By Afgan Mukhtarli*

A fourfold rise in the number of suicides in Azerbaijan has alarmed experts who warn that this cannot be blamed on the recent economic crisis alone.

A total of 535 suicides were recorded last year, up from 138 in 2008, according to Kamala Talibova, head of the department of emergency psychological assistance at the ministry of health´s mental health centre.

During the first quarter of 2016, another 94 people committed suicide, while 16 made failed attempts, according to the website of the ministry of internal affairs.

Not all suicides committed in Baku and particularly in the regions of Azerbaijan are actually included in the statistics, as some families tend to disguise them as natural deaths.

“Despite the fact that the number of suicides has increased so much, there is no specific structure that seriously researches this problem,” said Samira Gasimli, a political psychologist from the civil movement REAL.

She said that Azeris were experiencing a whole host of social problems, including high unemployment and meagre salaries.

Ordinary people were hit hard by the central bank´s devaluation of the national manat currency in February and December last year, which took place against the backdrop of Russia´s economic problems and falling prices of oil, of which Azerbaijan is a major exporter.

But Gasimli also argued that it had been the pressures of Azerbaijan’s authoritarian society that had the greatest impact.

“In general, the root of the problem is political and connected with the system,” she said. “The injustice of the judiciary, the lawlessness of the police, the destruction of civil institutions and the free media, the lack of strong opposition organisations have made people vulnerable before the power of the authorities.”

Civil and political rights are severely restricted and violated in Azerbaijan, which has dozens of political prisoners. Its judicial system is corrupt and its human rights record poor, according to international human rights organisations.

“On this basis the loss of people´s confidence, no confidence in what tomorrow will bring, along with all this the inability to freely express their opinion and the absence of an environment for self-fulfillment creates serious psychological problems,” Gasimli concluded.

The media is full of almost daily reports of suicides. On April 11, for example, there were five cases reported in the capital Baku and surroundings.

Talibova also said the suicides committed by children were of particular concern. According to her information, six children killed themselves in the first quarter of this year. In 2013, 18 children committed suicide, a figure that had risen to 29 by 2015.

Turgut Gambar, member of the board of the civil movement Nida, warned that there was a new group of people at risk – those with large outstanding debts.

The devaluation has made it exceedingly difficult for people to keep up with repayments. Many banks issued loans fixed in dollars that have to be paid back in manats.

“People cannot repay their high-interest loans, have no hope of finding work, and cannot engage in business without interference,” Gambar told IWPR. “People, who are unable to support themselves and their families under these circumstances, unfortunately see suicide as the only way out.

“The crisis has generated total hopelessness and the feeling that everything will become even worse causing people to give up.”

Yadigar Sadigov, deputy chairman of the opposition Musavat party and a former political prisoner, agreed that suicides were “increasing in parallel with the deepening social and economic crisis in which the country finds itself”.

“After two devaluations, a significant part of the population has reached the level of bankruptcy,” he continued. “It has become impossible for individuals to repay debts to banks. There is no hope for tomorrow, which leads to extreme measures.”

Dayanat Rzayev, psychologist at the Centre for Psychology and Psychotherapy, stressed that the economic crisis is only the tip of the iceberg. The reasons for the increase of suicides goes much deeper, he said.

“If you compare it to the end of the 1980s and 1990s, the economic crisis today is not so bad. In those years, people could literally not find a piece of bread. But suicides were rare. Therefore, it is not the difficult social conditions, but the total social injustice,” he told IWPR.

“It is one thing if there is a crisis in the country and all live badly. It is another, when there is such a deep stratification of society that some mercilessly rob others. When officials act lawlessly, treat citizens roughly, when the common man is not left with any route to restore justice,” he continued. “In such circumstances, society falls into depression and individual members often see suicide as their last way out to protest.”

*Afgan Mukhtarli is an Azerbaijani journalist living abroad. This article was published at IWPR’s CRS 817

Although officially the Islamic Republic of Iran has reacted properly to the historic Brexit vote, unfortunately some Iranian politicians and pundits have rushed to judgment by embracing the result, some going as far as portraying it as a “historic opportunity” for Iran, ostensibly because it weakens the European Union and lessens UK’s American dependency.

But, a more isolated and geopolitically-weakened UK is more likely to be US-dependent, rather than “independent,” and it is sheer folly on the part of some Iran analysts to view the xenophobic, anti-immigrant pro-exit politicians in UK as more inclined to defy the US’s will on Iran. In fact, the EU despite its policy coordination with the US, e.g., through NATO, is still a sign of global multilateralism that does not altogether sit well with the national interests of the United States, despite the appearances to the contrary. A weakened and more vulnerable Europe is likely to be more heavily influenced by US’s security dictates and, therefore, it makes no sense for anyone in Iran to be favorable to the demise of EU.

Even a post-exit UK would still be confronted with the same US banking restrictions on Iran and it is highly unlikely that much of anything will change with respect to the implementation of the nuclear accord. In fact, the Brexit weakens the European resolve with respect to the nuclear deal and that poses a potential danger.

Of course, we must wait for the dust to settle to figure out the ultimate significance of the UK vote, that may or may not translate into the country’s actual exit, given the non- legally binding nature of the referendum and the stiff opposition to it in the British Parliament dominated by the opponents of the Brexit, particularly now that the net outcome of the vote in terms of economic self-harm and the downgrading of UK’s business standing is beginning to dawn on the (divided) population. For sure, the exit process will be slow and, at best, will come in stages if at all, and for those pro-exit enthusiasts in Iran that is an important factor to consider.

On a broader level, Iran and the EU are presently in healthy diplomatic relations that are destined to evolve toward greater cooperative directions in the future, given EU’s consent to Iran’s role in the Syria peace process, and this too might suffer as a result of the Brexit crisis engulfing the EU today. At the moment it is unclear if the Brexit phenomenon is confined to UK or will it infect other countries as well, in light of the European far-right’s call for similar referendum in France and elsewhere, so far rebuffed by the French and other governments. Chances are that the majority of Europeans will conclude that the voters in UK have made a historic mistake that ought not to be repeated.

The EU free-trade zone is a major plus for the member states and it is economically irrational for the UK to deprive itself of it, e.g., its auto industry that ships out nearly 60 percent of its 1.5 million cars produced in UK to other EU countries would be definitely harmed, just as its airline and other industries.

Assuming that the tide will turn against the Brexit sooner or later, it would be harmful to Iran’s European diplomacy if the Europeans come to regard Iran as anti-EU. Certainly, that will complicate Iran’s diplomacy and the prudent course of engagement with Europe charted by the Rouhani administration.

This article was published at Iran Review and reprinted with permission

Turkey is the only Muslim country in Europe, and hence facing problems of entry into EU as a legitimate European nation.

Turkey in recent times is facing serious problems and domestic crisis with bombs being exploded in the capital of Istanbul. The presidency and the government found themselves disagreeing over certain domestic and foreign policy issues.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whom the western media accuse of authoritarian in outlook, believes a strong presidency can do away with the problems the country currently faces.

Erdogan removed his trusted ally Ahmet Davutoglu as premier in a swift move essentially to strengthen his presidency and smoth the governments functioning without frictions from within and to strike a balance on his own positions in domestic and foreign policy matters.

By replacing his increasingly powerful Prime Minster Ahmet Davutoglu, President Erdogan appointed on May 22, 2016 one of his most trusted allies Binali Yildirim, the transportation and communications minister to form Turkey’s new government, in a move seen as helping consolidate his hold on power.

Binali Yildirim, a founding member of the ruling Justice and Development Party was tapped to replace Ahmet Davutoglu who stepped down amid growing differences with Erdogan, including his wish to overhaul the constitution to give the largely ceremonial presidency executive powers.

The appointment of the 60-year-old politician Binali came hours after the ruling AKP party confirmed him as party chairman, and he immediately expressed allegiance to the Turkish leader, vowing to follow his path. New premier Yildirim has said he would work to legalize the “de facto” presidential system by introducing a new constitution to that effect.

Supporters credit Yildirim for his role in developing major infrastructure projects which have helped buoy Turkey’s economy and boost the party’s popularity. But critics, including the leader of the main opposition party, have accused him of corruption. Yildirim has rejected the accusation.

Davutoglu, a former diplomat and foreign minister, is an intellectual and the author of books on Turkish foreign policy and political theory. Erdogan is a former mayor of Istanbul and semi-professional soccer player, and analysts say he is increasingly intent on securing his own enduring power in the state.

Davutoglu was considered the more pro-European of the two leaders.

Davutoglu, who led the country’s foreign policy rather successfully, has strong opinions on external affairs, especially on EU and Israel.

Regarded as a thoughtful and competent leader, Davutoglu replaced Erdogan as Prime Minister in 2014 more than a decade after the AKP came to power. Alongside Erdogan, Davutoglu was a key public face of the party when it won a comeback victory in the country’s November 2015 parliamentary election, five months after the AKP had shocked experts by losing its majority in a previous election.

Davutoglu, a one-time adviser to Erdogan and a former foreign minister, fell out with the president over several issues including the possibility of peace talks with Kurdish rebels, and the pre-trial detention of journalists accused of spying and academics accused of supporting terrorism. In his farewell speech, Davutoglu said resigning was not his wish, but that he agreed to it to preserve the unity of the party.

Erdogan wants an executive presidency in Turkey to replace the current parliamentary system, a plan for which Davutoglu has offered only lukewarm support. His departure is likely to pave the way for a successor more willing to back Erdogan’s ambition of changing the constitution and strengthening the presidency, a move opponents say will herald growing authoritarianism.

Erdogan’s end goal is to consolidate enough popular support to switch to a presidential system. Davutoglu’s end goal is to consolidate his own power and be a successful prime minister.

Erdogan’s drive to tighten his grip on power has caused an increasingly open rift with Davutoglu, encompassing issues from relations with Europe to the pre-trial detention of government critics. As prime minister, the more moderate Davutoglu had been the formal head of government in Turkey, but he was widely regarded as governing under the long shadow of Erdogan, the more ambitious and ultimately the more powerful of the two. With the former prime minister sidelined, analysts say Erdogan has removed one of his only potential rivals for power within the state.

While the two politicians had been friends and allies for years, recent signs of tension between the two had become clear. The two had also publicly disagreed over whether to resume negotiations with Kurdish militants whom the Turkish military is fighting in the country’s southeast. Davutoglu himself wished to carve out an independent political space.

The two leaders cannot work together anymore. Erdogan is not satisfied with Davutolgu’s too soft and diplomatic style in the management of the country and in the management of certain issues between Turkey and Europe.

Regarded as a thoughtful and competent leader, Davutoglu replaced Erdogan as prime minister in 2014, more than a decade after the AKP came to power. Alongside Erdogan, he was a key public face of the party when it won a comeback victory in the country’s November 2015 parliamentary election, five months after the AKP had shocked experts by losing its majority in a previous election.

Ahmet Davutoglu resigned as Turkish Prime Minister in May in a dramatic move that clears the path for President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to further consolidate his already extensive power. Davutoglu’s departure comes as Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party (known by its Turkish initials AKP) are preparing a campaign to replace Turkey’s parliamentary system of government with a presidential system, a shift that could cement Erdogan’s control of the Turkish state for years to come. “The fact that my term lasted far shorter than four years is not a decision of mine but a necessity,” he said, according to Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper. He said he would continue his friendship with Erdogan “until my last breath.” He added, “The honor of our president is my honor. His family is my family.”

Davutoglu’s departure comes as Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) are preparing a campaign to replace Turkey’s parliamentary system of government with a presidential system, a shift that could cement Erdogan’s control of the Turkish state for years to come.

A US-based Hindu group has condemned the reported damaging of ancient Otomi Indian religious site deep in the forest in Hidalgo State of Mexico.

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada today, said that it was sad to learn about the reported toppling of stone altars; scattering of offerings; and damages to carved stones, images and paintings at the remote mountain shrine known as Mayonihka, one of rare functioning ancient site of its kind.

Despite belonging to various religions and denominations, with seriously different faith traditions, we all should learn to live together harmoniously and be respectful to others beliefs, monuments and sanctuaries, Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, stressed.

According to reports, this site was used by Indians from various states of Mexico for weddings, baptisms and other ceremonies. It appears to be an attack on religious freedom, Rajan Zed noted.

Zed urged Mexico President Enrique Peña Nieto and Hidalgo Governor José Francisco Olvera Ruiz to take swift action regarding this vandalism and offer protection to such ceremonial sites, as many had already been destroyed or built-over, so that believers in these traditions could freely practice their beliefs.

Rajan Zed further said that existence of different religions was a sign of God’s bountifulness and a true relationship with God could exist in the religious traditions of “others” also. We should learn from each other and love each other as we were headed in the same direction.

Scientists concerned with the increasing incidence of early onset puberty have discovered a disturbing correlation:

Girls who grew up without a biological father are twice as likely to get their period before age 12

This is important because, according to a study published in the journal Pediatrics, “the health consequences of earlier onset of puberty are myriad:” ranging from a higher risk of depression in early adolescence to risk-taking behaviors such as alcohol use, smoking, drug use, and early sexual activity.

Longer term, as adults they’re at a higher risk for obesity, Type 2 diabetes and breast cancer.

While research points to other contributing factors, including increasing rates of childhood obesity and mothers who are overweight during pregnancy, Dr. Louise Greenspan, co-author of an American Journal of Epidemiology study, says toxic stress, including growing up without a father, is an important factor in girls’ starting puberty early.

While other studies have concentrated on the negative effects of growing up without a father on boys, not surprisingly, girls need a father too. It’s tragic that the trend against two-parent homes is only growing larger.

Politicians habitually deny reality: that’s what gets them elected. But we don’t have to buy what they’re selling, and we need to universally reject policies that undermine the family. We are hurting children—our only future.

This article appeared in The Beacon.

This week the world has to be thankful for hubris and political miscalculation. These two factors have temporarily thrown a wrench into the imperialist project. No one in the British or American establishment foresaw the “Brexit” vote that called for a United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union.

The post-referendum recrimination and political chaos benefit humanity. The latest trade deal monstrosity, the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), is on hold for now and NATO provocations against Russia will take a back seat. Millions of people will get a respite from American meddling in their lives.

If there had been any inkling of a Brexit victory, Prime Minister David Cameron would never have agreed to put the matter to a vote. Even politicians on the right who made it a condition of supporting him may not have pushed the issue, either. Nor did the Labour party see Brexit coming. If so they would have been in front making the principled left case against neo-liberalism and United States hegemony. Instead they straddled the fence and meekly supported the Remain camp at the 11^th hour.

Despite its well cultivated image of progress and enlightenment the European Union is not a bulwark of peace and international cooperation. It acts as America’s 28-nation gang of enforcers, as it impoverishes Greece, or tears Ukraine in two or bribes Turkey to keep the desperate refugees they all had a hand in creating. But the EU nations are also victims of American power. The United States is the invisible senior partner of the EU, making sure that it keeps the international banksters well funded, expands NATO and makes certain that no one steps out of the American orbit. Angela Merkel may want to end sanctions against Russia, or allow Greece to exit the Eurozone but both requests were dead on arrival because Washington opposed them.

While David Cameron and Barack Obama and the New York Times and the BBC all sneered at anyone who thought of leaving, ordinary citizens kept their own counsel. They watched as EU rules precluded deficit spending and created an austerity hell for the British people. Under American pressure the EU expanded its membership to include poorer countries whose people then had a right to immigrate to more prosperous countries like the UK. This race to the bottom for workers was not just the concern of xenophobes and racists but of people whose living wage jobs disappear.

The insults heaped upon the Leave voters by the establishment certainly didn’t help. It was bad enough that the Cameron government gutted Britain’s once proud national health system but late in the anti-Brexit campaign they added insult to injury by threatening to withhold even more money if the Leave vote won. In one of the worst acts of desperation, Cameron invoked the spirit of the much maligned Vladimir Putin, declaring that a Leave vote would only benefit the man turned into a villain by western politicians and media.

The warnings of economic catastrophe were ignored in favor of a desire for freedom from a cooked up union that exists to make capital flow more easily. It is true that the most visible Leave campaigners were motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment. That did not have to be the case. But the Labour Party are also under the sway of finance capital and the discredited specter of criminal Tony Blair. What passes for the left was caught flat footed instead of making the case for escape from the imperialist hostage takers.

The media reaction to the vote is proof of how much the establishment want to stay within the bounds of the neo-liberal project. Voters who chose the Brexit route have been labeled as stupid, and we are told that 17 million people didn’t know what they were doing. Every instance of hate speech and hate crime is now blamed on the Brexit vote, as if there was an absence of racism and intolerance before.

Cameron will step down, but there is turmoil in the Labour party ,too. Their constituents voted to go and there were even more fissures along generational and geographic lines. Scotland voted to stay, and its leadership has already said that the referendum will not be binding upon them. There is talk of a second referendum, which makes a mockery of the constant shrieking about democracy in the capitalist world.

Other nations are watching and people in the rest of Europe are making the case for once again having their own currencies and leaving NATO behind. That is why they are vilified so badly. They want freedom from the big bullies on the school yard, the United States of America and finance capital.

Ordinary people may not be able to articulate their discomfort but they’ll speak up when given the opportunity to express their unhappiness. Some who voted to leave the EU may be well versed on the subject, some were anti-immigrant, others were fed up with politicians who lie to them about wars or austerity.

The end result of Brexit may be the end of the United Kingdom. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU while England and Wales voted to leave. Given another opportunity, Scottish people may choose independence. The New York Times and the Guardian may wring their hands about this possibility but no one else should care.

Britain committed some of the worst criminal acts in history ranging from slavery to colonialism. It violently repressed freedom movements and owes its wealth to its criminality. Now it acts in concert with the United States to sanction and to threaten. For now it is unlikely to play a major role in provoking Russia, which has suddenly moved down on the imperialist to-do list. Let the sun finally set on the British empire.

There is no downside to David Cameron’s impending resignation either. He is a symbol of every form of corruption in western so-called democracy. Cameron went to Libya to personally gloat after NATO overthrew that government, killed thousands of people and murdered president Muammar Gaddafi. The corporate media went to great lengths to connect Vladimir Putin to the Panama papers scandal, but it was Cameron’s family who hid money offshore to keep from paying taxes. Cameron should suffer but he won’t. He will undoubtedly join the ranks of former heads of state who become well paid errand boys for the 1%.

Chaos can be a good thing. The current mess of post-Brexit politics is a sign that one part of the capitalist coalition is in trouble. They won’t give up easily and will do everything in their power to negate the will of the people. But this earthquake can’t be papered over easily and that is a good thing indeed.

By James Stafford

We are on the precipice of a food fight among 7 billion people, and potash will be right at the center of it.

If you can add 200,000 people every day to the global population and account for a significant loss of farmland at the same time, you can begin to understand the dire food situation facing the planet. This is why potash is so important: It’s the fundamental element that everyone takes for granted, despite the fact that a projected 7.7 billion lives will depend upon it by 2020.

No commodity is more fundamental than potash—and there is a lot of pressure riding on an element that many people aren’t even familiar with. Of the key commodities taken for granted, potash is on the top of the list.

The challenge for farmers—and for the world—is to increase crop yields on less land, which is being lost to climate change and increasing urbanization. This means not only steady demand for the three main elements of fertilizer—potash, phosphate and nitrogen—but significantly higher demand.

“A growing population needing to be fed from a limited amount of arable land makes fertilizer and particularly potash a robust commodity,” Potash Ridge President and CEO Guy Bentinck told Oilprice.com. “Additionally, as the middle class grows, the demand for higher-end food increases, and with that the demand for potash and related fertilizers increases.”

For such a critical element, it’s hard to believe that potash remains so elusive. It took a high-profile US$40-billion hostile takeover attempt of Saskatchewan’s Potash Corp., which failed, by major miner BHP Billiton in 2010 for even the Wall Street Journal to decide to figure out what all the fuss was about.

Potash, and various potassium-containing compounds are used to fertilize crops as a necessary resource for the growth of plants. In many regions of the world, there are large potash-bearing deposits from ancient sea beds that dried up millions of years ago. Most potash comes from these sources and is separated from the salt and other minerals and then graded into a form that can be used to make fertilizer.

So even if you haven’t heard of it, Potash is so big that it eludes radar—until the giant miners start aggressively positioning themselves for bigger pieces of this pie.

If you’re still not sold on potash, consider this: As far as commodities go, though it’s been a tough couple of years, Potash outperformed gold, silver, copper and oil and gas in 2015, and this year, as its cycle comes full circle, it’s back by popular demand.

The Potash Playing Field

This is a huge playing field with some of the biggest miners in the world—all vying for market share.

Russia, Belarus, China, Germany, the U.S., Israel, Jordan and China are all major potash miners, with Canada currently holding the top position for the commodity–producing 11 million tons last year and the year before, compared to Number 2 producer Russia’s 7.4 million tons.

Canada is also home to the world’s largest fertilizer company by capacity—Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, or Potash Corp.—the target of BHP Billiton’s long-running covetousness.

The U.S. came in at 770,000 tons of potash production in 2015, mostly from New Mexico and Utah, which have a total of seven potash mines. Most of the U.S. potash goes to the fertilizer industry, while small amounts are diverted to the chemical industry. The four mines in New Mexico are controlled by two companies—Intrepid Potash (NYSE:IPI) and Mosaic (NYSE:MOS). In Utah, it’s Intrepid again, Compass Minerals (NYSE:CMP), and Canadian explorer Potash Ridge (TSX:PRK) with its Blawn Mountain project. Potash Ridge’s Valleyfield project in Quebec is projected to produce 40,000 tons of SOP (sulfate of potash) annually, with construction slated to begin later this summer.

The movements among the big potash players make huge market ripples. In 2015, a US$500-million loan deal from the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and China Construction Bank with Russian potash major Uralkali, effectively gave China greater control over global potash production. Uralkali accounts for about 20 percent of the world’s potash production.

China—a major demand center for potash—now has immense influence in the potash market, and is both a major producer and a major importer because demand is far greater than domestic supply. The Chinese potash contracts that are typically made in February every year—but delayed this year—are a critical annual point for producers.

Not all Potash is Equal: Some Potash is Posh

As Mr Bentinck has noted above, the middle class is growing, and they want higher-quality, healthier food, which means cash crops. This demographic change is leading to a health food revolution for which potash is the primary element. But not all fertilizers are equal in this game.

The two most common forms of fertilizer are MOP (muriate of potash) and SOP (sulfate of potash). Right now, MOP is the most common; but while it’s good for some crops, it’s not good for others, and it can create environments that are detrimental to some crops, primarily due to high levels of chloride.

SOP, on the other hand, is the premium end of potash. It’s the posh potash. It improves both the quality and yield of a crop, while at the same time making them more drought, frost, insect and disease-resistant. It’s been said that SOP also improves the taste of the food by improving its ability to absorb nutrients.

The other problem with MOP today is that the market is temporarily over-supplied and prices have dropped, which has prompted some more junior miners—such as Potash Ridge in Quebec and Utah–to swoop in to take advantage of the opportunity for the less common SOP. Potash Ridge, which is one of the fastest-growing juniors on the posh potash scene, says SOP “continues to be one of the best performing commodities across all sectors, which realized prices in North America exceeding US$880 per ton in the fourth quarter of 2015.”

Riding the Cycles: The Potash Catalysts Are Already Visible

Fertilizer demand is set to increase over the long-term. While globally we consumed 35.5 million tons of potash in 2015, the next four years should see this rise to 39.5 million tons.

The catalysts for potash are already clear and present. The grain cycles that affect fertilizer are coming back around now; the long overdue, but now occurring monsoon season in India should relieve several quarters of slumping demand in this major demand venue; a health food boom is increasing demand for the SOP form of potash; long-term global population figures stand starkly against plummeting farmland figures; and major potash production is coming offline in the near-term, making even more room for the juniors to break in.

Remember—grain crops are cyclical, so buying when they are down is when the big investors make all their money. Just because corn and other key crops that rely on potash have been down, adversely affecting fertilizer revenues—doesn’t mean they’re out. Corn has many booms and busts; buy on the bust, right before the next cycle boom.

One of the biggest immediate-term catalysts will be the planned moves by giant Potash Corp., it’s Canadian competitor Agrium (NYSE:AGU) and Mosaic to take potash production offline in order to rebalance the supply side of the market—something everyone’s been trying to get OPEC to do with oil to no avail. This means that in the next few months we should see potash prices recover, so the window to get in on the downside here is only open a crack.

The last great cycle for potash was 2004-2008, but prices for MOP have dropped 60 percent since then, while prices for SOP have doubled since then.

While MOP is experiencing a glut right now that could soon be rebalanced, supply for SOP is tight, making the margins for SOP increasingly attractive, and the juniors breaking into a high-reward versus risk bargain.

“The global SOP market appears to be under-supplied, with current tightness of the market demonstrating demand for additional global capacity outside China,” according to Neil Fleishman, Director of Research for Green Markets.

To Re-Cap: This is Why We Like Potash

There is massive opportunity here in the uncertainty of this market, for which the fundamentals absolutely must re-balance in the medium-term.

And while the MOP fundamentals might take a bit longer to fully rebalance as the global supply-demand picture recovers, the premium-priced posh potash, SOP, is the emerging darling that gives us cause to look more bullishly at the break-out juniors here.

By Maria Fabrizio*

The United States Senate has until July 1 to provide essential relief to Puerto Rico in order for the island to avoid an otherwise imminent default on billions of dollars of debt. Such a default would result in the economic and humanitarian demolition of the commonwealth and would be difficult, if not impossible, to recover from. The “Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act” (PROMESA) is Puerto Rico’s only hope to avoid default. However, resistance from Senators like Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) has the potential to send the bill back to the House before the July 1 deadline. Menendez and other Senators insist that the bill should not be passed without additional amendments which would give Puerto Rico more of a say in their own financial situation. While Menendez’s perspective is an important one, this debate could not come at a worse time. Indeed, these amendments, though well intended, would effectively suspend Puerto Rico in legal and economic limbo while it continues to wait for Congress to decide its fate.[1]

How did things get so bad?

Puerto Rico is currently facing over $72 billion USD of debt, due in large part to a pattern of convoluted United States policies toward the island. For years the United States and the government of Puerto Rico gave major tax breaks to companies in the commonwealth in an effort to bolster the its economy. This strategy attracted investment, but it also decreased tax revenue on the island. This depleted tax revenue from years of corporate tax breaks became problematic after the breaks expired around 2006. Congress’ failure to renew tax breaks in Puerto Rico resulted in the exodus of many major companies from the island and ultimately threw the commonwealth into recession.[2]

The island was unable to sustain itself thanks to the already depleted tax revenue from years of Washington-sponsored corporate tax breaks, coupled with the exodus of people and corporations. Indeed, with an aging population and a weakened tax base, the island faced reduced ability to provide essential social services like Medicare and Medicaid. To make matters worse, this economic downturn coincided with the 2008 global recession which crippled Puerto Rico’s primary trading partner, the continental United States – hitting the commonwealth’s already vulnerable economy.

To balance its budget, the commonwealth was forced to borrow huge sums of money from creditors who were willing to lend as a result of the commonwealth’s tax-free bonds.[3] This means that Puerto Rico was able to rack up massive debt while running deficits, something that is currently prohibited for most U.S. states.[4] In 2014, the weakened economy and mounting debt was made even worse by the label, “junk status,” given by three major credit rating agencies.[5] This status indicates that the bonds are risky investments with high probabilities of defaulting.[6]

Puerto Rico’s Current Status

Puerto Rico is on the brink of an economic collapse and humanitarian crisis, unless it is allowed to restructure its debt. After the Supreme Court struck down Puerto Rico’s ability to independently restructure its own debt in the June 13 case Puerto Rico v. California Tax-Free Trust, the island’s only hope for preservation lies in the hands of a fractured Congress.[7] Indeed, the upcoming Senate vote on the bipartisan bill, PROMESA, is Puerto Rico’s last chance before the July 1 default at a comprehensive debt restructuring.

In a June 24 panel discussion at the Center for American Progress, Puerto Rican Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla declared that “defaulting is not an option” and that the island “needed the bill [PROMESA] yesterday.” Rep. Pierluisi of Puerto Rico, Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury Antonio Weiss, and MIT professor Simon Johnson all echoed Padilla’s sentiment by emphasizing the island’s imminent need for relief, access to the global market, and opportunities for economic growth. Right now, PROMESA is Puerto Rico’s only option for moving toward those basic economic and humanitarian goals. While the bill is indisputably essential for the island, it is not without flaws.

PROMESA

PROMESA passed the U.S. House of Representatives with 90 percent of the progressive vote, 75 percent of the Latino vote, and widespread bipartisan support.[8] In many ways PROMESA represents a bipartisan success for the hyper-polarized U.S. Congress. However, it also represents the United States’ consistently paternalistic and detached approach to the commonwealth. This approach is evident especially in the bill’s inclusion of an oversight board which calls for six members appointed by the U.S. Congress and one appointed directly by the president.

The oversight board is a provision in PROMESA intended to monitor Puerto Rico’s debt restructuring and, according to Secretary Weiss, it is “designed to go away after 4 years of a balanced budget.” Despite this intention, many critics are skeptical that the United States will forfeit its position of economic dominance over the island once the board is established. Even Governor Padilla at the June 24 panel discussion admitted that he “does not like the oversight board…but right now what is the alternative?” This begrudging acceptance of PROMESA restrictions is a common refrain among policy makers, media outlets, and Puerto Ricans. However, it is an irreconcilable part of the bill and will come into effect if PROMESA is passed.

Ultimately, despite colonial overtones, the bill is, in Secretary Weiss’s words, “necessary to lay a foundation for growth” in order to ensure a long-term economic future for the commonwealth. As PROMESA is Puerto Rico’s only option for relief, public officials in the commonwealth have no choice but to support the bill in its entirety, even though many of its provisions will only further complicate the island’s legal and political status.

Future for Puerto Rico

As Padilla declared at the June 24 panel discussion, the current status of Puerto Rico marks the “biggest debt crisis in the history of the U.S.” with over 3.5 million citizens at risk of losing crucial services such as clean water, safe transportation, and electricity.[9] Congressional failure to provide relief through PROMESA would mean the abandonment of millions of U.S. citizens, and the unraveling of Puerto Rico as we know it.

Ultimately, passing PROMESA is the very least Congress can do to help mend years of systematic economic manipulation. However, the movement toward a more functional Puerto Rico cannot stop there. In order to prevent this kind of crisis from happening again, a sustained and meaningful conversation about the island’s lack of autonomy and voice in their own affairs is essential. With over 14 lawsuits against the commonwealth, $72 billion USD in debt, and a contentious political battle, neither Puerto Rico nor the mainland United States can afford to keep the island in this murky legal limbo.

* Maria Fabrizio, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[1] Wilhelm, Colin. “Menendez Pushes to Amend Puerto Rico Bill Even as Threat of Default Looms.” POLITICO. POLITICO, 27 June 2016. Web. 28 June 2016.

[2] Faust, Chandler. “Capital Over People? Puerto Rican Debt Crisis Explained.”Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 3 Aug. 2015. Web. 28 June 2016.

[3] Faust, Chandler. “Capital Over People? Puerto Rican Debt Crisis Explained.”Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 3 Aug. 2015. Web. 28 June 2016.

[4] Ibid

[5] DePersio, Greg. “The Origins of the Puerto Rican Debt Crisis | Investopedia.”Investopedia. Investopedia, 2 May 2016. Web. 28 June 2016.

[6] “Junk Bond Definition.” Investopedia. Investopedia, n.d. Web. 28 June 2016.

[7] Fabrizio, Maria. “U.S. Supreme Court Entrenches Colonial Legacy in Puerto Rico.” COHA. Council on Hemispheric Affairs, 15 June 2016. Web. 28 June 2016.

bid high risks of default.ents itizens of a foreign country.lp the island, and in doing so treated the commonwealth as if s of

[8] Padilla, Gov. Alejandro Garcia. et. al. “Puerto Rico in Crisis: Will Congress Provide Relief?” Panel Discussion, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Washington D.C., June 24, 2016

[9] Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal.Tax-Free Trust, 579 U.S. ___ (2016)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently found that suicide rates in the U.S. spiked between 1994 and 2014. While women are less likely to kill themselves than men, their rate of suicide jumped by 80 percent over this period. But not all women are at risk.

A study released this week by JAMA Psychiatry, an American Medical Association journal, reported that “Frequent religious service attendance was associated with substantially lower suicide risk among U.S. women compared with women who never attended religious services.” To be exact, the researchers studied approximately 90,000 nurses, mostly women, and found that Catholic and Protestant women had a suicide rate that was half that for women as a whole.

Of the nearly 7,000 Catholic women who went to Mass more than once a week, none committed suicide. Overall, practicing Protestant women were seven times more likely to commit suicide than their Catholic counterparts, suggesting there really is a Catholic advantage. Indeed, my 2015 book, The Catholic Advantage, substantiates this finding.

Today, those without a religious affiliation have the highest suicide rates, illustrated most dramatically in San Francisco: someone jumps off the Golden Gate Bridge to his death every two weeks. It is not the faithful who are waiting in line to jump—it’s the non-believing free spirits.

On a related note, Gallup released a survey yesterday that shows approximately 9 in 10 Americans believe in God. But as we learned from the JAMA Psychiatry study, only those who regularly attend religious services are less likely to commit suicide.

In other words, mere belief, and amorphous expressions of spirituality, aren’t enough to ward off the demons that trigger suicide. And no group is more at risk than atheists.

US operable atmospheric crude distillation capacity as of January 1, 2016 was 1.9% higher than at the beginning of 2015, reaching 18.3 million barrels per calendar day (b/cd) according to EIA’s recently released annual Refinery Capacity Report (Figure 1).

This is the largest increase in operable capacity since the 2.9% increase as of January 1, 2013 over the start of 2012 that resulted from the restart of East Coast refineries that had closed in 2011. The capacities of secondary units that support heavy crude processing and production of ultra-low sulfur diesel and gasoline, including thermal cracking (coking), catalytic hydrocracking, and hydrotreating/desulfurization, also increased slightly.

EIA’s Refinery Capacity Report and this article measure refinery capacity in b/cd and barrels per stream day (b/sd). B/cd is a measure of the amount of input that a distillation unit can process in a 24-hour period under usual operating conditions. It takes into account both planned and unplanned maintenance. B/sd, another measure of refinery capacity, is the maximum number of barrels of input that a distillation facility can process within a 24-hour period when running at full capacity under optimal crude and product slate conditions with no allowance for downtime. Stream day capacity is typically 6% higher than calendar day capacity.

The refinery capacity reported for the start of 2016 includes two new refineries that began operating in 2015. Petromax Refining Company LLC started a 25,000 b/cd refinery in Houston, Texas, last summer and Buckeye Partners LP began operating a 46,250 b/cd condensate processing facility in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the fourth quarter of 2015.

Increased refinery runs—based on increases in both capacity and utilization—have continued to accommodate increases in U.S. crude oil production, which averaged 9.4 million b/d in 2015 (3.8 million b/d higher than in 2011). Gross inputs to refineries averaged a record 16.4 million b/d in 2015, compared with 15.3 million b/d in 2011. Operable refinery capacity increased 0.2 million b/cd and utilization increased 5 percentage points compared with 2011, resulting in the 1.1 million b/d increase in gross inputs. Over the same period, crude imports decreased by 1.6 million b/d and crude exports increased by 0.4 million b/d (Figure 2).

The Refinery Capacity Report also includes information on expansions planned for the balance of 2016. Capacity is expected to expand by an additional 160,000 b/sd later in 2016. Valero Energy plans to add an 87,000 b/sd condensate splitter at its Houston refinery and increase capacity by 23,000 b/sd at the McKee refinery in Sunray, Texas. Other projects to increase capacity by the end of 2016 include expansions at HollyFrontier Corporation’s Woods Cross refinery in Utah; CHS McPherson Refining in Kansas; Marathon’s Robinson, Illinois, refinery; and St. Paul Park Refining Company in Minnesota. Further investment in refinery expansion projects will depend on expectations about crude oil price spreads and the relative economic advantage of the U.S. refining fleet compared with refineries in the rest of the world.

U.S. average regular gasoline retail price declines, average diesel fuel price steady

The U.S. average regular gasoline retail price decreased two cents from the previous week to $2.33 per gallon on June 27, down 47 cents from the same time last year. The Midwest price dropped eight cents to $2.29 per gallon, followed by the East Coast price, down two cents to $2.26 per gallon, and the Rocky Mountain price, down one cent to $2.32 per gallon. The West Coast price rose four cents to $2.76 per gallon, while the Gulf Coast price was virtually unchanged at $2.10 per gallon.

The U.S. average diesel fuel price was unchanged from a week ago, remaining at $2.43 per gallon, down 42 cents from the same time last year. The Rocky Mountain price rose by two cents to $2.43 per gallon, the West Coast price increased by one cent to $2.71 per gallon, and the Midwest price rose modestly, remaining at $2.39 per gallon. The Gulf Coast price dropped by one cent to $2.29 per gallon, while the East Coast price dipped marginally, remaining at $2.44 per gallon.

Propane inventories gain

U.S. propane stocks increased by 2.5 million barrels last week to 82.1 million barrels as of June 24, 2016, 1.5 million barrels (1.8%) lower than a year ago. Midwest, Gulf Coast, East Coast, and Rocky Mountain/West Coast inventories increased by 1.7 million barrels, 0.5 million barrels, 0.2 million barrels, and 0.1 million barrels, respectively. Propylene non-fuel-use inventories represented 4.0% of total propane inventories.

Following the referendum on UK membership of the European Union (EU), upholding Brexit, world politics is expected to herald a period of immense instability and turmoil. There is likelihood of economic crisis in Europe and UK, even globally.

The US may ignore the negative impact on its economy or domestic policies on account of Brexit, but it cannot doubt that Brexit could churn out issues for the political economy, at least for both Britain and EU.

Unexpected or unintended?

Britain’s exit from the EU is now almost final, pending only some formalities and the EU is pushing for an early conclusion of the Brexit deal. It is quite clear that British Prime Minister David Cameron had not expected the referendum to lose, thereby forcing him to quit, having found no other credible alternative. The result is primarily the outcome of a political miscalculation by Cameron and allies that caused geopolitical and financial issues. The British capitalist lords are staggering about as they try to pick up the pieces while the situation spirals out of control.

Geopolitical relations in Europe have been destabilized as a direct consequence of Brexit. Without Britain anchored in Europe, relations between France and a far more powerful Germany will deteriorate. Equally, relations between the EU and the United States—for which Britain provided a bridge—will be thrown into flux.

Martin Schulz, president of the European Parliament, insists there must be no delay in Britain invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to formally initiate exit proceedings, so as to limit financial damage and impose a harsh settlement on Britain that will serve as an example to others. Far-right forces in Europe are now demanding referenda in their own countries, including the National Front in France and similar parties in Slovakia, Poland, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and elsewhere.

Amid dire warnings of economic catastrophe and the boost the referendum gave to right-wing, anti-immigrant nationalists, millions fear for the future. A petition is circulating that has gained some three million votes for another referendum to be held.

There is widespread shock and anger at the Brexit outcome in the UK, even among some who voted for leaving the EU. The result indicates anger on the art of the Britons in the very project of EU- an integration of basically different entities with varying degree of geopolitics and economic variations.

Meanwhile, the UK itself is in danger of breaking apart. Conservative Party and Labour Party could split, amid speculation of a snap general election. The Scottish National Party is pressing for a second independence referendum and also seeking early talks with Brussels and EU member states. In Northern Ireland, where the referendum vote was polarized along Republican and Unionist lines, the most severe crisis since the formal end of the civil war in 1998 is looming.

Crisis

The historic Brexit that democratically became a reality create Brutish soveriegn nation once again after decades of being a part of EU, is feared to kickstart another “Great Financial Crisis” of 2008, and threatens to blow up even further, if more European countries exit for EU. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), has warned of deep-rooted problems in the global economy.

The economic cost of the successful referendum by Britain to cede from EU is aid to be very high globally. The ongoing market sell-off wiped $2.5 trillion from the values of world equities markets on June 24 itself is the most visible manifestation of a much deeper crisis of the global economy. both the International Monetary Fund has warned in effect that the USA and world economy face conditions of stagnation characterized by a long-term reduction in growth rates.

The BIS report said the world economy was threatened by a ‘risky trinity’: debt levels that are too high, productivity growth that is too low, and room for policy maneuver that is too narrow.” It cast doubt on the ability to continue to combat crises with monetary policy. However, the BIS had no solution to the ongoing crisis besides further austerity measures. It called for slashing government debt while improving the “quality of public spending… notably by shifting the balance away from transfers.”

Virtually every global central bank issued a statement saying it would either begin or was ready to implement a further expansion of liquidity measures in response to the share selloff. Markets are increasingly betting that the Federal Reserve will halt, or even reverse, its announced plans to begin raising interest rates. These conditions have weakened productive investment, fueled a global expansion of debt, making it near impossible for central banks to respond in an effective manner to the eruption of new crises.

In the latest such measure, the Japanese government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the Bank of Japan announced the provision of additional funds to the financial system.

The growth of negative interest rates, promoted by central banks seeking to reassure the markets, is a risk with “a long fuse, with the damage less immediately apparent and growing gradually over time. Such rates tend to depress risk premiums and stretch asset valuations, making them more vulnerable to a reversal by encouraging financial risk-taking. All the actions taken by global central banks since the 2008 crisis have only exacerbated the cancerous growth of financial parasitism. At the end of May, close to $8 trillion in sovereign debt, including at long maturities, was trading at negative yields—a new record.” Due to the continuous infusions of cash into world markets, monetary policymakers have found it harder to push inflation back in line with objectives, leading to economic slump.

The types of fiscal austerity measures and labor market restructuring called for by the BIS have been brought forward in every major economy in response to the 2008 crisis. These range from the USA, where state education spending has been slashed by 25 percent, to Greece, Spain, Portugal and, most recently, France, with the implementation of the El Komri labor reforms by the Hollande government, where sweeping social cuts have been combined with attacks on protections for jobs and conditions.

Austerity policies have transferred ever more wealth to the financial elite, who have proceeded to use their cash hoards for speculation and financial parasitism, fueling a vicious cycle of economic stagnation, rising inequality and financial crisis, in turn inflaming international antagonisms and the growth of protectionism.
The global economy cannot afford to rely any longer on the debt-fueled growth model that has brought it to the current juncture, the “persistent and otherwise puzzling” global slowdown in productivity growth. It tellingly attributed the slowdown to the effect of a massive series of booms and busts that have characterized the global economy in recent years as it has become increasingly dominated by financialization and speculative mania, fueled by virtually unlimited cash from global central banks.

Observation

A full scale disintegration of the EU is now a real possibility – yes, only a possibility and not necessarily the reality, mainly because Germany would not let EU disintegrate.

EU Integration was an attempt by the ruling classes of the continent, with the support of the United States, to prevent a new eruption of national conflicts that had twice plunged the world into all-out war. However, “unity” within the framework of capitalism could never mean anything other than the domination of the most powerful nations and corporations over the continent and its peoples.

The fracturing of the EU along national lines that is now taking place is once again driving inexorably towards world war. But the EU cannot be put back together again. The Brexit result has made manifest a broader crisis that is insoluble within capitalism because it is rooted in the fundamental contradiction between the integrated character of the global economy and the division of the world into antagonistic nation states based on private ownership of the means of production.

Europe must be united. However, this cannot be done on a progressive basis through efforts to preserve the moribund institutions of the EU or other bureaucratic mechanisms. The progressive and democratic unification of Europe can be achieved only from below, through a revolutionary struggle for socialism across the continent led by the working class.

The likely economic fallout from the Brexit vote on the rest of the world over could be huge. In addition to the direct trade effect, business investment around the globe is likely to be dampened somewhat due to the heightened uncertainty about the global implications of Brexit and the tightening of financial conditions. Companies now delay investment projects to assess how Brexit could affect them.

One impact on the government is the effect on the value of its holdings in banks. The value of the government’s holding in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group dropped by about £8bn, although it has recovered somewhat since.
The pound has dropped considerably against the US dollar; less so against the euro. That has not had a great deal of impact on the economy so far, although it is likely to stoke inflation in due course. National income is reported in pounds so will not be hit automatically by a weaker pound, although it will suffer in comparison with other countries – the status as the world’s fifth biggest economy may be threatened.

There may already have been an impact on the economy or the public finances but there are no data as yet showing that. Throughout the campaign pro Brexit leaders argued that UK would save money from not contributing to the EU budget.

However, the impact on global growth and inflation is likely to be relatively small – and almost certainly not large enough to push the global economy into recession. UK import demand would be minimal as the UK accounts for only 3.6% of global imports of merchandise goods.

This could lower potential growth even further and would likely lead to higher wage and inflation pressures.

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne says that companies have already started cutting back on investments following the vote to leave the European Union.

The Brexit shock is likely to intensify the pressure on current and future mainstream governments to address inequality and limit migration.

Of course, Europe, US and the rest of nations would undertake urgent measures to minimize the impact of Brexit and according to reports the European Union has already begun action in the respect. Investors will have to factor in a higher chance of a stagflationary outcome over the next three to five years: even lower growth or near-stagnation coupled with a significant rise in inflation. This could lower potential growth even further and would likely lead to higher wage and inflation pressures.

To begin with it may not be wrong to say that since independence Pakistan’s foreign policy has been dictated by the United States. During the Ayub Khan Era Pakistan got the maximum aid, grants and loans, during which some analysts also called the Cold War era. During this period, an airbase in Pakistan was used by the United States for spying against the then USSR.

When the USSR attached Afghanistan, Pakistan was dragged into the proxy war in the name of Jihad during the Ziaul Haq Era. Then in the Musharraf Era, Pakistan was once again assigned a role to eliminate the Taliban, the Jihadi group created and funded by the United States to avert a USSR attack. Pakistan is still fighting the US proxy war in Afghanistan. The fallout of Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan is cross-border engagements that also includes an attack by the United States on Sala check post.

Pakistan has fought three wars with India, which have dented the two-nation theory and resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. Pakistan spends billions of dollars every year in a bid to maintain minimum deterrence level and to counter Indian war mania. Both the countries have attained the status of nuclear powers, but Kashmir remains the biggest thorn, which has kept both the countries in a constant state of war since independence. Over the decades both the countries have failed in developing even working relationship with each other. It may not be wrong to say that all the efforts to normalize relationships between the two countries have been sabotaged by hawks present on both sides of the border. Despite enjoying a common border, rail and road links official trade between the two countries is a fraction of total trade conducted through a third country or smuggling.

Worse yet have been the relationships with Afghanistan, which still refuses to accept the demarked borders. It was the only country that opposed Pakistan’s entry in the United Nations. The country during the monarch era enjoyed a most cordial relationship with India and USSR. Most of the modern day Afghans consider Pakistan their worst enemy as it has been accused of killing hundreds of Afghans in a war against the Taliban and cross-border terrorism is most common. Lately, in a bid to contain Afghan infiltration, when Pakistan decided to construct fence and gates, Afghanistan once again started talking about the disputed border.

For decades, Pakistan has been providing transit facility to Afghanistan, which is not considered a favor, but its right. To undermine Pakistan’s importance India is contracting a port in Iran, Chabahar, and road and rail links up to Central Asian countries passing through Afghanistan. It is necessary to point out that India was involved in the construction of this Iranian port at a time the country faced worst economic sanctions. It may be said that the United States kept its eyes and ears closed as it also wanted an alternate route.

During the Shah’s era Pakistan enjoyed an extremely cordial relationship with Iran, but after the Islamic revolution, Pakistan’s foreign policy went into the shadow of the United States and Saudi Arabia. Despite the recent withdrawal of sanctions imposed on Iran, Pakistan and has not come out of this dictate. Pakistan has not been able to establish banking links with Iran, a must for boosting trade between the two countries. Not a drop of crude oil is being imported from Iran, contrary to the fact that India remained one of the major buyers of Iranian oil even when sanctions were in pace.

China is often termed as time-tested friend, but the response from Pakistan is often disappointing. Many anti-China groups have emerged in Pakistan, mostly based in Baluchistan. They are also trying to spread disinformation about the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). It is also on record that many Chinese engineers and workers have been attacked and killed. One has all the reasons to doubt Indian support to the militant groups because Gwader port will reduce the importance of Chabahar.

To conclude, it is sufficient to say that ever since the PML-N government headed by Mian Nawaz Sharif has come into power, the cabinet is without a full-time Foreign Minister. Mian Sahib’s tilt towards Saudi Arabia is a major hurdle in improving the country’s relationship with Iran, as he himself overseas the Foreign Ministry. Ironically, the relationship with both Saudi Arabia and United States has deteriorated after the withdrawal of sanctions imposed on Iran.

It is feared that a tweaked foreign policy is pushing Pakistan towards isolation. It may be true that Pakistan enjoys a geopolitically important position, but it has not been able to take advantage of its location. Pakistan needs a vibrant foreign policy and a young and more articulated full time Foreign Minister. The current advisors are part of past legacies and also see the world with tinted glasses.

Boeing, the giant aerospace concern, has been cutting out the middle-man for health benefits:

In another sign of growing frustration with rising health costs, aerospace giant Boeing Co. has agreed to contract directly for employee benefits with a major health system in Southern California, bypassing the conventional insurance model.

The move, announced Tuesday, marks the expansion of Boeing’s direct-contracting approach, which it has already implemented in recent years in Seattle, St. Louis and Charleston, S.C.

In other examples, Intel Corp. contracted directly with a major health system in New Mexico, where it has several thousand employees.

Retailers Wal-Mart and Lowe’s took a different approach, striking deals with select hospitals across the country for bundled prices on specific surgeries. The companies steer workers to those hospitals.

(Chad Terhune, “Boeing Contracts Directly With California Health System for Employee Benefits,” Kaiser Health News, June 21, 2016)

I recently discussed evidence that insurers inflate rather than decrease prices for medical goods and services. Large employers appear to be figuring this out, too. Large employers have traditionally signed Administrative Services Only (ASO) contracts with insurers for processing medical claims. However the insurers do not bear actuarial risk. The companies are large enough to bear the risk of catastrophic health costs for some of their employees.

Signing ASO contracts allowed large employers to benefit from health insurers’ networks of providers. However, they are now learning there is not much value in this. A company like Boeing, which has large concentrations of employees in a few places, can disintermediate insurers and negotiate directly with health systems.

This is a little more difficult for companies with workers distributed around the country. One would think Wal-Mart or Lowe’s would find value in contracting with a large health plan to get access to a national network. However, that value proposition appears to be deteriorating, too.

I think this is a great development because these employers have no interest in adding administrative costs to the system, like insurers do. What I hope evolves is a system whereby large employers negotiate for expensive procedures with the best hospital systems, and just let people pay for primary and inexpensive care directly, using their Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs), or Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs).

This article appeared in The Beacon and is reprinted with permission.

Last week’s UK vote to leave the EU may have come as a shock to many, but the sentiment that led British voters to reject rule from Brussels is nothing unique. In fact it is growing sentiment worldwide. Frustration with politics as usual, with political parties that really do not differ in philosophy, with an economy that serves the one percent at the expense of the rest of society is a growing phenomenon throughout Europe and in the United States as well. The Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump phenomena are but one example of a frustrated public sensing something is very wrong with society and looking for a way out.

What is happening in the UK, in Europe, and in the US, is nothing less than a breakdown of the entire system. The EU was meant to be a customs union where post-World War II Western Europe could rebuild itself through free trade and a reduction in bureaucracy. Through corruption and political ambition it became an unelected bully government in Brussels, where the well-connected were well compensated and insulated from the votes of mere citizens.

Whatever happens in the near future – and it is certainly not assured that the vote to “Brexit” will actually end in the UK’s departure from the EU – a line has been crossed that supporters of more personal liberty should celebrate. Rule from London is preferable to liberty-minded Britons than rule from Brussels. Just as Texans should prefer rule from Austin to rule from Washington. That doesn’t make either option perfect, just more likely to produce more freedom.

Is Brexit the first victory in a larger freedom movement? Can we get out of a system that creates money out of thin air to benefit the ruling class while impoverishing the middle class? Can we get out of a central bank that finances the wars that make us less safe? Can we exit Executive Orders? Can we exit the surveillance state? The PATRIOT Act? Can we exit NDAA and indefinite detention? Can we exit the US worldwide drone program, that kills innocents overseas and makes us ever-more hated?

Getting out of NATO would be a good first move. This Cold War relic survives only by stirring up conflict and then selling itself as the only option to confront the conflict it churned up. Wouldn’t it be better to not go looking for a fight in the first place? Do we really need still another NATO military exercise on the Russian border? It should be no surprise that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was fear-mongering on the eve of the Brexit vote, warning UK citizens that if they vote to leave they could face increased terrorism.

Likewise, the US would do well to exit the various phony “free trade” agreements that provide advantage to the well-connected elites while harming the rest of us.

The act of exit is liberating. We should make a longer list of those things we would like to get out of. I am only getting started.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Tibetans living across the world as expatriates or citizens of other countries cannot but feel sad that world has, by and large, appear to be no more concerned that Tibetans have lost their motherland due to the aggressive onslaught of China. The present generation all over the world appear to be unaware of the horrible conditions that happened in Tibet after occupation by China ,which forced the Dalai Lama and several other freedom fighters to leave Tibet and live in other countries.

Now, China is consolidating it’s hold over the occupied Tibet territory by overwhelming military presence and sustained strategy to keep the younger generation of Tibetans now living in Tibet uninformed about the glorious history of the country by brain washing them. It appears that China is succeeding in it’s efforts,at least for the present, in reducing Tibet to the level of a mere province in China. Using it’s present economic and trade strength, China is also ensuring that several countries in the world would not extend any sort of support to the freedom struggle of Tibetans.

The recent examples are that of Sri Lanka, a country with large Buddhist population which thought it fit to deny visa to the Dalai Lama to enter the country and the US President Obama who bowed to the pressure of China by receiving the Dalai Lama through the back door, as if he was doing a mistake. Even India, which has allowed Dalai Lama and Tibetans to live in the country, has sometimes restricted the Tibetans (may be indirectly), in voicing their protest against Chinese occupation of Tibet and carrying out the campaign for liberation of Tibet.

The “success of China in silencing the world conscience “ until now about the horror that it has caused in Tibet and it’s suppression of freedom in Tibet is a case of triumph of evil over good.

The world history repeatedly highlights the fact that truth has ultimately triumphed, in short period in some cases and in some other cases in longer term. Whether it is short or long period has depended upon the determination and commitment of the campaigners for freedom.

Tibetans are committed to the Buddhist philosophy which essentially centres around non violence, peaceful coexistence and returning good for evil. In a strife torn world. such lofty principles advocated by Buddhism has significantly contributed to protect the humanistic philosophy and values that reflect a belief in human dignity and civilisation. Keeping the Buddhist principles in heart, Tibetans wherever they are , have to continue their struggle and movement to restore Tibet as an independent and free country with the dignity that it highly deserves.

What is important is that Tibetans living all over the world and the friends of Tibetans and those who value and cherish freedom and liberty , should keep talking about the horror stories in Tibet due to Chinese occupation and their future vision for Tibet, at every opportunity and in every forum. They should constantly strive to stir the world conscience which now appears to be largely silent and even the conscience of those presently ruling China, by campaigning that the attack on Tibet by China was an attack on humanity, which is unacceptable.

It is true that Tibetans in their own way have organized themselves to voice their protests but with the governments in many countries not responding to the plea of Tibetans to support their genuine cause, they need to redouble their efforts. While many governments may not openly support the cause of Tibet fearing criticism by China, the ground reality is that people around the world will certainly respond to the campaign to restore freedom of Tibet, which will help in a big way in molding world opinion.

The torch of freedom for Tibet has to be kept alive and this is a challenge for the Tibetans and all freedom loving citizens around the world.

Wherever atrocities have taken place in the world, the forces of just cause have ultimately succeeded by persistent efforts. This logic, that has been proved by world history, should give hope, faith and confidence to the Tibetans and friends of Tibet.

As the Nigerian government continues its fight against Boko Haram, Obuseh Jude discusses four mutually reinforcing elements to strengthen its approach.

By Obuseh Jude*

The Federal Government of Nigeria must be commended for the impressive strides its security forces have so far made in the war against Boko Haram. The string of successive victories the federal forces have recorded over the insurgents, in conjunction with their sub-regional allies from Cameroon, Niger and Chad, is proof of the effectiveness of the new stratagem to the conflict and seems to have radically transformed the symmetry of the raging war in the north-east.

However, laudable as these efforts are, they seem not to be able to counter planned acts of terrorism from being committed, or deter future plans. They remain palliative measures that cannot dissuade extremist groups bent on mass murder from executing their pernicious acts. This piece postulates four mutually re-enforcing elements that can help in building resilience against terrorism in Nigeria.

These elements are: prevention, which will create a Nigeria that is resistant to violent extremism; detection and denial, which will ensure that Nigeria is able to identify terrorist acts early, and make itself a difficult target for would-be terrorists; and response, which will engender a resilient society that is able to bounce back quickly when terrorist incidents occur.

Preventing attacks

The preventive element focuses on the factors that motivate individuals who engage in, or have the potential to engage in, terrorist activities at home and abroad. Nigerian security agencies must strive to diminish these factors by engaging with individuals, communities, and international partners, and through research to better understand them and how to counter them. The desired outcome of this element is to build resilience in the psyche of Nigerians to challenge violent extremist ideologies by producing effective narratives to counter it and reduce the risk of individuals succumbing to violent extremism and radicalisation.

Detecting terrorist activity

On its own, detection is a knowledge-powered element. It is based on the idea that countering terrorist threats requires knowledge of the terrorist themselves, their capabilities and the nature of their plans. It also seeks to identify the supporters of terrorist activities. This can be done through investigation, intelligence operations for analysis, which can also lead to criminal prosecution.

Detection requires strong intelligence capacity and capabilities, as well as a solid understanding of the strategic drivers of the threat environment, and extensive collaboration and information sharing with domestic and international partners. The desired outcome of this element is to identify terrorist threats in a timely fashion by putting into place an efficient alert mechanism that ensures that terrorist activities are effectively monitored and reported. It must also ensure that information is proactively shared within Nigeria and with key allies and non-traditional partners.

The denial element aims to deny terrorists the means and opportunity to carry out their activities in other to protect Nigerians and Nigerian interests. Investigation and law enforcement actions, prosecutions, and domestic and international cooperation are necessary to mitigate vulnerabilities and aggressively intervene in terrorist planning.

The end goal is to make Nigerian interests a more difficult target for would-be terrorists. The objective of this is to develop a strong ability to counter terrorist activities at home and abroad by speedily concluding prosecutions, diminishing the opportunity to support terrorist activities and maintaining strong cooperation with key allies and non-traditional partners.

Responding effectively

Finally, the response element aims to respond quickly and effectively to terrorist activities and mitigate their effects. Nigeria can do this by creating a fluid emergency response system to mitigate the frightening effects of terrorist acts. This would include developing a first strike capability to either act to forestall an impending terrorist act or to immediately commence the process of tracking down perpetrators of terrorist acts but also launching public enlightenment campaigns to raise public awareness about terrorist activities in order to open up windows of trust between the public and security services, and prepare the civil populace to absolve the shocks of terrorist acts when they occur. This element would deter would-be terrorists from carrying out their dastardly acts, to make them insecure if they actually do, and to embolden Nigerians to stand together against terrorism and its perpetrators.

As opined at the beginning of this article, government’s anti-terrorism measures are well intentioned, but they need to be more comprehensive, proactive and flexible to be effective tools for fighting and defeating a foe as formidable as the new face of terrorism currently facing Nigeria. The counter-terrorism strategies treated in this piece are suggestions that can be added to what the government has already done, as it marries ideas from several practical examples.

The fight against terrorism and other acts of violent criminal behaviour requires a multi-dimensional approach. If square pegs are put in square holes by those charged with securing the lives and property of Nigerians, terrorism and other violent acts can be fought to a standstill.

About the author:
*Obuseh Jude is a peace researcher and practitioner, and the Executive Director of the Conflict Prevention and Peace Building Initiative, a Nigerian based non-governmental organisation. He holds a BSc in Political Science, an MA in Peace and Conflict Studies from the premier University of Ibadan, Nigeria, coupled with other professional qualifications. His areas of research interests are international security administration, peacebuilding strategies and early warning mechanisms.

Source:
This article was originally published at Insight On Conflict.

I sure don’t know, and I’m sure that Hillary Clinton and her campaign managers are wondering too.

In today’s New York Times, the independent socialist Senator from Vermont published a hard-hitting opinion-page piece attacking presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, but really targeting Democratic Party leaders, super delegates, and the Democrats’ presumptive nominee Clinton — though he carefully avoided naming her.

Significantly, Sanders, in an article headlined “Democrats Have to Wake Up,” identified himself at the end of the article as “a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.”

The message is clear: Sanders is still in the race for the Democratic nomination.

The message is also clear in saying, in the wake of the stunning rejection of European Union membership by a majority of British voters who feel that globalization and the common and tariff-free borders of the EU have only hurt them:

“We need a president who will vigorously support international cooperation that brings the people of the world closer together, reduces hypernationalism and decreases the possibility of war. We also need a president who respects the democratic rights of the people, and who will fight for an economy that protects the interests of working people, not just Wall Street, the drug companies and other powerful special interests.

“We need to fundamentally reject our “free trade” policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage countries who earn pennies an hour. We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We must help poor countries develop sustainable economic models.

“We need to end the international scandal in which large corporations and the wealthy avoid paying trillions of dollars in taxes to their national governments.

“We need to create tens of millions of jobs worldwide by combating global climate change and by transforming the world’s energy system away from fossil fuels.

“We need international efforts to cut military spending around the globe and address the causes of war: poverty, hatred, hopelessness and ignorance.”

Clearly Hillary Clinton is none of those things. In international affairs Clinton is calling for yet more regime change, this time in Syria, in what could be a direct military confrontation with Russia. She is pushing for expanded NATO bases and missiles along Russia’s western border — another huge risk of a third world war confrontation. Clinton also does not respect democratic rights, favoring things like aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers and those who assist them like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, while also supporting the so-called Patriot Act, which Sanders has consistently opposed.

On trade, while the primary campaigning Hillary Clinton claimed she opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) asian “trade” agreement, her cronies on the Democratic Party Platform Committee this past week deep-sixed efforts by Sanders’ appointees to include opposition to the TPP in the platform, and of course she played a key role as Secretary of State in negotiating that job-killing treaty when she was calling it the “gold standard” of trade agreements.

Clinton solicits huge campaign “contributions” (bribes) from corporations that are using accounting gimmicks and offshore “headquarters” to duck their corporate taxes, and so won’t do anything about that multi-trillion robbery of the treasury and opposes any serious attack on climate change, such as a tax on carbon emissions. As for cutting military spending and closing down the US weapons bazaar that drives it globally? Forget it. Clinton is a militarist. Period.

So after he has penned a powerful indictment of Clinton like this op-ed article, which condemns Clinton so relentlessly, how can anyone expect Sanders, in one month’s time when the convention is over, to turn around and endorse her candidacy as the Democratic presidential nominee? How can anyone expect him to “deliver” — or as his left critics disparagingly put it “sheepdog” —  his millions of supporters over to Clinton?

I may be naive (or a victim of what CountePrunch editor Jeff St. Clair calls “magical thinking”), but it sure looks to me like Sanders, who is a consummate politician used to being on the outside of the two-party electoral game, is playing a cagey game. The question is, what  kind of game is it? Either he is trying to appear hard-core, demanding a real progressive campaign by Clinton (which he knows she won’t deliver), in hopes that his backers will stick with him while he and his platform appointees fight for a stronger platform, after which he’ll try to say, “We got the best deal we could and now we all have to back Clinton against Trump” — and that’s simply not going to work for some 50% of his supporters who will see through it immediately. Or perhaps he’s letting everyone know he’s still in the running, hoping against hope that the FBI or Justice Department will announce an indictment of Clinton or of people close to her before the July 25 Democratic Convention cements her as the nominee, in which case he will stand ready to be the nominee. Or then again, perhaps he is still kicking around the idea of giving his primary candidacy the best shot he can until the Convention, after which he will consider the option of running as a Green candidate in the general election, which prospective Green presidential nominee Dr. Jill Stein has offered to help him get if he wants it.

To date, Sanders has not even responded to Stein’s offer, which was made in a letter which she released publicly. But that said, he has also not rejected her offer. His only statement so far regarding running for president outside of the Democratic Party, has been one made early in his campaign, saying he did not want to be “another “Nader” — a reference to Ralph Nader’s role running for president as an independent in 2000, which many people saw (wrongly) as having thrown the Florida vote, and thus the national election to George W. Bush instead of Al Gore.  But as Sanders surely knows, his running as a Green nominee would not at all be like Nader running as an independent — and 2016 is nothing like 2000 either.

As I have written before, when Nader ran in 2000, he was an independent and had to spend enormous amounts of time and money battling obstructive state laws designed to keep independents off of state ballots. As well, he only scored a few points in national polls, and so was never allowed into any of the presidential debates, and never got any coverage in the  media. This meant that most people, even given Nader’s wide name recognition as a consumer advocate, he was an unknown as far as his progressive campaign positions went. In contrast, Sanders, running as a Democrat this election year, was automatically in all the televised Democratic primary debates, and since he campaigned relentlessly in 46 states and ran as a candidate against Clinton in all 50 state primaries (plus DC and Puerto Rico), he and his policies and principles are as well or better known to voters as are Clinton’s. The media has had to take him seriously, and with his popular base of millions of voters — something Nader never had — would continue to have to report on him as a Green candidate. Because of that, Sanders would surely continue polling in high double digits (perhaps higher than Trump or Clinton!) and would thus have to be included in the coming presidential debates. And his proven ability already to raise over $200 million during the primaries in just small donations from his supporters will continue if he runs as a green, assuring that even in the area of buying paid advertising, and covering the costs of a national campaign, he will be competitive (he will also easily qualify for federal matching funds based upon whatever he raises from his non-corporate donors).

That is to say, put simply, Sanders not only would not be a “spoiler” running as a Green candidate for president. He would be a contender, and perhaps even a winner.

Could Sanders win the necessary 270 electoral votes to be elected president? Technically the answer is yes. He would have to win a majority vote in states with a total of 270 electors. At present the Green Party already has a line in 22 states with a total of 316 electoral votes, which would mean Sanders, to get 270 electoral votes, would have to basically run the table on Election Day in November. But the Greens have active campaigns underway to get their party a line in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and the party expects to have 47 of them for sure by Election Day. A strenuous effort is planned for the other three (North Carolina, Indiana and Oklahoma), which have particularly onerous obstacles. So if those efforts, even without those last three red states, are successful, certainly Sanders would have a shot at winning. He’s already beaten Clinton in many of them in the primaries and caucuses, and with independents and disgruntled Republicans free to vote for him in a national contest, his chances of doing so again could be even better.  (I’ve also noted that since Electoral College delegates under the Constitution are not bound to vote for whoever wins in their state, and since Sanders and Clinton between them would almost certainly win more than 270 electoral votes in November, a deal could be struck by those two, as was reportedly done, but never activated, by Richard Nixon and George Wallace in 1968–namely that in the event that no candidate in a multi-candidate race were to get a 270 majority, the one who received the lower delegate total would tell those delegates to vote for the one with the higher delegate count, in order to put the latter over the top and prevent the contest from being sent to the Republican-led House to decide, or, in Nixon’s case, to a Democratic House.)

As I said, Sanders, a man who won his positions as a US Representative and Senator from Vermont running as a third party candidate, not as a Democrat, surely knows all this, so while he’s being very cagey, I still have to think that he may be playing that third game: pushing loyally for as long as he can in hopes of displacing Clinton as the Democrats’ nominee, and then reserving the option of jumping over to the Greens, who hold their own nominating convention in Houston on Aug. 4-7.

I know, I know. Most people on the left have already written Sanders off, and are calling for a shift to backing Jill Stein. But let’s be real. Stein is a great person with great politics, and a Stein campaign this year could be a whole new ballgame for the Greens, who could see support for their party and candidate surge past 5% and maybe even get into double digits, with her running against two of the least liked, least trusted major party candidates in history. But that said, she will still probably not be allowed into the corruptly run presidential debates, still will be ignored by the media, and still will not be taken seriously by most voters.

Her candidacy is certainly worth supporting if Sanders will not run as a Green. But if he were to decide to run as a Green, it would suddenly be a revolutionary moment in US history: a tremendously popular “socialist” candidate with huge name recognition, ample resources and a shot at winning the presidency, while pulling progressive candidates for Congress to victory along with him, and at the same time converting the Green Party from decades of being simply a protest vote vehicle into major-party status with a permanent line on state ballots across the nation (and in the process crushing or severely wounding the Democratic Party, that graveyard of progressive action for over a century).

That’s worth still hoping for, pushing for and even being called naive for in my book, even if it is a long shot.

Meanwhile, let Sanders know you want him to run as a Green, and that under no circumstances are you going to take any advice from him or anyone calling on you to vote for Clinton.

Astronomers are using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope to study auroras — stunning light shows in a planet’s atmosphere — on the poles of the largest planet in the Solar System, Jupiter. This observation programme is supported by measurements made by NASA’s Juno spacecraft, currently on its way to Jupiter.

Jupiter, the largest planet in the Solar System, is best known for its colourful storms, the most famous being the Great Red Spot. Now astronomers have focused on another beautiful feature of the planet, using the ultraviolet capabilities of the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope.

The extraordinary vivid glows shown in the new observations are known as auroras. They are created when high energy particles enter a planet’s atmosphere near its magnetic poles and collide with atoms of gas. As well as producing beautiful images, this programme aims to determine how various components of Jupiter’s auroras respond to different conditions in the solar wind , a stream of charged particles ejected from the Sun.

This observation programme is perfectly timed as NASA’s Juno spacecraft is currently in the solar wind near Jupiter and will enter the orbit of the planet in early July 2016. While Hubble is observing and measuring the auroras on Jupiter, Juno is measuring the properties of the solar wind itself; a perfect collaboration between a telescope and a space probe [2].

“These auroras are very dramatic and among the most active I have ever seen”, says Jonathan Nichols from the University of Leicester, UK, and principal investigator of the study. “It almost seems as if Jupiter is throwing a firework party for the imminent arrival of Juno.”

To highlight changes in the auroras Hubble is observing Jupiter daily for around one month. Using this series of images it is possible for scientists to create videos that demonstrate the movement of the vivid auroras, which cover areas bigger than the Earth.

Not only are the auroras huge, they are also hundreds of times more energetic than auroras on Earth. And, unlike those on Earth, they never cease. Whilst on Earth the most intense auroras are caused by solar storms — when charged particles rain down on the upper atmosphere, excite gases, and cause them to glow red, green and purple — Jupiter has an additional source for its auroras.

The strong magnetic field of the gas giant grabs charged particles from its surroundings. This includes not only the charged particles within the solar wind but also the particles thrown into space by its orbiting moon Io, known for its numerous and large volcanos.

The new observations and measurements made with Hubble and Juno will help to better understand how the Sun and other sources influence auroras. While the observations with Hubble are still ongoing and the analysis of the data will take several more months, the first images and videos are already available and show the auroras on Jupiter’s north pole in their full beauty.

Notes:
[1] Jupiter’s auroras were first discovered by the Voyager 1 spacecraft in 1979. A thin ring of light on Jupiter’s nightside looked like a stretched-out version of our own auroras on Earth. Only later on was it discovered that the auroras were best visible in the ultraviolet.

[2] This is not the first time astronomers have used Hubble to observe the auroras on Jupiter, nor is it the first time that Hubble has cooperated with space probes to do so. In 2000 the NASA/ESA Cassini spacecraft made its closest approach to Jupiter and scientists used this opportunity to gather data and images about the auroras simultaneously from Cassini and Hubble heic0009. In 2007 Hubble obtained images in support of its sister NASA Mission New Horizons which used Jupiter’s gravity for a manoeuvre on its way to Pluto opo0714a.

New research has identified clear signs that the hole in the Antarctic ozone layer is beginning to close.

Scientists from the University of Leeds were part of an international team led by Professor Susan Solomon of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to confirm the first signs of healing of the ozone layer, which shields life on Earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays.

Recovery of the hole has varied from year to year, due in part to the effects of volcanic eruptions.

But accounting for the effects of these eruptions allowed the team to show that the ozone hole is healing, and they see no reason why the ozone hole should not close permanently by the middle of this century.

These encouraging new findings, published today in the journal Science, show that the average size of the ozone hole each September has shrunk by more than 1.7 million square miles since 2000 — about 18 times the area of the United Kingdom.

The research attributes this improvement to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which heralded a ban the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — then widely used in cooling appliances and aerosol cans.

Professor Solomon said, “We can now be confident that the things we’ve done have put the planet on a path to heal. We decided collectively, as a world, ‘Let’s get rid of these molecules’. We got rid of them, and now we’re seeing the planet respond.”

According to co-author Dr Ryan R Neely III, a Lecturer in Observational Atmospheric Science at Leeds, “Observations and computer models agree; healing of the Antarctic ozone has begun. We were also able to quantify the separate impacts of man-made pollutants, changes in temperature and winds, and volcanoes, on the size and magnitude of the Antarctic ozone hole.”

University of Leeds colleague and co-author Dr Anja Schmidt, an Academic Research Fellow in Volcanic Impacts, said, “The Montreal Protocol is a true success story that provided a solution to a global environmental issue.”

She added that the team’s research had shed new light on the part played by recent volcanic eruptions – such as at Calbuco in Chile in 2015 – in Antarctic ozone depletion.

“Despite the ozone layer recovering, there was a very large ozone hole in 2015,” she said. “We were able to show that some recent, rather small volcanic eruptions slightly delayed the recovery of the ozone layer.

“That is because such eruptions are a sporadic source of tiny airborne particles that provide the necessary chemical conditions for the chlorine from CFCs introduced to the atmosphere to react efficiently with ozone in the atmosphere above Antarctica. Thus, volcanic injections of particles cause greater than usual ozone depletion.”

The ozone hole begins growing each year when the sun returns to the South Polar cap from August, and reaches its peak in October – which has traditionally been the main focus for research.

The researchers believed they would get a clearer picture of the effects of chlorine by looking earlier in the year in September, when cold winter temperatures still prevail and the ozone hole is opening up. The team showed that as chlorine levels have decreased, the rate at which the hole opens up in September has slowed down.

Key facts

• Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey discovered in the mid-1980s that the October total ozone was dropping. From then on, scientists worldwide typically tracked ozone depletion using October measurements of Antarctic ozone
• Ozone is sensitive not just to chlorine, but also to temperature and sunlight. Chlorine eats away at ozone, but only if light is present and if the atmosphere is cold enough to create polar stratospheric clouds on which chlorine chemistry can occur
• Measurements have shown that ozone depletion starts each year in late August, as Antarctica emerges from its dark winter, and the hole is fully formed by early October
• The researchers focused on September because chlorine chemistry is firmly in control of the rate at which the hole forms at that time of year, so as chlorine has decreased, the rate of depletion has slowed down
• They tracked the yearly opening of the Antarctic ozone hole each September from 2000 to 2015, analysing ozone measurements taken from weather balloons and satellites, as well as satellite measurements of sulphur dioxide emitted by volcanoes, which can also enhance ozone depletion. And, they tracked meteorological changes, such as temperature and wind, which can shift the ozone hole back and forth.
• They then compared yearly September ozone measurements with computer simulations that predict ozone levels based on the amount of chlorine estimated to be present in the atmosphere from year to year. The researchers found that the ozone hole has declined compared to its peak size in 2000. They further found that this decline matched the model’s predictions, and that more than half the shrinkage was due solely to the reduction in atmospheric chlorine and bromine
• Chlorofluorocarbon chemicals (CFCs) last for up to 100 years in the atmosphere, so it will be many years before they disappear completely
• The reason there is an ozone hole in the Antarctic is that it is the coldest place on Earth — it is so cold that clouds form in the Antarctic stratosphere. Those clouds provide particles, surfaces on which the man-made chlorine from the chlorofluorocarbons reacts. This special chemistry is what makes ozone depletion worse in the Antarctic.

The situation in Burundi is a terrible example of what can happen when politics goes wrong.

A year-long crisis has seen violence and alarming human right violations across the country, which is much worse than most people realise. The total number of fatalities is often reported as being around 450, but detailed analysis indicates that at least 1,000 have been killed. More than 250,000 people have fled the country.

Why has this happened? The immediate trigger was the decision by President Pierre Nkurunziza, who had already served two terms in office, to stand for a third term in the July 2015 elections. He had previously spent 2005-2010 and then 2010-2015 as head of state. Nkurunziza argued that because he was nominated by Parliament the first time round, it did not count. Burundi’s constitutional court, allegedly under duress, agreed with him, but many others did not – and took to the streets to demonstrate.

A year of violence

The government clamped down hard on the protestors, and the situation deteriorated after a failed coup d’état in May 2015. Since then, Burundi has seen waves of violence targeting ordinary citizens and security forces across the country, not least in the capital, Bujumbura.

Residents in the so-called ‘dissenting districts’– where many of last year’s protestors live – have seen dozens of people disappear overnight. If they reappear at all, it is often as corpses in the streets. Many have clearly been tortured, and some have been executed. Across Burundi, hundreds are missing, and towns and villages are reeling from grenade attacks, kidnappings, and intimidation by armed groups.

Faced with this terrifying situation, and in the context of a country whose civil war ended only a decade ago, a quarter of a million people have fled to neighbouring countries, causing a refugee crisis for which the UN does not have enough money and is struggling to raise more. This is a huge number in a region which is still recovering from multiple armed conflicts.

Information blackout

In terms of civil society, it has been very difficult. Independent media were attacked in the wake of the coup attempt, with several independent radio stations burnt down. Journalists and civil society leaders have fled. Some civil society organisations working on human rights monitoring, governance and democracy have been suspended, and seen their bank accounts frozen.

Such organisations, as well as trades unions and other civil society groups that are still operating inside the country, do so at serious personal and professional risk. This virtual information blackout makes it hard for Burundians to hear about what is going on in their own country, which makes it easier for politicians and other elite members of society to try and manipulate factors such as ethnicity to support their cause.

Fortunately, despite many outside observers warning that the situation threatens to disintegrate into ethnic or other identity-based conflict, Burundians are persistently refusing to turn on each other. This includes, in particular, the Army, whose integration across ethnic lines was one of the undoubted success stories of the Arusha Accords, the peace deal which ended the civil war.

There is extremely worrying information that the Army’s unity is fracturing, with targeted attacks on – and desertion by – senior officers. But so far, the Army has held firm, and retained the trust of the Burundian people as a neutral force in politics. It is vital that this should continue.

However, the lack of information is a big problem. It is helping to polarise positions, with people either being “for” or against” Nkurunziza’s third term. And this in turn makes it very difficult to get anyone around a negotiating table, as the government has announced that it won’t engage in talks with the radical opposition part of the Conseil National pour le respect de l’Accord d’Arusha pour la Paix et la Réconciliation au Burundi et de l’Etat de Droit (CNARED). This is a group which aims to uphold the Arusha Accords, but which the government calls a ‘terrorist’ organisation. With almost no negotiating space even to talk about alternative political futures for Burundi, the status quo prevails. And while that happens, people continue to die.

Where next?

But all is not lost. As mentioned, ordinary Burundians do not want this conflict – that is why so many have left. One day, they will return, and rebuild. For that to happen, someone, somehow, needs to get all parties to enter a dialogue, without preconditions or an agenda, beyond discussing all the issues linked to the crisis.

The momentum for such talks has swung back and forth but no one has yet managed to get senior representatives from the government, opposition political parties, civil society and all other relevant stakeholders to be in the same place at the same time, and to stay there.

Doing so would be a first step to restoring hope that Burundi can build on the progress made since the end of the war in 2005. And that’s where the regional facilitators are focusing efforts, hoping to get these talks resumed later this month.

Source:
This article was originally published by Insight On Conflict.