reached displacement camps, organized by the government of Iraq.

According to al-Saadi, it is problematic for Daesh fighters to escape Fallujah, which is almost completely cut off from the rest of its self-imposed caliphate.

The English versus Singlish debate reflects an element of the social fabric of Singapore. The concept of glocalisation brings a deeper understanding to a weak argument on Singlish’s role and imperative for competence in English. The need to redouble efforts at teaching Standard English is underlined.

By Pravin Prakash*

English and Singlish do not exist in a zero-sum equation where one gains at the expense of the other. Rather, both exist as two sides of the same coin and share equal currency when viewed through the lenses of glocalisation. Raising the level of Standard English in Singapore thus does not require the eradication of Singlish.

The recent re-visiting of the perennial debate on Singlish’s place in Singapore in recent weeks suggests that the wrangle is more fundamental than one of speaking proper English. The anti-Singlish camp stresses that Singlish handicaps one’s ability to learn and speak Standard English; an essential ability for citizens of a cosmopolitan city in a globalised world. This argument was made most recently by academic Eugene Tan who expressed concern that Singaporeans’ competence in Standard English and hence Singapore’s competitiveness in a global economy would be compromised by the valorisation of Singlish. For the pro-Singlish camp, the argument advanced is that Singlish is an organic Singaporean manifestation, a local phenomenon that should be treasured much like Scottish English or Australian English.

Glocalisation and Singlish

As the debate is unlikely to abate, it is perhaps of greater value for us to consider if its continuity is predicated on a flawed premise. It is also worth questioning if both Singlish and English fulfil different needs and thus share a complementary rather than antagonistic relationship. Much of the conversation in the public sphere thus far has been grounded on the idea that English and Singlish are locked in an epic battle for survival, with declining standards of English being blamed on the increasing popularity and valorisation of Singlish.

This presumption of a zero-sum game in which gains are relative and never absolute, it is contended, masks the reality that the use and popularisation of English and Singlish in Singapore are essentially produced by the same forces of history and possess great value due to the symbiotic relationship that they share in the evolution of the nation-state and its identity.

Sociologist Roland Robertson argues that most theories of globalisation which posit the local as being the opposite of the global are governed by a false dichotomy. Instead, he notes that a perception of the local can exist only in the acknowledgement of an encroaching global and that the two often exist in tandem, evolving together. Robertson uses the term glocalisation to describe this phenomenon where forces of homogenisation and heterogenisation subsist together, sharing a symbiotic relationship; thereby enabling local culture to come to terms and absorb global culture into its identity.

Other academics like David E. Nye, building on Robertson’s work, have observed that a natural response to global influences is a process of “creolisation” of cultures and languages in which people through “selective appropriation” respond to the increasing presence of global cultures and languages by creating a local variant “involving a combination of languages and cultures that were previously unintelligible to one another.” The creation of such a hybrid local variant culture and language according to these theorists is thus not in opposition to embracing global culture but instead a necessity created for it to comfortably co-exist.

Seen through the lens of glocalisation, Singlish is a natural manifestation that complements the presence and use of English in Singapore. English has long been lauded as the thread that has woven the social fabric in Singapore together through the provision of a common language for a multicultural society.

By that argument, the presence of Singlish and its potent resilience is evidence that not only have the different communities in Singapore come together, they have integrated to the extent of fashioning a shared imagined community with its own distinct glocalised language. Its continued presence thus is testament to the success of Singapore in creating a strong national identity.

Glocalisation, Bilingualism and English Education

If Singlish is an essential component of our social fabric complementing and not opposing the presence of English in Singapore, what then of the argument that it is detrimental to the promotion of Standard English as many Singaporeans struggle to code-switch between English and Singlish? The answer to that may lie in two important steps.

Firstly acknowledging that Singlish is too critical to Singapore’s national identity for any continued attempts to eradicate it must be accompanied by an appreciation that eradicating it will not improve the level of Standard English in Singapore. Instead, a more robust education policy that focuses more on developing a greater appreciation for the language and cultivating proactive learning habits with regards to English would greatly improve the level of Standard English in Singapore. This may include making exposure to English to children from a young age in pre-school a mandatory priority and making English language related subjects like Literature and Theatre a greater priority in Primary and Secondary Schools.

Secondly, it must be noted that in many ways Singapore is uniquely positioned in terms of glocalisation and its effects. This is largely because cultural diversity in Singapore has been carefully managed through a bilingual education policy in which the government has striven to preserve ‘local’ languages while promoting English as a first and working language. Most Singaporean students thus learn two languages and possess the ability to code-switch between them.

Improving this ability may lie in a greater focus on cultural sensitivity – students have to be taught the appropriate cultural context for language usage. Teaching students not to use their mother tongue in the presence of other students who do not speak it is as important and relevant as teaching them the importance of using Standard English in formal settings. This would create a culture in which essentially multilingual students learn both sensitivity and a capacity for code-switching from a young age.

A Singaporean Patois?

Viewed through the lens of glocalisation, one can conclude that the perennial debate over Singlish and its impact on English in Singapore has persisted largely because it has been predicated on a flawed premise. While English is the language employed by Singaporeans to converse with one another and the world, Singlish has become the patois through which Singaporeans bond with one another and identify themselves within the world.

As we continue to promote the need for a strong command of the English Language, we can thus stop agonising over the potential detrimental effects of Singlish in the public sphere. In short, both the proponents and opponents of Singlish can understand each other when they say “keep cool” and “lim kopi” (drink coffee).

*Pravin Prakash is an Associate Research Fellow with the Centre of Excellence in National Security (CENS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

By James Stafford

With prices set to double by 2018, we’ve seen the bottom of the uranium market, and the negative sentiment that has followed this resource around despite strong fundamentals, is starting to change.

Billionaire investors sense it, and they’re always the first to anticipate change and take advantage of the rally before it becomes a reality. The turning point is where all the money is made, and there are plenty of indications that the uranium recovery is already underway.

It’s been a very tough few years for uranium. But it now looks like we’ve reached the bottom, and the future demand equation says there’s nowhere to go but up—significantly up.

Uranium analyst David Talbot of Dundee Capital Markets is forecasting 6 percent compound annual demand growth through 2020, which is enough, he says, to “kick-start” uranium prices up to and beyond 2007 levels. Morningstar analyst David Wang predicts prices will double within the next two years.

Mining Weekly expects “the period from 2017-2020 to be a landmark period for the nuclear sector and uranium stocks, as the global operating nuclear reactor fleet expands.”

“It’s impossible to find another natural resource that is so fundamentally necessary and yet has carried such negative sentiment as uranium. The market has been skewed by negative sentiments that ignore the supply and demand fundamentals,” says Paul D. Gray, President and CEO of Zadar Ventures Ltd., a North American uranium and lithium explorer.

But the toxicity levels have dissipated, and nuclear energy is rebounding as a cleaner power source with next generation safeguards. The fundamentals are again ruling the day, and this will be the key year for uranium,” Gray told Oilprice.com.

Why Sentiment is Changing: Born in Chernobyl, Raised in Japan

The negative sentiment on uranium was largely made in Japan. The 2011 disaster at Fukushima created an irrational disconnect between sentiment and uranium fundamentals.

Now that enough time has passed since Fukushima, this negative sentiment is losing steam as it appears that Japan has succeeded in bringing some of its reactors back online – four of its reactors have already restarted operations. So the world is refocusing on what are arguably brilliant fundamentals, which actually have been there all along.

First and foremost, the world is building more nuclear reactors right now than ever before, despite Fukushima. A total of 65 new reactors are already going up, another 165 are planned and yet another 331 proposed.

Powering all of these developments will require an impressive amount of uranium. Right now, existing nuclear reactors use 174 million pounds of uranium every year. That will increase by a dramatic one-fifth with the new reactors under construction. But in the meantime, uranium producers have reduced output due to market prices and put caps on expansion. As a result, supplies are dwindling.

Currently, the world is increasingly recognizing nuclear energy as the cheaper, cleaner, and greener option—as indicated by the number of reactors being built.

As the specter of nuclear accidents wanes in the aftermath of Fukushima and climate change fears move to the top of the chain, uranium is set for a global sentiment transformation.

As Scientific American opines, “Nuclear energy’s clean bona fides may be its saving grace in a wobbling global energy market that is trying to balance climate change ambitions, skittish economies and low prices for oil and natural gas.”

According to Bloomberg, in Asia alone, approximately $800 billion in new reactors are being developed.

The market hasn’t quite caught on yet to what this massive nuclear development means for uranium because it’s still stuck in the Fukushima sentiment–but the cracks are showing and it’s about to break free.

At the same time, the uranium industry is not producing the uranium needed to feed the hundreds of new reactors slated to come online. Not even close. The uranium is not being produced because producers can’t turn a profit at today’s spot prices.

The minute the market catches on to the massive amount of reactors coming online combined with the pending uranium supply shortage, uranium will experience a price surge like no other commodity before it.

Up to 20 percent of the uranium supply needed to operate the world’s existing 437 nuclear reactors for the rest of this year and next is not covered, according to uranium market analyst David Talbot.

The market has recognized the pending lithium boom, for instance, as heralded by the electric vehicle (EV), battery storage and powerwall push. But the market is sleeping when it comes to uranium, which has even more obviously bullish fundamentals. That’s why when this sleeping giant awakens suddenly with the start-up of new reactors around the world, it will be with a roar that rewards those savvy enough to sneak around the irrational sentiment.

Determining when the break-out will come, exactly, is part and parcel of playing this rally with an eye to massive returns (for which you can thank the negative sentiment if you’re already onto uranium). But all bets are that this year we’ll see the first new reactors come online, and then it will snowball from there, transforming from a buyers’ market into a sellers’ market.

The Billionaires’ Sixth Sense

Billionaire investors are lining up behind uranium with major acquisitions, betting that they are on the edge of a price break-out.

Earlier in June, Hong Kong billionaire investor Li Kashing, though his CK Hutchinson Holdings and CEF holdings, said he would buy $60 million in convertible bonds from NexGen Energy targeting uranium projects in Canada’s Saskatchewan province.

“The current spot prices seem low, but the fundamentals indicate there’s going to be a very large demand and supply gap — that’s what you’re making a call on,” NexGen CEO Leigh Curyer said of the deal. NexGen is slated to start production in the 2020s.

Mr. Li’s $60-million bet on Saskatchewan uranium is near another uranium company, Zadar Ventures Ltd, which has four projects in Saskatchewan and one in Alberta, and stands to benefit from the high-dollar renewed focus on this resource.

The Athabasca Basin is elephant country in terms of uranium deposits. It represents the world’s highest-grade uranium deposits and is the home to all of the major uranium producers, developers and explorers.

If your going to look for the world’s next uranium mine, the Athabasca Basin is the place to do so.

Considering that nearly half of the U.S.’ 57 million pounds of uranium imports last year came from Canada and Kazakhstan, with Canada providing 17 million pounds—these producers are extremely well-positioned for what comes next.

Talbot predicts that the Uranium pound price could reach $65 within two years, and notes that some mines will be extremely profitable at this price—particularly those in the Athabasca Basin and in the western and southwestern U.S., while development of uranium deposits in Africa will require higher prices.

The Athabasca Basin is precisely where Zadar and NexGen operate, along with other promising contenders, including Cameco Corp. (TSX:CCO) and Denison Mines Corp. (DML:TSX).

Last month, billionaire D.E. Shaw let us all know that he’d acquired 1.4 million shares in Cameco, eyeing rising uranium prices, tightening supplies and growing demand—and joining the ranks alongside George Soros. And others have lined up, too, including well-known money managers Ken Griffin, Ray Dalio and Steve Cohen.

Then we have Bill Gates—who has jumped on the uranium bandwagon with great determination. Through his TerraPower company, Gates is developing a Fourth Generation nuclear reactor that would run on depleted uranium, rather than enriched uranium.

Increasingly, this is shaping up to be the the Year of Uranium, but while the market sleeps, big investors don’t: They’ll be all set when uranium experiences a violent upswing, and those operating around the Athabasca Basin are likely to be among the first to benefit from the upward price trend and shrinking supply.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Uranium-Prices-Set-To-Double-By-2018.html

Matthew Duss is right. The Paris Peace Conference is different, and the fact that the United States’ stronghold of supposedly trying to resolve conflicts in the Middle East is being challenged, is a point worth noting. Yet, this is hardly important. “The multilateral nature of the conference is a Palestinian strategic victory, marking another step toward the internationalization of the peace process,” Duss wrote in Tablet magazine.

Some 20 years ago, the Palestinian leadership allocated the responsibility of obtaining justice and human rights for its people to the international community. That was clearly a blunder, one which has been re-enacted from the United Nations to the US.

Since then, the American political establishment has moved from being unconditionally pro-Israel, to adopting Israeli political priorities as US national security imperatives. That shift was certainly more exaggerated during the George W. Bush administration than under that of US President Barack Obama. But despite Obama’s perceptibly sour relations with Israel’s right-wing Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, a clearly defined and different US foreign policy is yet to be articulated. If anything, the Obama administration is offering Israel yet more money, and has done everything in its power to thwart Palestinian efforts at achieving any of its political goals, whether at the United Nations or at other international institutions.

But the advent of the French ‘peace-making’ initiative between Israel and Palestine is unlikely to alter this already skewed picture.

Those who are expecting France to bring about a paradigm shift are likely to be disappointed. The French, just like the Americans, are also governed by domestic concerns and by regional and international ambitions. Passing the baton from US Secretary of State, John Kerry, to French Foreign Minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, will not change much. It is merely a further indication of American side-stepping, if not decline in terms of its Middle East leadership. The fact is the French peace initiative-turned-conference in Paris on June 3 is likely to fizzle into the vacuum of a dead “peace process”. So, why the colossal waste of time?

If you have been following the Middle East “peace process” issue in the last quarter of a century, you are certainly aware that the “negotiations table” is nothing but a metaphor for buying time and obtaining political capital. The Israelis require time to finalize their colonial projects in the form of escalating illegal colonies on occupied Palestinian land; and the Palestinian leadership uses the “talks” to acquire political validations from a so-called “peace-broker”, namely the US.

The US, in turn, has used the futile “negotiations” to further assert itself as the “caretaker” of the Middle East. Meanwhile, every other relevant political entity is included or excluded based on its own worth to, or relationship with the US. Thus, the honor of invitation is bestowed upon “friendly regimes”. Others, namely “enemies of peace” are rejected for their failure to accommodate or adhere to US foreign policies in the region.

While the “peace process” has failed to deliver neither peace to the region nor justice to the Palestinians, the “peace process” industry has been an unenviable success, at least until 2014 when Kerry and the US administration decided to tend to more urgent regional affairs, for example, the war on Syria.

By then, Netanyahu was too empowered by the anti-peace sentiment in his own society to even partake in the talks. There was little weight for him to be seen with ageing Mahmoud Abbas, shaking hands and exchanging pleasantries. His right-wing constituency, which dominates Israeli society, could not have cared less. They were — and still are — busy confiscating Palestinian land, issuing more racist laws in the Knesset and fighting dissent among their own ranks.

Prior to 2014, and since the very first peace conference in Madrid in 1991, the ‘peace process’ has splendidly paid dividends. The Israelis were finally accepted as a peace partner and Israel slowly made its way from the margins of the Middle East to the centre, without having to concede in any way at all.

Even Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, has no qualms with this assertion. “In fact, the number of Israeli [colonists] transferred into Occupied Palestine has nearly quadrupled since the beginning of the peace process,” he recently wrote in the Israeli daily Haaretz, adding, “yet Israel continues to enjoy impunity and is not held accountable”.

But the Palestinian leadership also enjoyed the perks of the “peace process”. It was, and remains, at the forefront of raking in the benefits of the spurious peace. The “peace process” meant money, and plenty of it; billions of dollars invested in the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) — feeding a dead-end political system that existed with no real authority, and almost always remaining on the sidelines as Israel used extreme violence to sustain its colonial enterprise in the West Bank and Occupied Jerusalem.

The French government has its own reasons for taking the lead on reviving the dormant peace talks. Writing in Israel’s Arutz Sheva, Eran Lerman explained the French endeavor in more practical terms: “Broad regional security considerations” are driving the French diplomatic initiatives. In fact, the logic behind this is discernible. French President Francois Hollande’s approval ratings are at an all-time low. As of March, he broke his own record of low approval, sinking to 17 per cent. His country is embattled by violence, massive strikes and non-strategic foreign policy decisions that resulted in French military involvement in Libya, Mali and Syria.

Leading world leaders in another peace gambit that will certainly digress and distract from the US failure on that front is a clever political calculation from the French perspective. It may even help Hollande appear stately perhaps even accord him the position of a leader.

However, and not unsurprisingly, the Israelis rejected the initiative right away, without even bothering with a public diplomacy campaign to defend their position, as they often do. Dora Gold, director general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry repeated on the eve of the conference what Netanyahu and others have parroted for weeks. The conference will “completely fail”, she said, calling on Abbas to engage in direct talks with no prior conditions instead.

The nonchalant Israeli position can be partly explained by Tel Aviv’s trust in the French government, the very government that is taking the lead in the fight against the pro-Palestine Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS). “French positions and actions on this subject have been more reassuring from an Israeli point of view than those of our American ally,” wrote Lerman.

The conceited and opinionated Israeli response to the French conference was paralleled with euphoria among the embattled Palestinian leadership. The PNA subsists on this sort of international attention, and since the last major meeting between Abbas and the former, now jailed Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, in 2008, Abbas is left on his own, disowned by the Americans and neglected by Arab governments.

“The French Initiative is the flicker of hope Palestine has been waiting for,” wrote Erekat. But since the “peace process” began in the early 1990s, many such flickers of hope appeared and vanished without evolving into a fire delivering peace and justice for Palestinians.

Instead of pursuing yet another peace mirage to regurgitate the centrality of the long-defunct two-state solution, Palestinians need to place their priorities elsewhere, starting with their unity, followed by devising a clearly articulated national project to obtain their freedom, not through frivolous talks but through an anti-Apartheid struggle for freedom and liberation.

There is a sense of disillusion and paranoia afflicting Pakistan. Two separate narratives are visible – one, of growing angst against the United States (US) with a feeling of being used, abused and discarded. This pervades the mindset of both policy elites and the intelligenstia. The denial of F-16’s, increasing condemnation of Pakistan as a terrorist sponsoring state and constantly being asked to do more and more on containing cross border terror and nuclear program is seen as US once upon preparing ground for its abandonment by the United States. According to the latest Pew pole 62 percent Pakistani’s have an unfavorable opinion about America.

Adding salt to the wounds is the drone attack killing Mullah Mohammed Mansur, in the “no go” area of Baluchistan, which remained outside the purview of American attacks all through one and half decades of active US operations in Afghanistan, despite Quetta shura’s headquarters being located in Quetta. Attack on Afghan Taliban leader in Bauchistan has not only exposed Pakistani duplicity with regard to support and shelter to Afghan Taliban despite vehement denials, but has also crossed an important redline indicating US disenchantment with both Pakistani military and political establishment in their war against terror in Afghanistan.

So deep has been the impact of these developments that for the first time redoubtable Pakistani Army Chief is being questioned for his total capitulation to the Americans. Situation was exacerbated by Foreign Policy Advisor Sartaj Aziz admitting on the floor of the senate, that the agenda for talks with Taliban is wholly being driven by the Americans at their whims and fancy with little or no control of Pakistan. His lament being; while Pakistan was expected to bring Taliban on to the negotiation table, Americans repeatedly vitiated the process, the drone attack and non recognition of Taliban delegation that had come for preliminary discussions with Pakistan Government being quoted as prime examples. This has caused a major uproar against the weak and vacillating strategic and policy establishment including the Army for failing to protect both national honor and sovereignty.

Further fueling the estrangement is the belief that the US acting in tandem with India and Afghanistan is hell bent on destabilizing the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Attack on Maulana Mohammed Masood in Baluchistan and role of Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies in fanning trouble in the region is seen as a sign of direct complicity. To the establishment and the elites alike this is seen as an attempt by a dissatisfied India and its accomplices Afghans under tacit American support; to fan fires of Baluch separatism in an attempt to drive away the Chinese.

The success of CPEC is deemed as critical to national development of Pakistan. It is seen as an opportunity to fast track growth that could lift masses abject from poverty and check rapid societal radicalization. So great is the fascination with the positive fallout of the CPEC in terms of job creation and other social benefits that any activity or actions that have the potential to undermine this most important political – economic development are seen as hostile and against core national interest of Pakistan. Thus attacks on Chinese workers, or on projects in Khyber Pakhutnkhawa and most importantly in Baluchistan are hostile actions and conspiracy against Pakistan perpetuated by R&AW, NSD and supported by the CIA. Controversies like the land in Gwadar being usurped by rich Pakistani land owners, social disquiet among locals on being shifted from traditional lands and lack of compensation together with largely Punjab centric approach to development are heaped on the foreign hand as part of disinformation campaign.

Internal differences between Punjab and Baluchistan or the high handedness of executing agencies against local population are all brushed aside.

Adding to the discomfort over CPEC is the trilateral India – Iran – Afghanistan; Chahbhar Port and economic corridor as an alternative route for Afghanistan, Central Asia and Eurasia. It is seen as an attempt to throttle Gwadar and reduce its economic significance. Feeling pervades that should Chahbhar develop into a major port and an economic zone, with its own LNG terminals, the majority of trade from Central Asia to India and further to SE Asia could get routed through it, undermining the importance of Gwadar, which will become essentially a Chinese port and outpost, largely denying Pakistan the miracle of economic benefits. Although Pakistan and Iran have credulously claimed that Gwadar and Chahbhar are not rivals, but sister, complementary ports; nonetheless, Pakistani military establishment see’s this trilateral partnership over Chahbhar as a security threat that could lead to Pakistan’s isolation.

Adding to Pakistani discomfiture is so called India’s successful look West policy in terms of forays by India in cultivating closer relations with Pakistan’s traditional allies – Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and others. Drivers for close relations between major gulf countries and India are counter terrorism cooperation, India as a major energy buyer during the current depressed times and even more importantly stable and developing India as the preferred investment destination. Pakistan see’s these inroads at the expense of its interests and even more so the fact that Pakistan has figured in denigrating terms in many such meeting is a further source of heartburn in Pakistan.

Yet another grouse is singling Pakistan as a terrorist sponsor state in the region, completely overlooking the activities of Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies. The commentators and analysts never fail to highlight that Pakistan’s dogged war on terror in particular conspicuous steps to defeat and degrade indigenous terror outfits like the Tehrik-i-Taliban and its splinter groups, deal with radical elements in Karachi and Sind. Notwithstanding above a discourse is building that number of its problems are result of Pakistan’s own short-sighted policies for this discomfort. At long last an acknowledgment is gaining ground that double dealing on terrorism i.e. Pak Army being hyper active in dealing with internal terror and simultaneously supporting proxies for cross border terror from its soil against India and Afghanistan has become counterproductive enterprise resulting in loss of US and NATO support.

Despite the above realization Pakistani leadership and strategic community continue to point finger against India under the belief that India and US coming together on Afghanistan and berating Pakistan for not doing enough in containing Afghan Taliban is a deliberate strategy to undermine Pakistan in forcing it to undertake operations to contain Afghan Taliban support bases. Consequently a perception is emerging that the leverage that Pakistan had in keeping the Afghan Taliban and other “good Taliban” as their strategic assets is slowly boomeranging. Those within Pakistani establishment (essentially intelligence agencies and GHQ) continue to believe that Pakistan remains a credible factor and the India – Afghan – US collaboration cannot succeed. They see this pressure as means of forcing Pakistan to forsake their proxies like the Punjabi Tanzeems and Haqqani brothers – something for which they clearly are not ready.

Furthering Pakistani mistrust is the fast gaining perception that it is being held responsible for failing to bring the Afghan Taliban, to the negotiating table. Pakistani establishment counters this by blaming US in turn for negating all its efforts. The killing of Maulana Muhammad Mansur on the eve of the four party talks and non recognition of Afghan Taliban delegation that came to discuss the agenda for the peace as non-representative of the Taliban establishment, and lack of faith in them by the Afghan government are quoted as examples of derailing the peace process.

The Pakistani establishment is convinced that the whole idea is to create a space for accommodation with Afghan Taliban isolating the ISIS in a US sponsored move in which India and Iran are also complicit. The fact that Maulana Muhammad Mansur was killed near Iran border together with the capture of former Indian naval officer is used to highlight this collaboration. As further evidence, Pakistani commentators and retired military officers quote the lack of border management agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan as an attempt by Afghan intelligence to create conditions for the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban to reunite, and turn the tide of Taliban anger and militancy towards Pakistan.

Next is the issue of labeling Pakistan as an irresponsible nuclear nation. Perception is gaining ground that the spate of articles and political statements over Pakistani nuclear capabilities in particular its weapon program, missile development and battlefield weapons appearing mostly in the US and other Western countries is an orchestrated campaign to browbeat Pakistan; the aim being to force it in giving up its sub strategic nuclear capability (battlefield weapons) and cap its strategic weapons program. Attempts at delinking battlefield weapons from conventional strategy are seen as a ploy to weaken Pakistan, create strategic instability and paint it as an unreasonable power. The ‘qualified’ India style nuclear deal which aims at capping its weapons development and forsaking of battlefield weapons being offered by the US is seen as vindication of he Pakistani stand. The Pakistani leadership’s belief is that its nuclear weapons are its crown jewels and TNW essential for addressing rapidly increasing asymetrical co-relation in the conventional deterrence; hence under no circumstances will these be compromised.

It is not important that above are fanciful and farfetched perceptions, what is important and dangerous is that they are believed by security and political establishment alike, resulting in self created fears of isolation and abandonment. Compounding perspective is that there is little sign of governance which is seen as being run on the internet from ICU in London. Army which is seen as the conscience keeper is also coming under criticism for being a silent bystander and succumbing to the US pressure. In this whole discourse US has overtaken India as the primary adversary. India and Afghanistan and even Iran are being seen as part of the destabilzsing grand alliance.

Implications

The prevailing mood in Pakistan is sullen and perspectives unsure. They have only China to lean on. Consequences of the prevailing scenario are unsure and far reaching. Situation is being built which could lead to misperception and pre-emption based on false notion of trepidation and intimidation. Some of the consequences that could emerge are highlighted below;

(a) The Indo-US strategic embrace is seen as part of China containment strategy by helping India develop capabilities to contain Chinese power projection in the Indian Ocean Region. Although, Gwadar is central to releasing China from its Malacca dilemma, Pakistani commentators are aware that in a contested IOR space, Gwadar could become vulnerability and liability rather than an asset. There are also perceptions that by developing Chabahar as part of a larger India – Afghan – Iran development project, which Pakistanis have psyched themselves to believe is to isolate it, and undermine importance of Gwadar. This is likely to enhance Pakistani angst of India and lead to even closer embrace with China. This could result in even more closer collusive support, in terms of additional maritime resources for Pakistan including nuclear attack submarines, improved maritime domain awareness, possible deployment of OTH (Over the Horizon) Radar along Mekran coast etc, greater technology infusion and hardening of Chinese stand against India including increased incursions. Over 47 percent of Chinese exports are to Pakistan. This will result in increased competition in the Arabian Sea, IOR and even along the LoC and LAC.

(b) In addition the two countries have also collaborated closely on nuclear technology — both for military and civilian purposes. or China has been main benefactor for weapon design and development, missile technology and miniaturization etc. This partnership can see exponential advancement if Pakistan is isolated and China believes its close partner and near ally being given a raw deal. It needs to be noted that Pakistani nuclear weapons are proxy capability to contain India.

(c) Third; with the Pakistani commentators and analysts constantly retching up the activities of Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies to disrupt the CPEC a narrative is being built about insidious Indian designs to derail the CPEC and prevent economic development of Pakistan. It is this mind-set that believes the centrality of the Indo-US collusion against Pakistan. Such a self serving scenario could result in embattled Pakistani military establishment to retaliate to these “make believe” Indian designs.

(d) Under the circumstances following Pakistani designs cannot be ruled out for which India will need to be prepared;

a. Collude with Kashmiri separatists to upgrade insurgency in Kashmir. Recent attacks along NH and in the valley are the early portents.

b. Stage a high profile terrorist attack on India as a message to and retaliation against so called perfidious Indian designs against Pakistan.

c. Afghan Taliban attacks in Afghanistan are also likely to increase with ISI stage managing better collaboration with pro Pakistani Taliban and other groups. Current CT campaign within the country could slow down and carried out only as a window dressing. Ongoing cross border encounters with casualties on either side is an example.

d. Greater collaboration and collusive support could be expected between China and Pakistan. Forthcoming NSG meeting will have implications on the developments. If China is forced to support India or remains  isolated in its perception of containment and isolation by concert of US led powers could increase. This could manifest in China hardening its posture against India and even more importantly higher degree of technology and military collaboration.

e. As an abundant insurance Pakistan is likely to continue miniaturization of nuclear weapons, develop sea based deterrence, including mounting nuclear warheads on short and medium range cruise missiles. Development of Shaheen III and MIRV capability can be expected to be fast tracked.

f. Concerned about the fate of Afghan Taliban, Pakistan could use its assets, such as Haqqani brothers and others to increase the spate of attacks and create further instability in Afghanistan. This could create raise further tensions between Pakistan and US.

g. Lastly Pakistan can also be expected to leverage its influence on the Islamic world with Russia, and China, vis a vis Iran to put spokes in the development of Chabahar and upstage tri-lateral development plans.

Conclusion

Above broad analysis of the mood in Pakistan and its manifestations and consequences highlights the current state of mind of Pakistani political and military leadership. The feeling of isolation and paranoia bodes ill for regional peace and stability. Appearing to be cornered Pakistan can be expected to take irrational steps, upgrade proxy war in Kashmir, make false and illogical assertions against India, and vitiate the regional atmosphere. India will need to work closely with its partners and other regional players including China to stall these negative developments which could have serious short to medium term consequences.

The FBI on Wednesday asked for the public’s help to learn more about the movements of Omar Mateen prior to his shooting rampage Sunday at an Orlando, Florida nightclub that left 49 people dead.

“We need your help in developing a picture of what the shooter did and why he did it,” said Ron Hopper, assistant special agent in charge of the Bureau’s Tampa Field Office. During an afternoon press briefing in Orlando with local law enforcement partners, Hopper urged anyone with information, no matter how small, to call the FBI or submit a tip online.

“The FBI’s Office for Victim Assistance and its experienced Victim Assistance Rapid Deployment Team is working together with the city of Orlando and federal, state, and community agencies to provide resources and support to victims, next of kin, and loved ones,” Hopper said.

Early Sunday morning a gunman, identified at as Omar Mateen, 29, a Florida resident and US citizen and son of immigrants from Afghanistan, took hostages at a gay nightclub that was celebrating an event in linked to gay pride week celebrations, killing 49 and wounding 53, before he was shot and killed by police.

The 20th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF 2016) will start its work in the ExpoForum Convention and Exhibition Centre on Pulkovo Heights, St. Petersburg, on June 16–18.

“The global economy is increasingly impacted by political and social factors. The challenges facing the global community demand concerted action aimed at achieving sustainable and balanced growth. It is vital that we work together in our search for additional drivers of development. We must more fully make use of the industrial, scientific, technological, and innovative potential of our nations, and also the potential of international integration structures. We must react more swiftly to the shifting demands of the market and to the looming transformation of the global technological landscape,” Vladimir Putin said in his address to the participants, organizers, and guests of the Forum published on the SPIEF website.

He also stressed that the guests and participants can expect a far-reaching and comprehensive program.

“It includes the Business 20 Forum, BRICS Business Forum, and SCO Business Forum, as well as meetings between official delegations from Russia, Kazakhstan, Italy, and other countries. Among the other events scheduled are a special Valdai Club session, the Russian Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Forum, and a conference focused exclusively on the Arctic, thereby marking another first for the Forum. Conversely, the traditional Global Energy Award and Development Award ceremonies will also be held during the Forum, along with a business summit for heads of the world’s largest energy producers,” the President said.

Moreover, he expressed confidence that the upcoming St. Petersburg International Economic Forum will allow to develop agreements that could positively influence the economy of the Russian Federation and other countries.

“I firmly believe that the recommendations and agreements drawn up during the Forum will help drive economic recovery in Russia and around the world, promote international cooperation based on egalitarian principles across a wide range of spheres, and give rise to mutually beneficial long-term projects,” Vladimir Putin stated.

For the first time in two years, high-ranking officials of the European Union will visit this event.

“The Forum opening ceremony will be staged on June 16. We expect it will be attended by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and President of Guinea Alpha Conde,” Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister and SPIEF Steering Committee Chairman Sergei Prikhodko said.

It is expected that the SPIEF 2016 will be attended by Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev, Austria’s Vice-Chancellor Reinhold Mitterlehner, and Cuba’s Vice-President of the Council of Ministers Ricardo Cabrisas Ruiz.

“Statistics says interest in the Forum is growing. The number of participants registered on the official website is higher than last year,” Sergei Prikhodko said.

Commenting on the upcoming event, Michael Harms, the Executive Director of the German Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations (Ost-Ausschuss der Deutschen Wirtschaft), said that for many German companies, SPIEF has become a major economic conference in Russia.

“German representatives are willing to participate in it to find out more about the current economic development of Russia and meet Russian business partners. This year the German Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations is represented by many member companies,” he told PenzaNews.

According to him, the Forum is an important platform for the exchange of business contacts in Russia and promotion of international cooperation.

“We expect new contracts, perhaps even more than in 2014 and 2015 due to the positive trends in the Russian economy,” Michael Harms said.

From his point of view, Jean-Claude Juncker’s participation in SPIEF 2016 indicates the EU’s interest in renewing and strengthening dialogue with Russia.

“Despite major protests in some EU countries, Jean-Claude Juncker is going to take part in this event. We truly believe that due to the common economic interest, we could return to a positive agenda between the EU and Russia,” he added.

Knut Fleckenstein, Vice-Chair of Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament responsible for foreign affairs, shared this point of view and welcomed European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker’s plans to attend the St Petersburg international economic forum.

“I encourage the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, to participate in this important meeting. The European Union must find a pragmatic way to deal with Russia, without denying the serious differences between us,” MEP said.

Bringing relations out of the crisis will not be possible when all dialogue is blocked, he stressed.

“Despite the existing problems and disagreements, we need a dialogue between the EU and Russia in order to jointly tackle the many global challenges,” Knut Fleckenstein added.

In turn, Oleg Prozorov, Director General, the Belgian-Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce in the Russian Federation, called SPIEF the most important business event in Russia and one of the most important in the world.

“The participation of European Commission President in the Forum demonstrates the willingness of European partners to save contacts and maintain relations with Russia. In addition, I want to highlight the participation of Etienne Schneider, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Economy of Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, distinguished guests from other EU countries, and – the main thing for us as a Chamber of Commerce – a broad participation in the event of companies from Belgium and Luxembourg. Political dialogue and strengthening of economic contacts should positively impact the relations with the European Union, and we would very much like to see the policies following the economy and not vice versa,” the expert said.

He stressed that the Belgian-Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce in Russia cooperates closely with government institutions for economic development and the Chamber of Commerce of the Russian Federation.

“We see gradual improvement of the investment climate in Russia, which is also reflected in the Doing Business rankings. However, talking about the comfort for doing business, it is necessary to recognize that the best indicator of the investment climate is the desire of the Russian business to invest in projects and manufacture in their own country,” Oleg Prozorov said.

International observers and participants of the event expect from the SPIEF 2016 statements about the future economic policy of the country, new agreements and contracts, he believes.

“Practice shows that the agreements reached within the Forum are of great importance for the development of economy and business. For its part, the Belgian-Luxembourg Chamber in the Russian Federation, as an official regional partner of the event, will continue its work to strengthen confidence among entrepreneurs and to inform businesses about the prospects of cooperation in Russia, Belgium and Luxembourg,” Director General, the Belgian-Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce in Russia, said.

Simeon Djankov, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Bulgaria, said the St Petersburg Economic Forum is the major event of the year for international investors to meet Russian business and political leaders and understand what opportunities there exist for doing business in Russia.

“This year’s event is attracting more interest than the last two years, as investors are cautiously starting to look beyond the current economic sanctions. The announced participation of EU Commission President Juncker and Vice-President Kristalina Georgieva suggests that European leaders look to reopen their contacts with Russia. This is welcome news for both the European Union and Russia. Both need each other to boost economic growth, and the imposed sanctions are hurting producers in both markets,” the analyst said.

Commenting on the US attempts to put pressure on the US and European companies which intend to participate in SPIEF 2016, the expert stressed the importance of economic relations between the states.

“It is short-sighted to limit business-to-business interaction. Such discussions improve understanding on what are common goals, on the basis of which politicians can find reasonable diplomatic solutions. The absence of some American and European companies from the St Petersburg Forum the last two years hurts producers and consumers in all markets,” Simeon Djankov explained.

“Business-to-business interactions increase the possibility for higher economic growth, and for better political understanding between nations,” he added.

In turn, Russian political scientist Pavel Danilin expressed hope that this year the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum will become a significant event not only in terms of strengthening economic ties.

“I hope that this event will be a breakthrough especially after the Upper House of the French Parliament adopted a resolution calling for the facilitation of the sanctions regime against Russia. Participation of Jean-Claude Juncker also looks quite encouraging. I believe that at the meeting of the President of the European Commission and Vladimir Putin there will be announced the sequential lifting of sanctions. According to the latest report of the commission on the Malaysian Boeing crash in Ukraine, it was, most likely, hit by the Ukrainian Air Defense. The situation surrounding the disaster was the main reason that prompted the Europeans to impose sanctions against Russia. Removing this reason will be a major step towards the lifting of the sanctions,” the expert said.

He also added that he expects a lot of business contracts to be signed during the Forum.

“However, the Europeans’ statement on the sequential facilitation of sanctions against the Russian Federation would be a major achievement of the SPIEF 2016,” the analyst concluded.

The St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) first took place in 1997 and since 2006, it has been held under the auspices of the President of the Russian Federation, who has also attended each event.

Over the last decade, SPIEF has become a leading international platform for the discussion of the key economic issues facing Russia, emerging markets, and the world as a whole.

It is expected that the total number of SPIEF 2016 participants will reach 10,000 people. The business program of the Forum, which includes about 100 different events, will attract about 200 experts and moderators from more than 30 countries.

Among the heads of international organizations and major foreign businesses to be present at the Forum are Bahrain Mumtalakat CEO Mahmood Hashim Alkooheji, Glencore CEO Ivan Glasenberg, Executive Chairman of Alibaba Group Jack Ma, Board Chairman of Wintershall Holding GmbH Mario Mehren, Societe Generale CEO Frederic Oudea Schneider Electric CEO Jean-Pascal Tricoire and others.

Source: http://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/61877-2016

On December 26, 2015, at 03:38:53 UTC, scientists observed gravitational waves–ripples in the fabric of spacetime–for the second time.

Both of the twin Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors–located in Livingston, Louisiana, and Hanford, Washington–detected the gravitational wave event, named GW151226. The LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC) and the Virgo Collaboration used data from the twin LIGO detectors to make the discovery, which is accepted for publication in the journal Physical Review Letters.

Gravitational waves carry information about their origins and about the nature of gravity that cannot otherwise be obtained. Physicists on the LIGO and Virgo teams concluded that the final moments of a black hole merger produced the gravitational waves observed on December 26, 2015.

LIGO’s historic first detection on September 14, 2015 resulted from a merger of two black holes 36 and 29 times the mass of the sun. In contrast, the black holes that created the second event were relative flyweights, tipping the scales at 14 and eight times the mass of the sun. Their merger produced a single, more massive spinning black hole that is 21 times the mass of the sun, and transformed an additional sun’s worth of mass into gravitational energy.

“It’s fabulous that our waveform models have pulled out from the noise such a weak but incredibly valuable gravitational wave signal,” said Alessandra Buonanno, a UMD College Park Professor of Physics and LSC principal investigator who also has an appointment as Director at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam, Germany. Buonanno has led the effort to develop highly accurate models of gravitational waves that black holes would generate in the final process of orbiting and colliding with each other.

“GW151226 perfectly matches our theoretical predictions for how two black holes move around each other for several tens of orbits and ultimately merge,” Buonanno added. “Remarkably, we could also infer that at least one of the two black holes in the binary was spinning.”

The merger occurred approximately 1.4 billion years ago. The detected signal comes from the last 27 orbits of the black holes before their merger. Based on the arrival time of the signals–the Livingston detector measured the waves 1.1 milliseconds before the Hanford detector–researchers can roughly determine the position of the source in the sky.

“It is very significant that these black holes were much less massive than those observed in the first detection,” said Gabriela Gonzalez, LSC spokesperson and professor of physics and astronomy at Louisiana State University. “Because of their lighter masses compared to the first detection, they spent more time–about one second–in the sensitive band of the detectors. It is a promising start to mapping the populations of black holes in our universe.”

The first detection of gravitational waves, announced on February 11, 2016, was a milestone in physics and astronomy. It confirmed a major prediction of Albert Einstein’s 1915 general theory of relativity and marked the beginning of the new field of gravitational wave astronomy.

“We could tell within minutes that GW151226 was very likely a real event. We all just marveled at it for a while,” said Peter Shawhan, an associate professor of physics at UMD and an LSC principal investigator. “By December we were sure that the first event was genuine and we had a fairly mature draft of that paper, which finally came out in February. But it was very satisfying to know, even then, that we already had a second event on our hands.”

The second discovery “has truly put the ‘O’ for Observatory in LIGO,” said Albert Lazzarini, deputy director of the LIGO Laboratory at Caltech. “With detections of two strong events in the four months of our first observing run, we can begin to make predictions about how often we might be hearing gravitational waves in the future. LIGO is bringing us a new way to observe some of the darkest yet most energetic events in our universe.”

Both discoveries resulted from the enhanced capabilities of Advanced LIGO, a major upgrade that increased the sensitivity of the instruments and the volume of the universe probed compared with the first-generation LIGO detectors.

Advanced LIGO’s next data-taking run will begin this fall. By then, scientists expect further improvements in detector sensitivity could allow LIGO to reach as much as 1.5 to two times more of the volume of the universe compared with the first run, which has already resulted in two major findings.

The Virgo detector, a third interferometer located near Pisa, Italy, with a design similar to the twin LIGO detectors, is expected to come online during the latter half of LIGO’s upcoming observation run. Virgo will improve physicists’ ability to locate the source of each new event, by comparing millisecond-scale differences in the arrival time of incoming gravitational wave signals.