By S. Binodkumar Singh*

On June 16, 2016, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which had started recording testimonies regarding insurgency-era rights’ violations and crimes from April 17, 2016, at District Peace Committee offices in all 75 Districts, and was supposed to wrap up the collection of complaints on June 16, 2016, decided to continue complaint collection until July 16, 2016, after it learnt that hundreds of victims are yet to lodge their complaints related to the war-era. The TRC had distributed 40,000 forms to victims and, as of June 15, 2016, had received 33,592 complaints.

Earlier, on June 13, 2016, another transitional justice mechanism, the Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons (CIEDP), which started receiving complaints on April 14, 2016, extended the time period for registering cases related to conflict-era disappearances by another month, as complaints continue to pour in. As many as 4,000 forms were circulated in all 75 Districts, where disappearance incidents occurred during the decade-long Maoist insurgency. The Commission had received 2,084 complaints as of June 12, 2016.

TRC and CIEDP were formed in February 2015 in the spirit of the Interim Constitution of 2007 and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2006, to probe instances of the serious violation of human rights and find the status of those who were disappeared in the course of the armed conflict between the State and the then Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (CPN-Maoist) from February 13, 1996, to November 21, 2006. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Nepal Conflict Report 2012, between February 1996 and November 2006, the conflict between the Government of Nepal and the CPN-Maoist left over 13,000 people dead and 1,300 missing.

On May 19, 2016, in a major development in Nepal’s prolonged process of transitional justice, TRC started preliminary investigation on complaints received from conflict victims. TRC commissioner Madhavi Bhatta, stated on the occasion, “We have distributed 14,581 complaint forms from our office and the local peace committees and received 7,789 complaints so far. Therefore going through all the complaints is a crucial step toward investigation.”

However, at a time when the victims and international human rights agencies have been urging the Government to bring the Transitional Justice Act on par with international standards, five Maoist parties – New Force Nepal led by Baburam Bhattarai, CPN-Revolutionary Maoist led by Mohan Baidya, CPN (Maoist) led by Matrika Yadav and Revolutionary Communist Party Nepal led by Mani Chandra Thapa, besides ruling Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M) led by Pushpa Kamal Dahal – in a joint statement on April 21, 2016, called on the Government to scrap conflict-era cases, claiming that such cases violated the Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) of November 12, 2006. Further, a group of Maoist cadres, who were either convicted or are under prosecution in various courts for war-era crimes, on April 25, 2016, formed the ‘Association of Court Victims on People’s War Cases’ at a press conference in Kathmandu and announced plans to protest against court verdicts and ongoing prosecutions.

Significantly, on May 19, 2016, ten Maoist parties at a joint convention in Kathmandu united to form a new force under the former rebel commander Pushpa Kamal Dahal to give birth to what they have decided to call the Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-Maoist Centre). Addressing the function organized to announce the unification, Chairman Dahal declared, “The days of conspiracy against the revolutionary agenda of republic, secularism and proportional representation are over. This unification is a message loud and clear that the days of people’s victory are here. This unification guarantees that the transitional justice mechanisms will function in line with the CPA.” Urging Baburam Bhattarai, former UCPN-M leader and Coordinator of Naya Shakti Nepal to come within the unified party, Dahal said “Baburam Bhattarai was head of the people’s government during the war and his orders were behind people’s sacrifices and the changes in the country. So, he will not be free of accountability just by saying that he has now taken another path. Therefore, I urge him to join the new Maoist force rather than promoting the bourgeoisies.”

Earlier, on May 5, 2016, UCPN-M signed a pre-emptive nine-point agreement with the Communist Party of Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist (CPN-UML), the senior partner in the ruling alliance. The fact that five of the nine points in the agreement address issues of transitional justice shows just how worried the Maoists are about having to answer for the crimes they committed between 1996 and 2006. One of the points of the agreement obliges CPN-UML and the Maoists to amend the laws on transitional justice within 15 days, so that they ‘reflect the spirit of the CPA’. The two leaders also agreed to register the ownership of the lands that were transacted on the strength of household papers during the conflict era on the basis of those same documents. They also agreed to immediately initiate the process to withdraw or give clemency on insurgency-era cases and other ‘politically-motivated’ cases filed on various occasions.

Expectedly, slamming the deal between ruling parties, UCPN-M and CPN-UML, Human Rights groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) on May 13, 2016, in a joint statement accused the two parties of attempting to ‘wash away the crimes of the conflict’ with the new agreement. Expressing the same view, on May 27, 2016, Nepali Congress (NC) President and former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba declared, “We cannot stop taking action against those accused of heinous crimes with only excuse (sic). They can be punished under different international laws too. So action should be taken against them.” Further, TRC Chairperson Surya Kiran Gurung noted, on June 4, 2016, “Though there are talks about granting amnesty at the political level, cases related to serious human rights breach bear significance in wider international scenario, and there is no way amnesty will be granted in each case.” Earlier, on January 7, 2016, a five member Supreme Court (SC) bench headed by Chief Justice Kalyan Shrestha asserted that there should not be any amnesty or clemency to murder convicts.

Expressing their fear at a discussion programme held at Mahendranagar of Kanchanpur District on June 16, 2016, conflict survivors said that they were still fearful of lodging complaints, as no assurance of maintaining confidentiality of personal information had been given. The participants claimed that most the families of conflict victims had not yet registered their complaints after it was found that the responsible agencies were disclosing the names of the complainants. Conflict Victim Society Kanchanpur Chairperson Dharma Singh Chaudhary noted, “Many victim families have not come to lodge their complaints with the rise in threats and intimidations after the disclosure of confidentialities of personal information of complainant (sic).”

However, on June 7, 2016, Professor Bishnu Pathak, spokesperson of CIEDP, claimed, “Initially, there were fears among victims and human rights defenders that the commissions might not be victim-centric. There was mistrust initially but we have overcome that situation. The way we are receiving complaints has encouraged us.” Similarly, TRC Chairperson Surya Kiran Gurung noted, “Political comments on transitional justice could create some confusion for the victims but TRC is firm in its intention of carrying out its tasks as per the provisions of the CIEDP and TRC Act. TRC is clear that any amendment to the existing act should be only for meeting international standards and adhering to court verdicts. We are not bothered by politicians’ comments or actions as we are governed by the laws.”

Combatants are not the only ones under the scanner of transitional justice mechanisms; complaints have also been filed against various high ranking officials, including former Prime Ministers. On May 26, 2016, family members of 17 laborers who were killed in Kotwada, Kalikot District, on February 23, 2002, on suspicion of being Maoist combatants, filed a complaint at the TRC against the then Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and the then Royal Nepal Army Chief, General Rookmangud Katawal. Similarly, on June 12, 2016, Krishna KC, a permanent resident of Baglung Municipality Ward No. 3, lodged a complaint at the TRC against former King Gyanendra Shah and five former Prime Ministers including Girija Prasad Koirala, Surya Bahadur Thapa, Lokendra Bahadur Chand, Krishna Prasad Bhattarai and Sher Bahadur Deuba, seeking justice for his detention by the Nepal Army (NA) for 810 days during the insurgency; and on June 16, 2016, a woman from Taplejung District, who received deep injuries to her thigh and knees [the identity of the victim and other information regarding this case have not been reported in any open source] during the Maoist insurgency, registered a complaint against former King Gyanendra Shah and Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli at the TRC through local peace committee in Jhapa District, saying she had not received relief till date and demanded justice.

Despite the political developments in the country, CIEDP Chairman Lokendra Mallick, speaking at a function organized by the Social Justice and Human Rights Committee of Parliament on June 17, 2016, claimed that the Commission will try to complete all the investigations in the remaining eight months before its deadline. Speaking at the same function TRC Chairperson Gurung observed, “A situation might arise tomorrow when our leaders cannot visit foreign countries freely if conflict-era cases are internationalized by the victims.”

Since the end of the internal conflict in Nepal, there have been demands for transitional justice measures in the country. However, despite the establishment of the TRC and CIEDP, impunity for violations committed both during the conflict and in the post-conflict era remains entrenched in the country’s political culture. It remains to be seen whether Nepal is able to reconcile the demands of political stability and continuity, on the one hand, and of justice for war era excesses, on the other, to establish an enduring constitutional and political order that will meet the demands of equity and governance.

* S. Binodkumar Singh
Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management

By Ambreen Agha*

The Ordinance promulgated by the President (of Pakistan) on April 26, 1984, goes a long way in accepting the most extreme demands and transforms much of the daily life of the Community into a criminal offence. — Yohanan Friedman, Prophecy Continuous (1989)

On June 4, 2016, an Ahmadi doctor, identified as Dr. Hameed Ahmed (65), was shot dead by unidentified militants in the Islam Colony area of Attock District of Punjab. Dr Hameed had been facing threats and intimidation on account of being an Ahmadi. In 2014, his clinic had survived an attempted arson attack.

On May 25, 2016, another Ahmadi, identified as Daud Ahmad (55), was killed in a targeted attack while he was waiting for his friend outside his house in the Gulzar-e Hijri area of Gulshan Town in Karachi, the provincial capital of Sindh.

On March 2, 2016, in another such attack, an Ahmadi, identified as Qamarul Zia (35), was killed for his faith in the Kot Abdul Malik city of the Sheikhupura District of Punjab. Zia was killed while he was leaving his house to fetch his children from school. Zia’s murder marked the first killing of an Ahmadi in 2016. Zia had survived several attacks in the past. Six months ago, he was attacked by cadres of the Majlis-e-Tahaffuz-e-Khatm-e-Nubuwwat (MTKN/Organization for the Preservation of the End of Prophethood. Zia had also been attacked by some religious clerics in 2012.

According to Persecution of Ahmadis, an organization that documents violence against Ahamdis in Pakistan and rest of the world, at least 194 Ahmadis have been killed in Pakistan since 2001 [data till 2015]. Two Ahmadis were killed in 2015, 11 in 2014, seven in 2013, 10 in 2012, five in 2011, 99 in 2010, 11 in 2009, six in 2008, five in 2007, three in 2006, 11 in 2005, one in 2004, three in 2003, nine in 2002 and 11 in 2001.

According to South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) data, at least three Ahmadis have been killed in targeted attacks in 2016, thus far (Data till June 19, 2016).

In the worst ever attack on the Ahmadis, at least 86 worshippers of the community were killed and another 98 were severely injured in a suicide attack at Darul Zikr and Baitul Noor mosques in the Model Town and Garhi Shahu areas of Lahore, the provincial capital of Punjab, on May 28, 2010. Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) claimed responsibility for the attack and congratulated Pakistanis, calling people of the Ahmadiyya community “enemies of Islam and common people”. The outfit urged Pakistanis to take the “initiative” and kill every such person in “rage”.

Ahmadis differ with other Muslim sects over the finality of Prophet Muhammad as the last Prophet. The Ahmadi branch of Islam was founded on March 23, 1889, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad in Qadian town of pre-partition Punjab. They believe in the Prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and have endured discrimination and violent persecution for holding this belief. An estimated 10 to 20 million Ahmadis live all over the world, representing 1 per cent of the total Muslim population. The core community lives in Pakistan, mainly in Punjab and Sindh Provinces. The estimated population of Ahmadis in Pakistan is 2-4 million out of the total population of over 192 million, amounting to 3.1 per cent to 4.2 per cent of the total.

The campaign against Ahmadis started soon after Independence in 1947, when religious clerics in the newly created Pakistan demanded that Ahmadis be declared a non-Muslim minority, and that Pakistan’s first Ahmadi Foreign Minister, Muhammad Zafrullah Khan, be removed from the cabinet for adopting Articles 18 and 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948), providing for the freedom of conscience and freedom to change one’s religion. Khan had then argued that these articles were compatible with and recognized under Islamic Law (Shariah), and declared the adoption of the provisions of the UDHR as an “epoch making event.” Article 18 of UDHR influenced Article 20 of the then Pakistan Constitution, which read:

Subject to law, public order and morality:- (a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion; (b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.

Violence against Ahmadis started in March 1953, engulfing Punjab to claim over a dozen lives. However, the persecution of Ahmadis was systematically institutionalized on September 6, 1974, when the Pakistan National Assembly under the leadership of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto declared them as a ‘non-Muslim minority’. The process to dilute the provisions of Article 20 was, in fact, initiated by Bhutto, in 1974. Later, in 1984, President General Zia-ul-Haq issued an ordinance to amend the Objectives Resolution of 1949, in an effort to placate Muslim clerics and establish the principal of religious conformity in Pakistan. Under this resolution, Pakistan was to be modeled on the ideology and democratic faith of Islam and all rules and regulations were to be framed in consonance with Islam, allowing a greater role to the Ulema, who felt emboldened by this recognition.

Thereafter, five Criminal Ordinances explicitly or principally targeting religious minorities were passed by Parliament in 1984. These new laws restricted the freedom of faith for Ahmadis, among others. The five ordinances included a law against blasphemy; a law punishing the defiling of the Qur’an; a prohibition against insulting the wives, family or companions of the Prophet of Islam; and two laws specifically restricting the activities of Ahmadis. Zia-ul-Haq issued the last two laws as part of Martial Law Ordinance XX, on April 26, 1984, suppressing the activities of religious minorities, specifically including the Ahmadis, by prohibiting them from “directly or indirectly posing as Muslims.” Since then, a number of Ahmadi Muslims have been jailed for either reciting the Qur’an, or praying like a Muslim, or identifying themselves as Muslims.

Even as the persecution of Ahmadis was legalized and institutionalized in Pakistan, the hard-line Islamist clergy demanded a systematic purge of the Ahmadis. Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) aggressively pushed this agenda and its leaders boasted of the anti-Ahmadi initiatives as the Party’s most noteworthy achievement. Indeed, even today, former Prime Minister and PPP leader Raja Parvez Ashraf, speaking at a political rally in Kotli, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, on April 29, 2016, declared,

No one has been able to compete with Pakistan People’s Party, if someone has served Islam! Only the Government of Martyr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto did it. 90 Year Old Problem, the Problem of Qadianis [Ahmadis] who challenged the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad PBUH, (PPP) shut them up, broke their neck and buried the [Ahmadi] Problem (sic).

The rally was also attended by PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari and another former PPP Prime Minister, Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani. Such statements by a former Prime Minister reek of hate and intolerance and are a demonstration of the dangers of religious prejudice and persecution that are nurtured by the Pakistani establishment and that have now travelled beyond Pakistan’s borders.

The ideology of intolerance and hate, which triggered the growth of extremism in Pakistan, also operates within the Pakistani Diaspora. The hatred for the Ahmadi has thus been exported to western countries as well. Recently, in an unprecedented anti-Ahmadi incident in the UK, an Ahmadi shopkeeper, identified as Asad Shah (40), was stabbed to death by another British Muslim in Scotland on March 24, 2016. Shah’s killer was identified as Tanveer Ahmad, a 32-year old Pakistani Muslim. Ahmad expressed no regrets for killing Shah and claimed that he had committed the act because Shah had “disrespected Islam,” and was a blasphemer. Significantly, Ahmad received praise from radical Sunni groups for this “courageous act”. The Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-e- Nubuwwat (AMTKN / International Organization for the Preservation of the End of Prophethood), the sister organization of the MTKN, congratulated all Muslims on Asad’s cold-blooded murder on its Facebook page, in a gloating message “congratulation to All Muslims.”

Further, on April 10, 2016, leaflets calling for the killing of members of the Ahmadi sect were found in the Stockwell Green Mosque located in south London. The leaflets warned Ahmadis to either convert to ‘mainstream Islam’ within three days or face “capital punishment” [death].

Back in Pakistan, a Canadian cardiologist, identified as Mehdi Ali Qamar (51), was shot dead on his return to his home in the Chenab Nagar town (also known as Rabwah) of Chiniot District in the Punjab Province on May 24, 2014. Qamar had come to Pakistan on a short visit to render voluntary service to the Tahir Cardiac Hospital and was killed outside the Ahmadi graveyard located in Rabwah.

Shah’s murder in Glasgow and the targeted sectarian killings in Pakistan bring an embedded culture of sectarian hatred to the forefront. This culture is fostered by organizations like MTKN that have gained political, legal and constitutional legitimacy in the ‘Land of the Pure’.

MTKN was established by its mother organization, Majlis Ahrar Islam Pakistan (Organization for the freedom of Islam in Pakistan) prior to the 1953 anti-Ahmadi riots and soon after the partition of the sub-continent. It declares on its website,

Its sole aim has been and is to unite all the Muslims of the world to safeguard the sanctity of Prophethood and the finality of Prophethood and to refute the repudiators of the belief in the finality of Prophethood of the Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhammad.

The MTKN cult of violence against the Ahmadis, which includes endured discrimination, violent persecution, criminalization of identity, vandalizing of mosques and homes; and desecration of graves, has been transported to the west. A 2010 AMTKN calendar read, “The only cure of Qadianis (Ahmadis): Al Jihad, Al Jihad.”

The anti-Ahmadi culture and sentiment thrives with the unchecked circulation of hate literature. The anti-Ahmadi text ‘Tohfa Qadianiat’ written by Maulvi Yusuf Ludhianvi, in which he urges ‘ true Muslims’ to “not to leave a single Qadiani alive on earth”, is openly sold across Pakistan. Significantly, on June 10, 2011, the All Pakistan Students Khatm-e-Nubuwwat Federation, the student wing of the MTKN, issued pamphlets branding members of the Ahmadiyya community as “wajib-ul-qatl” (obligatory to be killed). The pamphlet, circulated in the Faisalabad District of Punjab Province, read, “To shoot such people is an act of jihad and to kill such people is an act of sawab (blessing).” Worse, in an outrageous attempt to further restrict the religious freedom of Ahmadis, the Government of Punjab on May 10, 2015, banned more than 90 books and publications by the members of the Ahmadi community. These books primarily include the whole body of work by the founder of the community.

Such state-backed religious zealotry has cost many innocent Ahmadi lives. Anti-Ahmadi violence persists inside Pakistan, with little to no effective Pakistani Government response at Federal, Provincial, or local levels. While the claims of “success against the militants” in tribal areas continue to resound at high decibels, attacks on Ahmadis occur unchecked. On November 13, 2013, Mehboob Qadir, a retired Brigadier of the Pakistan Army, wrote in Daily Times “The state has lost its sense of responsibility, control, direction, leaving the field open to all sorts of rogues, ruffians and assassins from all over the world in the name of jihad.” Regrettably, there is little evidence that the Pakistani state is now prepared to abandaon this long-standing policy of employing terrorism as an instrument of state policy and for domestic political management.

* Ambreen Agha
Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management

More prescriptions for psychotropic drugs in children and adolescents in Germany have been issued than in the past. This is the result of a study reported by Sascha Abbas and colleagues in the current issue of Deutsches Ärzteblatt International (Dtsch Arztebl Int 2016; 113: 396–403).

On the basis of nationwide statutory health insurance data, the authors analyzed prescribing rates and rates of new prescriptions, as well as the groups of doctors who issued the initial prescriptions for psychotropic drugs in 5 million children and adolescents.

Herbal or homeopathic medicines were not included.

The prevalence of psychotropic drug use rose from 19.6 per 1000 children and adolescents in 2004 to 27.1/1000 in 2012. Notable increases were seen for stimulants (10.5/1000 to 19.1/1000) and antipsychotic drugs (2.3/1000 to 3.1/1000), whereas prescribing rates for antidepressants remained stable. The number of patients who were prescribed such medications for the first time was mostly constant, or even fell, in 2006–2012.

The analysis of the data showed that the increase in prescriptions of psychotropic drugs is not based on an increase in the numbers of children and adolescents entering therapy for the first time, but on the fact that more patients who had already undergone therapy previously were prescribed medication treatment again in subsequent years.

Sri Lank’as National Police Commission (NPC) has formulated a new set of Code of Ethics for Police with the aim to improve its rapport with the public.

NPC Secretary Ariyadasa Cooray told the Daily News the new set of Code of Ethics would be launched island wide next month.

Cooray said the purpose of Code of Ethics is mainly to make Police service a people friendly and efficient one that caters to the aspirations of the people.

“Police personnel should keep in mind that they are being paid salaries from the public money. They should know how to be polite to the people. The Code of Ethics reminds them of these obligations,” Cooray said.

Cooray said the draft Code was prepared with the participation of senior officers in the Police and with the consent of the Inspector General of Police.

“All Police personnel will have to read aloud the set of Code of Ethics and ratify by placing their signatures on it. This will be done during the island wide launch,” Cooray said.

The Secretary noted thereafter the Code would be included into all training courses of Police personnel and it would be mandatory to read aloud and sign it when receiving promotions.

Spain’s State Secretariat of Security of the Ministry of Home Affairs has activated its Safe Tourism Plan 2016 ahead of the upcoming summer season to provide tourists with a safer environment during their stay and travel in Spain. The operational implementation of this plan is embodied in Operation Summer 2016, which the Ministry of Home Affairs will launch on July 1.

This year, the Ministry of Home Affairs has increased the number of officers assigned to this operation by 1,227 – up 14.35% on 2015 – to a total of 42,607 Spanish National Police and Guardia Civil officers, who will be responsible for ensuring the safety of overseas tourists visiting Spain and Spaniards enjoying their summer holidays.

In addition to the police presence, the Safe Tourism Plan 2016 strengthens the services offered to inbound tourists via the extensive network of Foreign Tourist Assistance Service offices. These 24 offices provide services at all major tourist destinations in Spain and last year helped a total of 33,649 people. These offices help tourists who become the victim of crime in their own language, help them file an official crime report, provide assistance for the cancellation of credit cards and, if necessary, put them in touch with their consular authorities or with their families. This service is already available in Alicante, Malaga, Madrid, Granada, Seville, Valencia and the Balearic Islands.

As part of the commitment to new technologies by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Safe Tourism Plan also offers Alertcops – a free mobile app available in Spanish and English that allows a geo-located alert to be sent to the national security forces, thus enabling citizens to more easily report a crime or dangerous situation of which they become a victim or are witness to. Thanks to Alertcops, which has been downloaded almost 262,000 times, the Spanish National Police Force and Guardia Civil have processed approximately 50,000 alerts, of which over 6,400 correspond to potentially dangerous situations.

The operational implementation of the Safe Tourism Plan centers around Operation Summer 2016, which will enable surveillance to be increased on roads and at stations, sea ports, airports, hotels, camp sites and beaches, and for security measures to be stepped up at shows and events involving large gatherings, as well as procedures and paperwork when reporting a crime to the police to be expedited and simplified. Furthermore, increased efforts will be made to obtain information to prevent terrorist activity and support the investigations carried out by the Judicial Police.

Operation Summer 2016, which will begin on July 1, will be developed in the autonomous regions of Andalusia, Asturias, the Canary Islands, Cantabria, the Region of Valencia, Galicia, the Balearic Islands, Madrid and Murcia. The operation will conclude on August 31 in all these regions except the Balearic Islands, where it will be extended until September 30.

To achieve the greatest possible level of police effectiveness and increase public security, coordination will be enhanced between the State law enforcement agencies and the regional and local police forces through so-called Security Councils. Furthermore, increased collaboration will take place between both the Spanish National Police force and the Spanish Guardia Civil and the public and private institutions making up the tourism sector.

In turn, the Central Government Representation Departments and Offices will be responsible for ensuring and overseeing the implementation and subsequent development of the Operation in each region, as well as for working with the local authorities to promote and prepare the implementation of joint or complementary task forces with the Local Police and other entities.

By Mohammed Rasooldeen

A senior official from Saudi Banks told Arab News on Monday that customers who have difficulties in repaying their financial loans can reschedule their payments in consultation with their respective banks.

Lately many people, who had taken out loans from banks, have been expressing difficulties in repaying them, requesting authorities to waive them.

Talaat Hafez, secretary-general of the Media and Banking Awareness Committee, said those who have problems in the settlement of loans can talk to their bankers and work out an easier mode of payment to suit their purse.

“Banks can consider such cases individually, on a case-by-case basis,” he added. However, such loans cannot be waived off.

He also stressed that banks understand the difficulties of their customers and they will be able to help them on the merits of individual cases. He said that the concessions will be considered for all types of borrowings including credit card payments.

Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, spokesman for the Saudi Credit and Savings Bank, said that exemption in the repayment of loans cannot be done except by an order of the high command.

According to the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency, consumer rights when dealing with banks are set out in the General Principles for Financial Consumer Protection and are based on the general principles developed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2011. According to these principles, banks should deal fairly and honestly with consumers at all stages of their relationship, so that it is an integral part of the culture of a bank. Special attention should also be paid to the elderly and those with special needs of both sexes.

Banks should update information about products and services provided to consumers, so that they are clear and concise, easy to understand, accurate, not misleading, and customers can easily access this information without unnecessary inconvenience, especially the key terms and features.

From June 20 to 21 the Rwandan President Paul Kagame is undertaking an official two day visit to Morocco. This visit aims to give a new impetus to bilateral relations between Morocco and Rwanda.

Moroccan media has widely covered this important Rwandan presidential visit to the kingdom of Morocco. A visit that will open a new chapter in the political and economic relations between the two countries.

During a meeting held at the Royal palace in Casablanca, the two heads of states pledged to boost ties and upgrade cooperation in various fields in light of mutual challenges that require coordination between both countries.

This visit expresses once again Morocco’s infallible commitment to continue to be present in Africa and reinforce south-south cooperation to contribute to the development of the African states to bring peace and stability to this continent.

King Mohammed VI laid out a compelling vision for Africa’s development – This objective [prosperity for future generations] will even be more readily attainable when Africa overcomes its Afro-pessimism and unlocks its intellectual and material potential as well as that of all African peoples. Just imagine what our continent will look like, once it frees itself of its constraints and burdens
Undoubtedly, this visit will reinforce strong political, economic and cultural ties. Morocco and Rwanda will establish a political and economic partnership that will defy time and men.

It is worth noting that President Kagame’s last visit to Morocco was in November 2015 where he received MEDays Grand Prix that was meaningful to him personally, as well as the people of Rwanda.

In a speech he made in Tangier where he took place in MEDays Forum, the Rwandan President recognized Morocco’s increasing engagement around Africa and invited Moroccan investors and business people to invest in Rwanda adding that Moroccans, as the rest of Africans, are able to travel to Rwanda without a visa.

President Kagame also paid tribute to Morocco as a country with its own story as a part of Africa, not merely in terms of geography but much more importantly, intertwined lives and extensive shared experience.

Morocco is strengthening its political, economic and spiritual presence in Africa. This royal vision will certainly contribute efficiently to a stable and prosperous africa that will become more and more economically attractive to foreign investors.

Morocco’ s political influence is growing and so is the trust of the states it is working with. The kingdom keeps defending African’s cause, either directly, thanks to its participation in different operations to maintain peace or either indirectly, supporting, in all of the international summits, sustained efforts for human and social development throughout the African continent.

The EU has made cross-border co-operation easier in Ireland. Anything that puts physical border controls back up will destabilise the peace process.

By Polly Lavin*

With the advent of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 new opportunities opened up for cross border cooperation and trade. At the time border checkpoints and military lookouts were positioned across the North and border counties of the island. These days, the checkpoints and military towers are long gone. If you drive from Northern Ireland into Southern Ireland, blink and you will miss the fact that you have crossed an ‘invisible’ international border. You would be in good company though, a total of 14 million trips are made across the border every day between Dundalk in Ireland and Newry in Northern Ireland for business and shopping and more. The two economies of the island are inextricably linked and commerce is strong with Tourism equating to 2.1m visitors (1.7m North to South/400k South to North) and Cross Border trade in manufacturing accounting for €3.1 billion in 2014 (€1.75bn North to South and €1.3bn South to North). Agri-food sectors are also vitally important to both jurisdictions and trade in food and drink moves both ways.

In terms of jobs almost 15,000 people commute to work on a daily cross border basis consisting of 8,300 North to South and 6,500 South to North. The 2011 Census highlighted that ‘Proportionally twice as many (0.4 per cent) Northern Ireland residents commuted to Ireland to work or study as commuted from Ireland to Northern Ireland (0.2 per cent)’. A total of 3,064 students are studying in both jurisdictions from either side of the border which breaks down into 719 North to South and 2,345 South to North. The north of Ireland is reliant on the Southern Irish economy and cross border trade is up 7% since 2013 an economy that was in recovery since 2010.

Infrastructure initiatives have also benefitted both sides of the island and facilitated cooperation such as the development of the Dublin-to-Belfast transport corridor, the fibre optic communications networks “Project Kelvin” and investment by both governments into City of Derry Airport which sees 38% of its passengers being from the Republic of Ireland. The Single Electricity Market (SEM) is also under development and will lead to lower costs which at present are some of the highest in Europe. The Good Friday Agreement also saw the creation of 7 new North / South Bodies amongst them InterTrade Ireland and Tourism Ireland. Economic benefits have also come by cross border programmes including Interreg, Peace, European Fisheries Fund etc. and a total of nearly £2.5billion came into Northern Ireland during the last EU funding round (2007 – 2013).

Challenges exist for both jurisdictions which could be affected by the UK voting to leave the EU. They are both two very different economies and are competing against one another for business/foreign direct investment (FDI) but have shown strong commercial cooperation when they are exporting. Outside of the Belfast/Dublin corridor connectivity is poor across the island and there are significant policy anomalies in some key areas e.g. VAT on tourism is 20% in Northern Ireland v.s. 9% in the Republic of Ireland. There is also exchange rate volatility.

Northern Ireland is also very dependent on the public sector and receives almost £10bn in subvention annually from the UK and is a low productivity economy with low wages, recovery in NI remains fragile. Ireland’s economy on the other hand is on a much stronger footing than Northern Ireland’s despite the fall-out from the recession and appears to be re-emerging. Ireland as a whole has concentrated on FDI and exports which has driven growth. The economy however can still be volatile and government debt is still an issue.

Brexit poses a considerable threat for Northern Ireland. The Impact on trade links is a major concern and Ireland is Northern Ireland’s largest export trading partner. The USA is the biggest trading partner for most other regions of the UK. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK with a land border with an EU country – so there are serious concerns around the re-emergence of border controls and restriction of free movement.  Recent polls have shown that 86% of people do not want the border to return1. Ireland will also be affected if the UK votes to leave. Brexit could cut 20 percent off Irish trade and knock 1.1 percentage points off GDP growth before the end of 2017 (Source; British Irish Chamber of Commerce)

Trade is also significant. The UK is Ireland’s largest trading partner with 1 billion worth of trade flowing between the islands every week and 3 billion worth of cross border trade between north and south Ireland every year2. Rather than focusing on a BREXIT Northern Ireland should be thinking beyond and explore further synergies between the two economies around areas such as tourism, agriculture, education & training, research/technology/innovation, energy and business clusters. The island needs to find easier ways to reduce business costs e.g. utility costs and make it easier to do business on a cross-border basis such as cutting red tape and facilitate connectivity across the entire island. There should be a harmonisation of regulation, governments on both sides of the border should align and co-ordinate relevant policy making. Too reduce the UK subvention there is scope also to explore potential for further shared services both at central and local government level.

Efficiency savings could also be made in certain areas to help support both businesses and the wider economies such as an Integrated Single Electricity Market(I-SEM) which is one way of making utility costs more competitive in Ireland. Northern Ireland and Ireland have among the highest energy costs in the EU. The interconnector project will benefit the island as a whole by improving security of supply by providing a reliable high capacity link between the two parts of the all-island transmission system; allowing the all-island wholesale electricity market to work more efficiently, enabling wider competition between power generators and electricity suppliers throughout the island, and therefore ensuring that future electricity prices will be as competitive as possible; and enabling more renewable generator capacity (mostly wind generation) to be connected to the electricity network. A return of the border would hinder all this from happening and create physical and psychological barriers to trade and engagement and further cooperation of the peoples of the island

Having personally worked on PEACE projects in Newtowncunningham, Donegal a town 8 miles from the border with Derry City there is also of course the reality that anything that puts physical border controls back up will destabilise the peace process and people will feel ‘penned’ in by border controls which would result in possible paramilitary activity increasing. Families and friends will also be separated by a physical border and the risk to the stability in the peace process is perhaps the biggest worry for the people in the border counties and Northern Ireland.

*Polly Lavin is a freelance writer, researcher and MSC graduate. She has a background in EU project management and has previously developed and delivered peace projects in the border counties and North of Ireland.

This article was originally published by OpenDemocracy and is available by clicking here. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of TransConflict.

By Giancarlo Elia Valori*

In a recent document of the European Authority for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, released earlier this June, stock is taken of the shortcomings in the EU foreign policy and intelligence system. Meanwhile, according to the document, the European Union should continue to support the political and economic reforms in the Western Balkans.

It seems that the current “reforms” are all targeted to the reduction of wages and welfare, by following the impossible example of the Asian economies which, also in this case, work with very different logics compared to ours.

Let us revert, however, to the EU document: it argues that the Member States should continue to be production replacement areas of EU industries, with decreased labor costs and entrepreneurs’ greater fiscal and organizational autonomy.

It is not clear how those States can be sustained in the absence of tax revenue capable of justifying public spending.

Another aspect of the EU document is the strengthening of the Atlantic axis with the US. Nevertheless, it is precisely America which is disengaging from Europe, except for the region on the border with the Russian Federation, where the US Armed Forces (and not only the NATO ones) are converging, with an ad hoc military structure and a new network of sensors and missile sites, both fixed and mobile ones, between Poland and Romania up to the Turkish border.

As is the case with its scarcely imaginatively currency, the European Union proposes itself as a “bridge” for resolving tensions between the Middle East, North Africa and the Persian Gulf, but with no weapons and no credible economic leverage, without stable allies and with a policy still oriented to the old peacekeeping concept.

Hence if Brexit succeeds, Prime Minister David Cameron – heir to Premier Margaret Thatcher who, at first, made Great Britain adhere to the EU in 1973 and later coldly managed the British presence within the organization – will have no interest in implementing or even discussing the new EU global strategy.

If Brexit fails, however, it would be mostly the same.

Prime Minister Cameron will either come even closer to US interests, or he will play with his own forces among the various regional powers in the above mentioned areas.

Even if Bremain were successful, the British authorities would have no interest in pressing ahead with the new European Global Strategy.

The fact is that there is an old system which is changing and shrinking, namely the Euro-Atlantic system, and a new system being built, namely Eurasia led by Russia and China, which will reach up to the Mediterranean with its Belt and Road Initiative and the integration of its economies into the vast Asian world, which is recording an economic and strategic expansion fully promoted by China.

The EU has not chosen yet and it has not dealt these issues with the respective poles of attraction. It still has a vision that Marx would call “economicist” and believes that a powerless GDP, deprived of strategic perspectives, is enough to stay afloat in the future multipolar world.

In the event of a soft Brexit, Great Britain may collaborate with the European Union’s core countries to a common security policy, but it is extremely unlikely for the EU to implement its global foreign policy without the support of a military, diplomatic and intelligence power such as Great Britain.

The possibility of counter-terrorism cooperation with the rest of Europe at collective security level would remain open, but certainly the project of a Joint European Army – as called for by many circles – would fade away.

Many weaknesses do not create a force, and it is not clear what the “external objectives” and the unified strategy of the new Joint European Army could be.

Without any reference to Brexit, Great Britain has planned to invest 178 billion pounds over a ten-year period, as stated in the Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2015.

Great Britain wants to become a “pocket superpower” on its own, as quickly as possible.

Rather than at a Common European Security and Defense Policy, it has never liked, Great Britain is still aiming at the wide NATO context and at enhanced bilateral cooperation with the EU Member States within it.

France is certainly a candidate for stable collaboration with Great Britain, but France officially theorizes the participation of the German Armed Forces and this is not wished at all by Great Britain.

Great Britain seems to be still living at the time of Lord Kitchener’s policy: it wants a united Europe as a way to be spared East and South (trade, migration and financial) invasions, but it does not think of a strongly united EU, which would inevitably become German-led.

But what is the current EU influence on the NATO framework? It is far from negligible.

Since 2003 there has been a significant contribution of European countries’ troops to the Atlantic Alliance’s mechanism of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), a brigade designed to move very quickly towards NATO’s Eastern borders.

It is subject to the rule of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Europe is present in the VJTF primarily for its economic commitments in Ukraine, following the signing of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) with the country.

The DCFTA between the EU and Ukraine envisages, first of all, the removal of all import and export taxes.

Also at agricultural level there are duty free products: cereals, pork and beef, poultry and horticulture.

Also the trade of manufactured goods has been liberalized, especially for the companies operating in the textiles and machine tools sectors.

Obviously the core of the issue is that a sharp reduction of duties is envisaged also for the petroleum products.

Hence, while the EU overall strategy is moving along the lines of defining various individual strategies for each point of crisis (Sahel, Libya, the Horn of Africa, etc.), Great Britain may certainly participate in the NATO framework of these operations, but it has no interest in taking part in it as a EU member.

Great Britain will never be – nor could it be otherwise – a sort of Australia or New Zealand at military and strategic levels.

It will never be a power “on call”, as some domestic workers.

Britain has the potential, ideas and weapons to become – by itself – the power broker in all the regions in which it is directly interested: the North Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Greater Middle East.

Since its membership of the EU in 1973, Great Britain has always considered its diplomatic policy in the European Union as a subset of its broader foreign policy action.

Since the time of Prime Minister Churchill onwards, Europe has been one of the components of the British presence in the world.

It has been its “second circle”, but never the first, which is the special relationship with its old rebellious colonies, namely the United States.

This is even the sense in which we have to interpret Sir Winston Churchill’s remark “We butchered the wrong pig”, when – in the aftermath of World War II – he developed the very secret plan Operation Unthinkable, which assumed the British invasion of the USSR to destroy Bolshevism in the phase of its greatest weakness.

The UK overall strategy vis-à-vis the EU has always been the stabilization of the Union as a largely deregulated free trade area, as well as its rapid expansion and the often clear and sharp refusal of any attempt to turn the European Union into a political entity, or even worse, into the “United States of Europe”.

Obviously Great Britain has always tended to equate its solitary role in Europe with the Franco-German duo as EU leaders and it has always tried to outline the EU strategic lines together or, sometimes, against the French-German axis.

Hence Great Britain has always been particularly interested in the Common European Foreign and Security Policy, in the Common Security and Defense Policy and in all EU external relations, often established by its individual Member States through the EU channels.

Hence the British primary interest for the EU External Action Service.

And it is only on the basis of the 32 different documents drafted by the British government during the 2010-2015 Review of the Balance of Competences that we can analyze the costs and benefits of Brexit or Bremain.

In terms of foreign policy, there is a British strong interest in operating through the European channels – for its own purposes.

Furthermore Great Britain has been reluctant even to accept the rules of the European Fiscal Stability Treaty of December 2011.

Since then the British media and governments have been supporting both the EU and the Commonwealth as the pillars of a new British foreign and security policy not confined only to the pro-European framework.

Even the visits that Prime Minister Cameron paid abroad at the beginning of his first term were designed to convey two messages: Great Britain does not live only within the European Union, which is not the only focus and horizon of its foreign policy; Great Britain is more suitable than other geopolitical areas for keeping pace with the times – namely the Asian expansion, the new poles of development in Latin America and the significant growth of the Russian Federation.

Hence a new National Security Council has been established, which regularly drafts the National Security Strategy (NSS).

Every five years, also the Strategic Defense and Security Strategy (SDSS) is drawn up.

The 2010 NSS and SDSS recommended a “decentralized approach” to the EU, as was also the case with the 2015 Strategies.

In both documents the position maintained is that of a minor EU role in supporting the British choices.

In any case the role played by Great Britain within the EU will remain stable both in case of Brexit and in case of Bremain and also the international challenges that Great Britain has decided to face in the coming years will remain the same.

About the author:
*Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “La Centrale Finanziaria Generale Spa”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group and Khashoggi Holding’s advisor. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title of “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy.

By Jamal Kanj*

It is fair to assume that most readers today can’t name the current heavyweight boxing champion. The same people would, however, most likely name the champion from 50 years ago.

That’s what makes Muhammad Ali unique. The champ or the “greatest” brought a special aura to the ring. It didn’t matter whether it was the formidable US government in court, or fighting the unbeatable in the boxing ring – he won.

I grew up with Muhammad Ali’s memories. In the 1960s, I lived in a Palestinian refugee camp in north Lebanon where we had no electricity. My father and his friends gathered around a battery powered radio listening live to the broadcast of Muhammad Ali’s fights. He was the subject of conversations in homes and among pupils at school.

We followed his battle in US courts when he refused induction in the army during the Vietnam War. He was stripped of his championship and served time in prison. Years later, we also celebrated the US Supreme Court’s unanimous knockout ruling (8-0) reversing his earlier verdict.

I remember, albeit with a tinge of jealousy, his 1974 visit to another Palestinian refugee camp in south Lebanon. He saw first-hand that Israel wasn‘t the panacea for Jewish refugees. But it was the product of an ideology that exploited Jewish suffering in Europe to justify the making of Palestinian refugees in another part of the world.

After his visit to Ein El Hilwa camp, the champ decried Zionism’s influence on US politics and avowed “support for the Palestinian struggle to liberate their homeland and oust the Zionist invaders”.

Four years later, I attended college in Houston, Texas, and worked a night-shift, six-to-six, at a Gulf self-service petrol station. This shift allowed me to go to school during the day and study inside the kiosk during low traffic in the early morning hours.

On Friday September 15, 1978, I had a conflict with my work schedule. I wanted to watch Muhammad Ali’s fight against Leon Spinks in New Orleans. My job paid the minimum $2.35 per hour and I couldn’t afford taking the night off. To watch the fight, however, I risked my job and hid a small 12 inch black and white TV under the counter inside the kiosk. The rented TV ended up costing almost half of my wage for the night. But it was all worth it, for it was Muhammad Ali’s third and last time in his career to regain the World Championship title.

Even while very sick, Ali never back away from a fight. Last December, Republican candidate, Donald Trump, called for a ban “on Muslims entering the US”.  Ali admonished him and called on political leaders “to use their position to bring understanding” and “clarify these misguided murderers (IS) who have perverted people’s views on what Islam really is”.

In the same week, the now Republican presumptive nominee, Trump, ridiculed US President Barak Obama for saying, “Muslims are our sporting heroes.” Trump tweeted back: “What sport is he (Obama) talking about, and who?”

Still, on June third Trump tweeted: “Muhammad Ali is dead at 74! A truly great champion and a wonderful guy”.

It took Trump only six months to answer his own question.

Trump is an opportunist and schadenfreude. He got “excited” by the housing meltdown in 2008, and to vindicate his racist views, he slobbered over the blood of the Orlando gay bar victims.

This is an American tale of two men: One who was inspired by his belief to object to an unjust war. And a rich child who supported the war, but his wealthy father bought him a medical exemption to escape it.

Today, we mourn the life of the conscientious objector-turned-humanitarian activist, and dread the draft-dodger morphed into an immature politician vying to become US president with the power to send more poor children to new wars.

*Jamal Kanj (www.jamalkanj.com) writes regular newspaper column and publishes on several websites on Arab world issues. He is the author of “Children of Catastrophe,” Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. (A version of this article was first published by the Gulf Daily News newspaper.)

By Bhaswati Mukherjee*

June 23, 2016 could well become a defining moment in the history of the European Union as well as a definitive moment in the history of the UK. On this historic day, the British electorate will decide in a deeply divided referendum how European they wish to be. The tragic murder of Labor Member of Parliament, Jo Cox has further polarized the public sentiment. As Prime Minister Cameron said yesterday, once the Rubicon has been crossed there is no turning back. Britain may never be the same again.

Britain’s membership in the European Union (EU) had to be carefully negotiated since some EU founder members, including France, had not been in favor of UK joining the EU because of its anti-European stand on many issues. UK’s applications to join in 1963 and 1967 were vetoed by the then President of France, Charles de Gaulle. A third application was successful under the Conservative Government of Prime Minister, Edward Heath. Prime Minister Cameron must have had ample time to regret his hasty announcement in January 2013, that a Conservative Government, if elected in 2015, would hold a referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017, on a renegotiated package. A referendum to decide on such a complex issue was not required under the British Constitution. Cameron could not back down on this issue after his election. It would be an irony of history if a decision by the electorate to quit EU could cost him his Prime Minister-ship.

Since the result is expected to be very close, there is media speculation that Cameron may make a statement outside 10, Downing Street at around 7a.m. GMT on June 24. It seems unlikely at this moment that he would immediately announce his decision to quit. What is possible is that internal turmoil within the Conservative Party, headed by those in favour of Brexit, and notably Boris Johnson, would result in a leadership challenge to Cameron before autumn. It would be difficult for Cameron, given his negative approach to Brexit, to continue as Prime Minister and negotiate Britain’s exit from the EU. A vote for Brexit may therefore mean the effective end of Cameron’s political career.

What would be the impact of the Brexit on markets worldwide, including India? As most financial markets still believe Britain will vote to remain, the impact of a Brexit vote is likely to be considerable. The pound will almost certainly fall significantly, as will share prices, with banking stocks and multinationals witnessing the hardest hit. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was the latest economic organisation to advise Britain yesterday against leaving the EU. In its annual outlook on the British economy, the IMF stated that “Brexit would be the largest near-term risk to economic growth”. For that reason Cameron, writing in the pro-Bexit Sunday Telegraph, stated “We face an existential choice on Thursday……There is no turning back if we leave”.

Although the Indian government has, correctly, made no political comment on how a Brexit outcome could affect India-UK ties, noting that this is an internal affair of the UK, CII and FICCI, among others, have underlined the importance of continued border-free access to European markets as crucial for outbound Indian business and Indian companies coming to the UK. There are more than 800 Indian companies in UK in crucial sectors of British economy reportedly generating more than 110,000 jobs. India is also deeply concerned for the welfare of the largest Indian Diaspora in Europe, nearly two million strong, as also the interests of a large moving population of Indians who visit UK as tourists, students or as business professionals. There is great concern that given their tough stand on cutting current immigration levels, a Brexit Conservative government would make much more stringent visa curbs, which would negatively impact business and tourist flows from India to the UK.

Invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty would be the legal mechanism by which Britain would withdraw from the EU. There is media speculation that this could happen as early as June 27 at a meeting of the EU Heads of State when Cameron would be called upon by his peers to explain the implications of Brexit. It will be the first time that all 26 member states will be able to take stock of the decision of the 27th member to pull out.

Whatever be the outcome on June 23, it will surely be a very slim, pyrrhic victory for either side. What is certain is that a Brexit will profoundly impact not just the British economy but also Britain’s position in the world. Can a Permanent Member of the Security Council afford to turn its back on Europe? Will Britain become inward looking as it goes back to its previous status as a small island State, divided from the continent of Europe by the English Channel, profoundly different in its language, cuisine, culture and customs? Will London become less cosmopolitan and less multi-cultural? Will the dark forces unleashed by the Brexit, which resulted in the tragic murder of MP Jo Cox, result in the rise of extreme right-wing racism which would impact our large diaspora, our political and business ties and our perception of the UK as one of our most important strategic partners? While it is for the British to decide how British they wish to be, the rest of the world, barring a few, is praying for a positive outcome and a resounding no to Brexit.

*Bhaswati Mukherjee is a former Indian Ambassador and a Permanent Representative of India to UNESCO, Paris. She can be reached at: rustytota@gmail.com

More than 50 U.S. mid-level diplomats have sent a memo through the State Department’s “dissent channel” to a likely sympathetic Secretary of State John Kerry, advocating an American bombing campaign to bring Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the negotiating table in the bloody Syrian civil war. The memo concluded, “It is time that the United States, guided by our strategic interests and moral convictions, lead a global effort to put an end to this conflict once and for all.”

Because it is even remotely unclear what strategic interests the United States has in Syria—other than perhaps crippling Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters, who are in opposition to Assad—President Obama and his military commanders have been reluctant to get into it with Assad directly, despite much pressure to do so from inside the government and from congressional hawks. They correctly ask what would happen if Assad were actually deposed from power by U.S. military action. Amazingly, the experts’ memo and congressional hawks have never addressed this question.

Given what has happened in Iraq and Libya when “undesirable” leaders were overthrown using American force—chaos and mayhem leading to havens for ISIS and other bad groups—one can scarcely believe that seasoned diplomats want to topple yet another Middle Eastern despot with no plan for what comes next. Assad is surely a brutal autocrat, but he at least keeps the portion of Syria he still controls out of the hands of the even more brutal ISIS and al Nusra, the al Qaeda affiliate. The diplomats claim that attacking Assad will shore up support for “moderate” Sunni rebels, who are U.S. allies against ISIS and al Nusra. Yet the moderate rebels have always been relatively weak and would probably not win another civil war with those ruthless groups if Assad no longer ruled Syria.

Despite such catastrophic failures (also add counterproductive U.S. meddling in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia to the pile), the diplomatic “experts,” including the top levels—John Kerry and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—still believe that calibrated U.S. military action can eventually social engineer the world, including the dispatching of Assad. They insist that they just want enough bombing to get Assad to negotiate his departure, but not enough to get into it with his nuclear-armed Russian sponsor or to involve the United States in another quagmire. The experts use the model of the Iran nuclear deal, arguing that ratcheting up economic sanctions brought Iran to the table.

In this line of analysis, they make several assumptions, which may not be proven correct. First, Iran had endured sanctions for many years without caving in; thus internal Iranian economic mismanagement rather than external pressure may have been the main cause of Iran’s economic problems, which led to the negotiation of the nuclear deal. Second, if the effects of economic sanctions are imprecise and hard to calibrate exactly, the results of military attacks are even more so. This is especially true nowadays with a world media focused on any unintended collateral damage against civilians caused by U.S. military action. Also, what happens if U.S. air strikes don’t do the job in ousting Assad, a man with his back against the wall and who could be charged with war crimes if deposed from power? As in past conflicts, pressure will then build for further escalation. Finally, what if the Russians refuse to allow the United States to eliminate the one remaining friend they have in the Middle East and decide also to escalate? Does the United States really want direct conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia over a strategically insignificant place?

Finally, the diplomats make the moral argument that Assad must be stopped from barrel bombing Syrian civilians, ignoring that atrocities have been committed by all sides in the horrendous conflict. Moreover, Iraq and Libya should be poster children for the unintended consequences of U.S. military action. The cure was worse than the admittedly bad ailment: more deaths resulted from the ensuing turmoil and civil wars than from the evil dictators that the United States deposed.

The notion that the American Empire can solve all of the world’s problems is so ingrained in the U.S. foreign policy elite that even in the face of one failure after another of armed social work gone awry, the experts still think it is possible, through the use of force, to fine tune specific outcomes in foreign cultures Americans don’t understand. Understandably, after recent quagmires, military commanders are leery of a slippery slope in Syria toward that same outcome.

This article was published at Huffington Post and reprinted with permission.

Prelude: Pre- Candidate “A” floats the electoral air-biscuit of a possible quest for the nomination of their (in the interest of not typing “his/her” I will use the vague, “their”) political party: let’s go with the Dems for the purpose of this piece.

The Anticipatory Interlude: The liberal Democrats who have felt increasingly at odds with the war president, but similarly not with the war party, grow ecstatic and social media is all a-twiiter (pun intended) with memes and petitions glorifying Candidate A’s progressive qualifications to make a run and form a “political revolution.” (“There’s nothing new under the sun.”) An exploratory committee is formed and the most crucial fundraising ability and online link is put into place.

The Play’s the Thing: After much anticipation and angst, Candidate A announces their intention to run for the nomination and the social interwebs go into paroxysm of orgasmic joy and the donations roll into Candidate A’s coffers by the millions. Candidate A must be viable, right? They are receiving so much money and literally thousands of memes have been produced.

(Tension arrives) Oh, jeez, here they come: the Predictable Purists who in true spoil-sport fashion point out the flaws in Candidate A, which are huge, but must be false, because didn’t the Predictable Purist see the meme that touted the peace credentials of Candidate A? Why do these Negative Nancy’s and Pessimistic Pete’s have to be so dad-gummed inflexible–can’t they see Candidate A only is saying certain things to get the nomination and once A wins, they will do the right thing that’s been in their hearts all along, no matter how Sanders, (oops, I mean A) voted in a couple of decades of political life?

Gosh, then comes the actual primaries and for the first time in recorded history there is massive voter fraud in the states where A loses, but, naturally, no fraud where A wins.

Even though A’s revolution is the acceptable kind with promises that can never be kept in real life, Negative Nancy admits that A ran the hardest race they could without actually challenging the establishment’s choice in any kind of constructively hard way. Even though A’s “revolutionaries” claim that he has “class,” Negative Nancy and Pessimistic Pete really know that he lacks political courage, or even the will to truly challenge the Empire. So, by California’s primary in June, A and company are the only ones that don’t know A is finished.

Dramedy’s Ending: A makes a dramatic speech in prime-time where A promises to “fight for the people” all the way to the DNC convention where A has already promised to capitulate and collaborate with A’s (pretend) enemy. It would be Ready for Prime Time Comedy, if it weren’t so scary.

A’s followers go into paroxysms of grief and rage for about 48 hours all over the social interwebs and then most will fall in behind their “Castro of Capital Hill” and dutifully vote for the candidate of Wall Street and the War Machine because who the hell do Nancy  and Pete want to win, anyway, the Republican?

Vote, rinse, repeat; and the beat goes on.

Suffolk County, New York police arrested Edward Perkowski on Thursday after the police allegedly found in a raid of his home items including tens of thousands of dollars in cash, several guns and knives, ammunition, a bit of marijuana and illegal mushrooms, and some bomb-making instructions. Oh yeah, the town of Brookhaven condemned Perkowski’s house to boot. This appears to be yet another example of a government cracking down on people for nonviolent actions. In this case we have a convergence of the wars on cash, guns, and drugs, as well as government’s intolerance of free speech.

Here is another important aspect of this story: Suffolk County Police Commissioner Tim Sini is stirring up fear that Perkowski and his brother Sean, who was also arrested, are dangerous because they are Nazis. The brothers might even have been planning a mass killing like we saw in Orlando, Florida last week, Sini suggests.

The evidence for the brothers’ supposed Nazism is apparently that a Nazi flag, framed photo of Adolph Hitler, and other materials related to Nazi ideas were found in the house. Of course, the presence of such items in a house does not establish that any of the house’s occupants subscribe to any particular ideology. Plenty of people interested in history have such items. Plenty of American soldiers, after being deployed to Europe in World War II, returned to America with such items as well. In fact, Tania Lopez reports at Newsday that relatives of Perkowski say the Nazi stuff belonged to Perkowski’s grandfather, a World War II veteran.

But, let us suppose Sini is right that the brothers are Nazis or neo-Nazis. So what? That is not a crime in America — even in Suffolk County. Neither is the fact that someone is a Nazi or neo-Nazi reason to conclude that that person will take part in the initiation of force against anyone. Some people who call themselves Nazis rob, assault, or murder. Others do not. The same goes for people who call themselves communists, Republicans, Episcopalians, accountants, you name it.

Nazis have rights, just like everyone else. If we allow people like Sini to convince us otherwise, then we accept a premise that can be used to support the government disrespecting other people’s rights as well because those people also hold any of various beliefs about which government officials can stir up fears.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

By J Nastranis*

The United Nations has been spending billions on assisting in navigating the difficult path from conflict to peace in different parts of the world. But with little or no success on the whole, as senior officials of the world body admit.

“Success is never guaranteed, because UN Peacekeeping almost by definition goes to the most physically and politically difficult environments. However, we have built up a demonstrable record of success over our 60 years of existence, including winning the Nobel Peace Prize,” says United Nations Peacekeeping.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon established in October 2014 a 17-member High-level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations to make a comprehensive assessment of the state of UN peace operations today, and the emerging needs of the future.

Nevertheless, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Darfur, the western region of Sudan, have been drawing the focus of the lack of any significant success of peacekeeping operations.

In a joint statement on June 6, the African Union (AU), the United Nations, the European Union (EU), and the International Organization of La Francophonie (IOF) said they are closely following the situation in the country, where there have been reports of increasing political tensions linked to the uncertainty surrounding the electoral process in run-up to the November 2016 polls.

On June 14, Hervé Ladsous, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations told the Security Council that “little progress has been made in finding a viable political solution to the conflict” in Darfur.

The sectarian violence emanating from disputes over access to land, water and grazing areas remain a major cause of insecurity in Darfur. While direct clashes between the Government and armed movements have subsided, fighting with the Sudan Liberation Army/Abdul Wahid (SLA/AW) in Jebel Marra, which rejects any negotiations with the Government, has continued, Ladsous said.

Despite little or no success, the UN General Assembly has on June 17 approved USD 7.86 billion for 15 peacekeeping missions in the coming twelve months. The approved budget for the fiscal year July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 is about USD 8.27 billion. [A/C.5/69/24]. By way of comparison, this is less than half of one per cent of world military expenditures (estimated at $1,747 billion in 2013).

The top 10 providers of assessed contributions to UN Peacekeeping operations in 2013-2015 [A/67/224/Add.1] are; United States (28.38%); Japan (10.83%); France (7.22%); Germany (7.14%); United Kingdom (6.68%); China (6.64%); Italy (4.45%);    Russian Federation (3.15%); Canada (2.98%); and Spain (2.97%).

UN peacekeeping operations in the fiscal year July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 will target Sudan’s Abyei region, the Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Darfur, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Golan, Haiti, Kosovo, Liberia, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, Western Sahara and Somalia.

According to the breakdown of sums approved, nearly half the total amount – USD 3.85 billion – approved for all peacekeeping operations will go to the DRC and Sudan.

The highest amount – of USD 1.31 billion – has been appropriated for MONUSCO, the UN Stabilization Mission in Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with a view to “protecting civilians and consolidating peace” in the country.

MONUSCO took over from an earlier UN peacekeeping operation – the United Nations Organization Mission in Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) – on July 1, 2010, in accordance with Security Council resolution 1925 of May 28 to reflect the new phase reached in the country.

According to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), the new mission has been authorized to use all necessary means to carry out its mandate relating, among other things, to the protection of civilians, humanitarian personnel and human rights defenders under imminent threat of physical violence and to support the Government of the DRC in its stabilization and peace consolidation efforts.

The second largest amount – USD 1.15 billion – has been allocated for UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), which became the newest country in the world on July 9, 2011. The birth of the Republic of South Sudan was the culmination of a six-year peace process which began with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005.

In adopting resolution 1996 (2011) July 8, 2011, the Security Council determined that the situation faced by South Sudan continued to constitute a threat to international peace and security in the region and established the UNMISS to consolidate peace and security and to help establish conditions for development.

Following the crisis which broke out in South Sudan in December 2013, the Security Council, by its resolution 2155 (2014) of May 27, 2014, reinforced UNMISS and reprioritized its mandate towards the protection of civilians, human rights monitoring, and support for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and for the implementation of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement.

The third largest amount – USD 1.10 billion has been approved for African Union-United Nations Hybrid operation in Darfur in Sudan (UNAMID). It was established on July 31, 2007 with the adoption of Security Council resolution 1769.

UNAMID has the protection of civilians as its core mandate, but is also tasked with contributing to security for humanitarian assistance, monitoring and verifying implementation of agreements, assisting an inclusive political process, contributing to the promotion of human rights and the rule of law, and monitoring and reporting on the situation along the borders with Chad and the Central African Republic (CAR).

Together with USD 284.83 million appropriated for Interim Security Force in Abyei region of the Sudan (UNISFA), UN will be spending over USD 2.5 billon in Sudan alone.

UNIFSA’s origins go back to the Security Council resolution 1990 of June 27, 2011, when it responded to the urgent situation in Sudan’s Abyei region by establishing the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA). The Security Council was deeply concerned by the violence, escalating tensions and population displacement.

The operation has been tasked with monitoring the flashpoint border between north and south and facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid, and is authorized to use force in protecting civilians and humanitarian workers in Abyei.

UNISFA’s establishment came after the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) reached an agreement in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to demilitarize Abyei and let Ethiopian troops to monitor the area.

According to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), currently there are more than 118,000 military, police and civilian personnel, serving on 16 peacekeeping operations. Since the UN does not have its own military force, it depends on contributions from member states. 128 countries provided military and police personnel as of March 31, 2015.

During a bilateral meeting at the Pentagon on Monday, Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Israeli Minister of Defense Avigdor Lieberman reaffirmed the strength of the US-Israeli defense relationship, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said in a statement.

Carter also reaffirmed the United States’ unwavering commitment to Israel’s security, the press secretary said.

The two leaders also discussed regional security challenges in the Middle East and areas of mutual defense cooperation, he said.

During Lieberman’s visit to the United States, Cook said, he will also travel to Fort Worth, Texas, for a ceremony as the first F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft destined for Israel rolls off the production line.

Israel will be the first U.S. partner to receive the F-35, which will play a key role in maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge in the Middle East, the press secretary said.

By Lt Gen P. C. Katoch (Retd.)*

Torkham is in the news with Pakistan firing heavy artillery and mortars at Afghan forces across the Khyber Pass border since June 14. What the escalation will lead to is anybody’s guess. Would there be a repeat of 2011 when Afghan media had reported that Pakistan fired some 470 missiles and artillery in Kunar, Nangarhar, Khost and Paktia provinces of Afghanistan followed by Pakistani Taliban raids backed by helicopters, killing dozens of civilians in June 2011? Significantly on July 4, 2011 the Afghan Parliament had passed a resolution urging the UNSC and the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) to mount diplomatic pressure on Pakistan, describing the Pakistani attacks in Kunar, Nangarhar, Khost and Paktia provinces as an “act of invasion” by the country.

Trouble began on June 12 when Pakistani authorities began constructing a new post border gate at the main crossing point in Torkham area of Khyber Pass, some 45 kms west of Peshawar. It is unclear which side initiated the fighting, but Pakistan alleges it was the Afghans. Pakistan says it is constructing the gate to stop militants from crossing the border, but then a gate may stop vehicles along the road, not cross-border movement across a porous border. More significantly, Pakistan maintains that the new gate was being constructed on the Pakistani side of the border and that construction of this gate was agreed upon by both sides during a bilateral meeting for the construction of the gate to be done during Ramazan after iftar. The exchange of fire that lasted some seven hours resulted in one Major rank officer of Pakistani army being injured (succumbing to injuries in hospital next day) and another eight Pakistani soldiers were wounded. 200 Pakistani families were forced to relocate to safer areas. On the Afghan side, one soldier was reportedly killed and six injured.

A Pakistan army official on promise of anonymity disclosed to reporters that heavy weaponry and additional troops were moved to the Afghan border on night June-12-13 itself. Afghan National Security Forces too have reinforced their side of the border. Exchange of fire continued on June 13 with two personnel of Pakistan’s Frontier Corps injured. The US State Department urged “a calm resolution to the tension”, but very next day Pakistan opened up with heavy artillery and mortars, claiming they destroyed an Afghan military check post. Thousands from both sides attended funerals of their personnel killed in exchange of fire on June 12. While in Jalalabad over a thousand mourners attended the funeral prayers of the Afghan soldier killed in action on June 12, hundreds of demonstrators burned Pakistani flags at another protest in the southern Afghan city of Lashkar Gah, chanting “Death to Pakistan”.

Both sides have blamed each other for the continuing spat and summoned Ambassadors of the opposite side to register protests. With the Torkham border shut, thousands of vehicles were reportedly stranded along the road all the way to Peshawar. The Afghan Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying, “the Afghan security and defense forces retaliated to safeguard the territorial integrity and defend the country and its people … armed forces are always ready to defend their country and people and to react against any kind of threats”. Concurrently, a senior Pakistani military official told media that the gate at Torkham will “now be built and at any cost” and if someone tries to create hindrance in the process, the army will retaliate with full force.” Pakistan’s Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) spokesman tweeted, “this gate is considered essential to check and verify documentation of all border crossers.” However, better sense seems to have prevailed with the Pakistani media now reporting that both sides have formally agreed over ceasefire at Torkham after border authorities of both the sides met for a short meeting. The report goes on to say that construction work on Torkham gate has also recommenced following the ceasefire announcement.

The question here is has Pakistan decided to escalate conflict with Afghanistan by design? It has been evident that Pakistan over the past year plus managed to coalesce both the Pakistan Taliban (TTP) and Afghan Taliban by infusing the Haqqani Network leadership into the top edifice. Mullah Akhtar Mansour, erstwhile Afghan Taliban chief was religious leader of Haqqanis and Sirajuddin Haqqaani, chief of Haqqani network was installed as his deputy. Significantly, Sirajuddin continues as deputy to the new Afghan Taliban chief, Mullah Haibatullh Akhunzada. Pakistan has made full use of the terror potential of the Haqqanis for attacking Afghanistan, including repeated truck bombings in Kabul region. Why should Pakistan change tack with Afghanistan now that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has called Pakistan’s bluff; openly calling upon Pakistan to battle factions of Taliban rather than try to bring them into peace talks, with Taliban leaders finding shelter in Peshawar and Quetta. Post the April 19, 2016 terrorist attack in Kabul that killed 64 and wounded 340, Ghani in his own address blamed Pakistan for supporting groups involved in fighting in Afghanistan. His spokesman added that, “Kabul attack was planned by the Haqqani network in Pakistan”, and that Afghanistan would use diplomatic efforts to isolate Pakistan at regional and global levels. Sitting in the Chinese lap, Pakistan possibly sees no need to woo the US much especially since the F-16s deal is practically off.

The question also arises as to which militants Pakistan wants to check at Torkham and coming from which direction in the largely porous border extending some 2,200 kms. Pakistan itself is the hatchery feeding some 14 terrorist organizations. In December 2015, President Ghani had said “unfortunately, recent events in Pakistan have forced us to host close to 350,000 to 500,000 Pakistani refugees on our soil. The refugee issue is a common issue, like other issues that confront us”. Pakistan has been attacking Afghanistan not only through a combination of both Taliban, Haqqanis and an ad-hoc ISI headed Brigade level outfit (dubbed Khorasan chapter of the ISIS) but also has inducted regulars from of its Mujahid battalions disguised as Taliban to support the Taliban offensive. There is ample evidence of Pakistani support and involvement of Pakistani army and ISI in terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, even during the Taliban capture of Kunduz last September.

Post the targeted killing of Pakistan-appointed Taliban leader Mullah Mansour, the US had warned Pakistan against terrorist activities in Afghanistan. The editorial in New York Times of May 12, 2016 urged the US government to ‘put the squeeze on Pakistan’ for continuing to play a double game in its dealings with the US and Afghanistan, also pointing out the USD 33 billion “immense” aid already given by US to Pakistan for fighting terrorism in the region. So, it will be interesting to watch what will be the US stance in the event of escalation of Af-Pak hostilities even if Torkham ceasefire holds. Pakistan would certainly like to divert attention from the trouble brewing at home; Balochistan, Gilgit-Baltistan, millions displaced in Federally Administered Tribal Areas through Pakistani military actions- you name it. Bartering its sovereignty to China in permitting PLA deployment on its territory will unlikely help quell the disquiet; it may actually aggravate it. It is well known that the Pashtuns never recognized the Durand Line that split them in two, but one wonders if Pakistan realizes that by coalescing the two Taliban, plus the Haqqanis, they have set the stage for greater Pashtun autonomy.

*Lt. Gen. P.C.Katoch (Retd.) is veteran of Indian Army. He can be reached at: prakashkatoch7@gmail.com

China on Monday revealed its latest supercomputer, a monolithic system with 10.65 million compute cores built entirely with Chinese microprocessors. This follows a U.S. government decision last year to deny China access to Intel’s fastest microprocessors.

There is no U.S.-made system that comes close to the performance of China’s new system, the Sunway TaihuLight. Its theoretical peak performance is 124.5 petaflops, according to the latest biannual release today of the world’s Top500 supercomputers. It is the first system to exceed 100 petaflops. A petaflop equals one thousand trillion (one quadrillion) sustained floating-point operations per second.

The most important thing about Sunway TaihuLight may be its microprocessors. In the past, China has relied heavily on U.S. microprocessors in building its supercomputing capacity. The world’s next fastest system, China’s Tianhe-2, which has a peak performance of 54.9 petaflops, uses Intel Xeon processors.

TaihuLight, which is installed at China’s National Supercomputing Center in Wuxi, uses ShenWei CPUs developed by Jiangnan Computing Research Lab in Wuxi. The operating system is a Linux-based Chinese system called Sunway Raise.

The TaihuLight is “very impressive,” said Jack Dongarra, a professor of computer science at the University of Tennessee and one of the academic leaders of the Top500 supercomputing list, in a report about the new system.

TaihuLight is running “sizeable applications,” which include advanced manufacturing, earth systems modeling, life science and big data applications, said Dongarra. This “shows that the system is capable of running real applications and [is] not just a stunt machine,” Dongarra said.

It has been long known that China was developing a 100-plus petaflop system, and it was believed that China would turn to U.S. chip technology to reach this performance level. But just over a year ago, in a surprising move, the U.S. banned Intel from supplying Xeon chips to four of China’s top supercomputing research centers.

The U.S. initiated this ban because China, it claimed, was using its Tianhe-2 system for nuclear explosive testing activities. The U.S. stopped live nuclear testing in 1992 and now relies on computer simulations. Critics in China suspected the U.S. was acting to slow that nation’s supercomputing development efforts.

Four months after the Intel ban, in July 2015, the White House issued an executive order creating a “national strategic computing initiative” with the goal of maintaining an “economic leadership position” in high-performance computing research.

The U.S. order seemed late. China has been steadily building its supercomputing capacity, which included efforts to develop its own microprocessors. It produced a relatively small supercomputer in 2011 that relied on homegrown processors, but its big systems continued to rely on U.S. processors.

There has been nothing secretive about China’s intentions. Researchers and analysts have been warning all along that U.S. exascale (an exascale is 1,000 petaflops) development, supercomputing’s next big milestone, was lagging.

It’s not just China that is racing ahead. Japan and Russia have their own development efforts. Europe is building supercomputers using ARM processors, and, similar to China, wants to decrease its dependency on U.S.-made chips.

China’s government last week said it plans to build an exascale system by 2020. The U.S. has targeted 2023.

China now has more supercomputers in the Top500 list than the U.S., said Dongarra. “China has 167 systems on the June 2016 Top500 list compared to 165 systems in the U.S,” he said, in an email. Ten years ago, China had 10 systems on the list.

Of all the supercomputers represented on the global list, the sum of the China supercomputers performance (211 petaflops) has exceeded the performance of the supercomputers in the U.S., (173 petaflops) represented on this list. The list doesn’t represent the universe of all supercomputers in the U.S. None of the supercomputers used by intelligence agencies, for instance, are represented on this list.

“This is the first time the U.S. has lost the lead,” said Dongarra, in the total number of systems on the Top500 list.

China’s work is also winning global peer recognition. It’s work on TaihuLight has resulted in three submissions selected as finalists for supercomputing’s prestigious Gordon Bell Award, named for a pioneer in high-performance computing.

The fastest U.S. supercomputer, number 3 on the Top500 list, is the Titan, a Cray supercomputer at U.S. Dept. of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory with a theoretical peak of about 27 petaflops.

Whether the U.S. chip ban accelerated China’s resolve to develop its own microprocessor technology is a question certain to get debate. But what is clear is China’s longstanding goal to end reliance on U.S. technology.

“The Chinese were already determined over time to move to an indigenous processor,” said Steve Conway, a high performance computing analyst at IDC. “I think the ban accelerates that — it increases that determination,” he said.

HPC has become increasingly important in the economy. Once primarily the domain of big science research, national security and high-end manufacturing such as airplane design, HPC’s virtualization and big data analysis capabilities have made it critical in almost every industry. Manufacturers of all sizes, increasingly, are using supercomputers to design products virtually instead of building prototypes. Supercomputer are also used in applications such as fraud detection and big data analysis.

HPC has is now “so strategic that you really don’t want to rely on foreign sources for it,” said Conway.

By Matebe Chisiza*

Central Asian gastarbeiters in Russia are sending only one-quarter as much money home this year as last but increasingly they are remaining in Russian rather than returning to their native countries, two trends with potentially serious consequences for both Russia and Central Asia.

On the one hand, this pattern suggests many gastarbeiters in Russia are now unemployed, thus creating a new breeding ground for radicalism and even terrorism there. And on the other, it indicates they have concluded that as bleak as things are in Russia, the situation in Central Asia is still worse, something they are compounding by not sending money back to their families.

That Central Asian gastarbeiters are no longer sending as much money home has been the subject of intense interest both in Moscow and in Central Asia. This year, Russian officials report, gastarbeiters from all CIS countries – and three of the top four are from Central Asia – sent home only 914 million US dollars, down from 3.3 billion US dollars the year before (kommersant.ru/doc/3012643, nazaccent.ru/content/21013-denezhnye-perevody-trudovyh-migrantov-iz-rf.html and tjk.rus4all.ru/city_msk/20160615/726681876.html).

Many have suggested that this decline reflects the departure of gastarbeiters from Russia, but the real reasons, an article in today’s “Nezavisimaya gazeta” says that the causes must be elsewhere because gastarbeiters are not going home in the numbers that they were (ng.ru/politics/2016-06-20/3_migranty.html).

That paper’s Yekaterina Trifonova writes that “gastarbeiters from Central Asia are remaining in Russia as a result of a sense of hopelessness.” They are suffering in Russia but fear they would suffer even more were they to go home, a situation which will incline at least some of them to radicalism or worse.

She quotes the conclusion of Vyacheslav Postavnin, the head of the 21^st Century Migration Fooundation, that the Central Asian gastarbeiters reacted to the crisis by thinking about going home but then recognized that the situation in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan is even worse and so decided to remain in Russia.

“Theoretically,” Postavnin continues, the Central Asians might have decided to leave Russia and seek work in the Middle East, but instability there and competition from others dissuaded most from thinking about that option for every long. As a result, they are remaining in place even if their economic prospects are anything but bright.

The only positive aspect of this for Moscow is that Russia’s population has gotten a small boost (newizv.ru/lenta/2016-06-17/241128-v-rossii-vozobnovilsja-pritok-naselenija-za-schet-migrantov.html) and for the Central Asian governments is that the gastarbeiters won’t return soon and become a burden or a threat to them — but may eventually again send money home.