The main architect of Washington’s plan to rule the world has abandoned the scheme and called for the forging of ties with Russia and China. While Zbigniew Brzezinski’s article in The American Interest titled “Towards a Global Realignment” has largely been ignored by the media, it shows that powerful members of the policymaking establishment no longer believe that Washington will prevail in its quest to extent US hegemony across the Middle East and Asia. Brzezinski, who was the main proponent of this idea and who drew up the blueprint for imperial expansion in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, has done an about-face and called for a dramatic revising of the strategy. Here’s an excerpt from the article in the AI:

“As its era of global dominance ends, the United States needs to take the lead in realigning the global power architecture.

Five basic verities regarding the emerging redistribution of global political power and the violent political awakening in the Middle East are signaling the coming of a new global realignment.

The first of these verities is that the United States is still the world’s politically, economically, and militarily most powerful entity but, given complex geopolitical shifts in regional balances, it is no longer the globally imperial power.” (Toward a Global Realignment, Zbigniew Brzezinski, The American Interest)

Repeat: The US is “no longer the globally imperial power.” Compare this assessment to a statement Brzezinski made years earlier in Chessboard when he claimed the US was ” the world’s paramount power.”

“…The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world’s paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power.” (“The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives,” Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997, p. xiii)

Here’s more from the article in the AI:

“The fact is that there has never been a truly “dominant” global power until the emergence of America on the world scene….. The decisive new global reality was the appearance on the world scene of America as simultaneously the richest and militarily the most powerful player. During the latter part of the 20th century no other power even came close. That era is now ending.” (AI)

But why is “that era is now ending”? What’s changed since 1997 when Brzezinski referred to the US as the “world’s paramount power”?

Brzezinski points to the rise of Russia and China, the weakness of Europe and the “violent political awakening among post-colonial Muslims” as the proximate causes of this sudden reversal. His comments on Islam are particularly instructive in that he provides a rational explanation for terrorism rather than the typical government boilerplate about “hating our freedoms.” To his credit, Brzezinski sees the outbreak of terror as the “welling up of historical grievances” (from “deeply felt sense of injustice”) not as the mindless violence of fanatical psychopaths.

Naturally, in a short 1,500-word article, Brzezniski can’t cover all the challenges (or threats) the US might face in the future. But it’s clear that what he’s most worried about is the strengthening of economic, political and military ties between Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and the other Central Asian states. This is his main area of concern, in fact, he even anticipated this problem in 1997 when he wrote Chessboard. Here’s what he said:

“Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power.” (p.55)

“…To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (p.40)

“…prevent collusion…among the vassals.” That says it all, doesn’t it?

The Obama administration’s reckless foreign policy, particularly the toppling of governments in Libya and Ukraine, has greatly accelerated the rate at which these anti-American coalitions have formed. In other words, Washington’s enemies have emerged in response to Washington’s behavior. Obama can only blame himself.

Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin has responded to the growing threat of regional instability and the placing of NATO forces on Russia’s borders by strengthening alliances with countries on Russia’s perimeter and across the Middle East. At the same time, Putin and his colleagues in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, Iran, China and South Africa) countries have established an alternate banking system (BRICS Bank and AIIB) that will eventually challenge the dollar-dominated system that is the source of US global power. This is why Brzezinski has done a quick 180 and abandoned the plan for US hegemony; it is because he is concerned about the dangers of a non-dollar-based system arising among the developing and unaligned countries that would replace the western Central Bank oligopoly. If that happens, then the US will lose its stranglehold on the global economy and the extortionist system whereby fishwrap greenbacks are exchanged for valuable goods and services will come to an end.

Unfortunately, Brzezinski’s more cautious approach is not likely to be followed by presidential-favorite Hillary Clinton who is a firm believer in imperial expansion through force of arms. It was Clinton who first introduced “pivot” to the strategic lexicon in a speech she gave in 2010 titled “America’s Pacific Century”. Here’s an excerpt from the speech that appeared in Foreign Policy magazine:

“As the war in Iraq winds down and America begins to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, the United States stands at a pivot point. Over the last 10 years, we have allocated immense resources to those two theaters. In the next 10 years, we need to be smart and systematic about where we invest time and energy, so that we put ourselves in the best position to sustain our leadership, secure our interests, and advance our values. One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region…

Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia…

The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama’s goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia…and our investment opportunities in Asia’s dynamic markets.”

(“America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)

Compare Clinton’s speech to comments Brzezinski made in Chessboard 14 years earlier:

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia… (p.30)….. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. ….About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.” (p.31)

The strategic objectives are identical, the only difference is that Brzezinski has made a course correction based on changing circumstances and the growing resistance to US bullying, domination and sanctions. We have not yet reached the tipping point for US primacy, but that day is fast approaching and Brzezinski knows it.

In contrast, Clinton is still fully-committed to expanding US hegemony across Asia. She doesn’t understand the risks this poses for the country or the world. She’s going to persist with the interventions until the US war-making juggernaut is stopped dead-in-its-tracks which, judging by her hyperbolic rhetoric, will probably happen some time in her first term.

Brzezinski presents a rational but self-serving plan to climb-down, minimize future conflicts, avoid a nuclear conflagration and preserve the global order. (aka–The “dollar system”) But will bloodthirsty Hillary follow his advice?

Not a chance.

By Jutta Wolf

Global warming threatens to cause a huge economic damage to agriculture, adding up to the annual amount of roughly 0.8 percent of global GDP by the end of the century, which translates to losses of $2.5 trillion dollars, warns a new study.

But further trade liberalization in agricultural commodities could reduce financial damage globally by 65 percent, to 0.3 percent of global GDP (Gross Domestic Product), says Miodrag Stevanovićby, lead author of the study by a team of scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

“Agriculture is very sensitive to climate change – even a small increase of global mean temperatures can have significant effects on regional crop yields, affecting both the profitability of agricultural production and the share of income spent on food,” says Stevanović.

Since climate change will widen the gap between developed and developing countries, reductions in trade barriers will have to be accompanied by measures for poverty reduction and social safety nets, says Hermann Lotze-Campen, chair of PIK’s research domain Climate Impacts and Vulnerabilities.

“Both global warming and free trade favour northern regions like Europe and the U.S., since producers’ gains increase as trade patterns shift northwards. At the same time, southern regions like Africa or India could theoretically reduce climate-change-related damages by half through more liberalized food markets,” explains Alexander Popp, co-author of the study.

“Irrespective of our assumptions on global trade, climate change will result in reduced crop yields in many areas. At the same time, intensifying production or expanding cultivated land into previously untouched areas may come at a risk: it could lead to additional greenhouse-gas emissions through tropical deforestation or increased fertilizer use.” This could then further enhance climate change pressure on agriculture, adds Popp.

The PIK researchers combined 19 different climate projections with simulations of crop growth to assess economic impacts of climate change in the agricultural sector.

While the magnitude of damage varies with different assumptions on crop productivity response to climate change, CO2 plant fertilization effect or socio-economic projection, the study nevertheless highlights the important role of trade as a key measure to partly reduce climate change impacts. Modelling challenges such as adverse effects of extreme weather events still remain.

If food prices increase due to climate change impacts, households will not only have to spend more on their food consumption, but could also face risks of insufficient access to food and malnutrition.

“The best way to avoid these risks is to limit climate change. However, for impacts that cannot be avoided, an open and diversified trade system can be an important adaptation option. It can account for changes in global patterns of agricultural productivity and thus allow for reducing production costs and enhancing food security,” add Lotze-Campen.

US Secretary of State John Kerry has arrived in Jeddah to discuss regional issues, notably Yemen and Syria, with the GCC foreign ministers.

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman received Kerry in Jeddah Thursday.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Naif and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman also held talks with Kerry.
Kerry and his GCC foreign ministers will push for peace in Yemen after UN-brokered talks collapsed despite world concern over the deteriorating situation in that country.

Kerry will also meet UN Yemen Envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed.

“The high-profile meeting will also be attended by Tobias Ellwood, British minister for Middle East and Africa. Ellwood, accompanied by a delegation, would arrive in Jeddah on Thursday,” said Nicola Woodget, a spokeswoman of the British Embassy.

“The GCC ministers will discuss the latest developments in the region,” said Ahmed Al-Kabi, a GCC spokesman.

Reading between the lines in Monday’s Pentagon press briefing, a bombshell US policy shift is becoming more apparent: Syrian forces and their Russian partners are being told that conducting military operations in some parts of Syrian airspace opens them up to being shot down by the US military.

Pentagon Spokesman Peter Cook was asked numerous times in numerous ways whether this amounts to a US “no fly zone” over parts of Syria. His first response was vague but threatening:

We will use our air power as needed to protect coalition forces and our partnered operations. …We advise the Syrian regime to steer clear of [certain] areas.

The policy shift was so apparent that, one-by-one, the press corps asked for clarification. Does this mean that the US would shoot down Russian or Syrian planes if they attacked any US-backed partners even if they were engaged against Syrian government forces? Are those “coalition forces” and “partnered operations” receiving US protection against attack from the air always in receipt of that protection, or only when they are actively engaged in military operations? What are the rules of engagement?

There was no clear answer from the Pentagon spokesman.

“Is this a ‘no-fly’ zone, then,” asked another reporter. It’s not a “no-fly zone” Cook responded.

Another journalist tried to get some clarity:

How is telling Syria not to fly in certain areas not a ‘no fly’ zone?

“Call it what you will,” Cook eventually said.

Another journalist asked, “Do you think the Syrian regime has the right to fly over its own territory?”

Same answer: “We will use our air power as needed to protect coalition forces and our partnered operations.”

The anti-Russia rhetoric in Cook’s comments was inexplicable as well. According to the Pentagon spokesman, the suffering in parts of Aleppo is not due to its ongoing occupation by al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, but rather by Russian and Syrian government attempts to expel Nusra from the city. Cook’s explanation defied logic. Russian actions in Aleppo are…

…only adding fuel to Syria’s civil war and [do] nothing to degrade extremist groups, which is Russia’s original reason for its military intervention in Syria.

The sentence only makes sense if one accepts the premise that al-Qaeda in Syria is not an extremist group, as it makes no sense to argue that bombing a certain group does nothing to weaken that group. Unless the Pentagon is suggesting that Russia and Syria are only bombing the civilian population, presumably for fun?

Whatever the case, this is a trial balloon. If this de facto “no fly zone” becomes a fact on the ground, it will be expanded beyond Hasakah and may be a US last-ditch effort to prevent Syrian government forces, aided by Russia, from taking back Aleppo and thus breaking the back of the foreign-backed insurgency.

This is endgame time.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

An international team of astronomers including Carnegie’s Paul Butler has found clear evidence of a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our Solar System. The new world, designated Proxima b, orbits its cool red parent star every 11 days and has a temperature suitable for liquid water to exist on its surface, if it were present. This rocky world is a little more massive than the Earth and is the closest exoplanet to us; it may even be the closest possible abode for life beyond our own Sun. A paper describing this milestone finding is published by Nature.

Just over four light-years from our Solar System sits a red dwarf star named Proxima Centauri. This cool star in the constellation of Centaurus is too faint to be seen with the naked eye and is close to the much brighter pair of stars known as Alpha Centauri A and B.

During the first half of 2016, the HARPS spectrograph on the European Southern Observatory’s 3.6-meter telescope at La Silla regularly observed Proxima Centauri, as did other professional and amateur telescopes around the world. The team of astronomers, called the Pale Red Dot campaign, led by Carnegie alum Guillem Anglada-Escudé of Queen Mary, University of London was looking for a tiny back-and-forth wobble in the star caused by the gravitational pull of an orbiting planet.

In addition to data gathered by the Pale Red Dot campaign, the paper incorporates contributions from scientists who have been observing Proxima Centauri for years, including Butler.

As this was a topic with very wide public interest, the progress of the campaign between mid-January and April 2016 was shared publicly as it occurred on the Pale Red Dot website and via social media. Numerous outreach articles from specialists all around the world accompanied the reports on data collection.

Anglada-Escudé explains the background to this unique search: “The first hints of a possible planet were spotted back in 2013, but the detection was not convincing. Since then we have worked hard to get further observations off the ground with help from ESO and others. The recent Pale Red Dot campaign has been about two years in the planning.”

The Pale Red Dot data, when combined with earlier observations, revealed a truly exciting result. At regular intervals, Proxima Centauri is approaching Earth at about 5 kilometers per hour–normal human walking pace–and at opposite times in those cycles it is receding at the same speed. This regular pattern repeats with a period of 11.2 days. Careful analysis of how tiny the resulting Doppler shifts were showed that they indicated the presence of a planet with a mass at least 1.3 times that of the Earth, orbiting about 7 million kilometers from Proxima Centauri–only 5 percent of the distance between the Earth and the Sun.

One complication to the analysis is that red dwarfs like Proxima Centauri are active stars, and their natural brightness variations could mimic the presence of a planet. In order to exclude this possibility, the team also monitored the changing brightness of the star very carefully during the campaign using the ASH2 telescope at the San Pedro de Atacama Celestial Explorations Observatory in Chile and the Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network.

Although the planet companion, Proxima b, orbits much closer to its star than Mercury does to the Sun in our Solar System, the star itself is far fainter and cooler than the Sun. As a result, Proxima b has an estimated temperature that–if water were present–would allow it in a liquid state on its surface, thus placing it within the so-called “habitable zone” around the star.

Despite the temperate orbit of Proxima b, the conditions on the surface may be strongly affected by the ultraviolet and x-ray flares from the star–far more intense than the Earth experiences from the Sun.

“The discovery of the potentially habitable planet around Proxima Cen is the culmination of 30 years of work that has improved stellar velocity measurement precision from 300 m/s to 1 m/s,” Butler said. “This work has resulted in the discovery of hundreds of planets around the nearest stars, and now a potentially habitable planet around the nearest star in the sky. This work confirms the Kepler satellite and precision velocity studies that have shown that potentially habitable planets are common, and points the way to the future when such planets will be directly observed with giant ground- and space-based telescopes.”

For almost twenty five years I have dealt with negotiations, its history, theoretical base and its various practices and scenarios. To this diplomatic instrument I have dedicated a scientific monograph that has been re-published a few times in Albania and abroad.

Based on this knowledge, experience acquired over the years I have to say with a full conviction that Mr. Ilir Meta has recently been revealed as the best Albanian negotiator in his role as one of the leading negotiators in the process that led to the approval of Albania’s Judicial Reform.

Healthy equilibrium levels in the Assembly

Mr. Ilir Meta as Chairman of the National Assembly maintained his neutral posture and remained above all parties. He avoided with great intelligence and persistence every idea, behavior and conflictive action that came from both political parties. He allowed a space for ideas, expressions and suggestions from all of them, as he avoided taking into account individuals and their political label. As a genuine and effective equilibrium tsar, Meta kept the debates within the walls of National Assembly, with admirable silence, maturity, self-control, high level of ethics and admired communication skills. Meta did not make enemies in the National Assembly. He earned the trust and confidence of all sides. The parliamentarian environment has proved to be fundamental in order to generate a favorable negotiations’ atmosphere.

The President’s substitute

Throughout the long debates that led to the approval of Judicial Reform, Ilir Meta has replaced admirably, the constitutional role of the President of Albania. He replaced without any shadow of a doubt the role of the President of Republic, with his actions that stand above any particular political group. Meanwhile the president without any political party often fell in the traps of particularities, meaning his preferences and political sides. Mr. Meta, although he is a party chairman, kept a subtle balance and stayed away from political and ideological preferences with a great sense of self control. Therefore Mr. Ilir Meta, among all negotiating parties, became: the symbol of national unity and not of national divide; the icon of cooperation and not of confrontation; the emblem of cohesion and not of clashes; the source of dialogue and not conflict; the assurance of trust and not of skepticism.

Respectful with the Press

Meta has been present in the media as much as it was necessary to inform the public, without creating an informational blackout or taking an advantage to become a media speculations’ maniac. On many times Meta became a point of reference to Albania media. While appearing on key moments Meta emerged as the most trusted ally of the news media. With effective media appearances, transparent, brief statements, official language, Mr. Meta is more than anyone else very close to western leaders when it comes to his appropriate relations with the media.

A public ally

The weight of Ilir Meta in the negotiations process of Judicial Reform relied upon his relations with the public. It appears that Meta’s performance is highly interconnected with public issues, with public relations and with public communications. For a master negotiator his relations with the public are fundamental, they keep a leading negotiator at the game and raise his trust on every situation or condition. The public is a compass of negotiations; Meta has all heartedly secured such an alliance with the public.

Cooperative with International Community

Throughout the history of Albania’s democracy in transition, International presence has been highly present. However in the case of the recent Justice Reform the international players have been co-authors and at times acquired an irreplaceable priority. These reasons are well known.

Mr. Meta has understood really well how to mend bridges of communications among international actors and national factors as well as his intermediary role among many diverse factors. Meta emerges as a balanced guardian of sovereignty and integration. He did not fall prey of sovereignty advocates or a victim of universality advocates. Meta was neither a snobby politician nor a public leader engulfed into xenophobia.

A well balanced integrity without any complexity kept Mr. Meta very active with all international actors.

A master of the code

Able negotiators create a code that eliminates lack of confidence, hate and animosity. This code is substance and method at the same time. Meta shaped a special code of content for the Justice Reform. He was the only one that emphasized that Justice Reform cannot be sacrificed for particular individuals; however all are equal before the law. With this approach Meta softly imposed a psycho-emotional relaxation during this process. Meanwhile with the projection that such a reform is for thirty years and has no electoral aims Meta has wide opened the views of negotiating parties, to the public opinion and international community.

Trustworthy to the cause

A negotiator is a man with a clear cause. Mr. Meta is a leader that has constantly maintained the original political cause that encouraged him to establish the Socialist Integration Movement (SIM) – the Euro Atlantic and European Integration of Albania. Meta became a symbol of persistent efforts of integration. The philosophy, programs, wishes and needs for Albania’s Integration have found in Mr. Meta the best representative and spokesperson; not only making promises but he is also someone who keeps promises. For a negotiator of a country such as Albania, today an integration philosophy is vital. This has given to Mr. Meta the leverage of a public figure that stands between Tirana, Washington and Brussels.

Initiator of ethics

A negotiator must have a high level of ethics and to initiate it among the negotiating parties, in the media and public opinion. Meta established these principles of ethics during the Judicial Reform process while safeguarding: self control, communication ethics, confidence for success; and refused to support party rhetoric, avoided being a political protagonist, refused media provocations, refrained from making hypothetical analysis and made no comments on the attitude of civil society. In the history of Albanian Democracy in transition justice reform closes the gate of transition. As this period comes to an end, Ilir Meta emerges as Albania’s Chief negotiator.

Die-hard Pokemon Go players have turned all sorts of unique, and at times inappropriate, venues into hunting grounds in their efforts to “catch ‘em all.”

Now, at least one player knows if an Eevee has been eavesdropping on Norway’s military plans.

Cameras caught the leader of Norway’s Liberal Party playing the popular smartphone game during a meeting of the country’s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Wednesday.

The Pokemon Go app can be clearly seen on Trine Skei Grande’s mobile device as cameras focus on her speaking at the hearing. Grande turns her attention back to the game once she finishes her question, keeping her eyes fixed on her phone during the answer.

When questioned by Norway’s VG News, Grande said her gaming habit is justifiable, noting some people “have heads that listen better when doing something braindead.”

By Chayanika Saxena*

Yet another round of quarrel shook the already feeble political structures of Afghanistan as the Chief Executive of the National Unity Government (NUG), Abdullah Abdullah, in a public outpouring, criticized the President of the country for having failed to meet many expectations, including not having given personal audience to him in the last three months.

This outburst against Ashraf Ghani, with whom he shares political power in a two-pronged government that is currently heading Afghanistan, appears to have happened for two equally probable reasons. One, it could have been a result of genuine disappointment at not having been taken seriously in the government that he was ostensibly supposed to lead in an equal measure. Two, it might also have been an attempt to placate those in his constituency who think that he has not done and delivered enough.

Cobbled together under the supervision of the United States, NUG assumed political power in Afghanistan on September 21, 2014, following extremely controversial Presidential elections that saw Ghani and Abdullah trade charges of corruption, nepotism, rigging and the like. The run-offs to the final elections were immensely heated, with local and international observers raising questions about the freeness and fairness of the polls that were conducted between the months of April and July 2014. In fact, the breadth of allegations related to electoral fraud did not even spare the head of the secretariat of the Independent Election Commission (IEC), Zia ul-Haq Amarkhel. It was alleged that Amarkhel was involved in the ‘fattening of the sheep’- a euphemism for what the Abdullah camp believed stood for stuffing of ballot boxes with fake votes in support of his rival, Ghani. While no separate inquiry was set up to look into this scandal then, but the ‘Amarkheli gate’ that this incident came to be known as was resolved only with the intervention of United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the subsequent resignation of the IEC head.

Beset with troubles as it was being conducted, the conclusion of the 2014 Presidential elections did not bring any respite to the political insecurity that was compounding the economic, social and security woes of Afghanistan in 2014. The election results – both provisional and final – were dismissed by the Abdullah camp as fraudulent, eroding whatever little public faith that the official electoral watchdogs in Afghanistan enjoyed.

It was alleged by Abdullah, who had a substantial edge over his Presidential rival, Ghani in the first run-off, that the provisional results which showed the latter in the lead was an outcome of massive electoral rigging; a charge to which even the EU (and other international monitoring agencies) conceded. Yet, just a few hours before the election results were due to be announced, a deal brokered by John Kerry, established a ‘unity’ government with an ‘initial span of 2 years’. Standing for all but unity, this government was essentially an attempt at staving off inter-ethnic conflict in Afghanistan by placating the major constituencies that the two contenders were believed to represent – Ghani and Pashtuns and Abdullah and Tajiks.

Having lost the 2009 round of elections to Karzai and having achieved an incomplete and unsatisfactory victory in the Presidential elections of 2014, Abdullah Abdullah had to be content with what was handed to him in September 2014. This defeatist victory however, had some silver linings to it – or as they may have appeared to him – and which were assurance of equal share and say in power and an expiry date. The deal that was brokered between the self-styled leaders of the two major ethnic communities in Afghanistan was premised on some commitments, chief of which were expected to bring about (i) constitutional changes that would formalize and institutionalize the position of Prime Minister; (ii) electoral reforms, including the disbanding of the then (and existing) IEC, and (iii) equality in allocation of ministerial portfolios, within 2 years from the installation of NUG.

De-jure, while the agreement appeared to have placed the two leaders on par with one another, de-facto, it was the President of Afghanistan who came to have the final say on most of the issues. Working within a Presidential format of government, the President of Afghanistan is constitutionally vested with powers (such as Decrees) that can ensure the implementation of decisions in many matters. It also needs to be noted that the position of the CEO was essentially created as an exception with little constitutional basis and validity to back it. As a result, the ensuing power struggle that took place between them, especially in the (almost) absence of constitutionally provided mechanisms for dispute resolution, meant that the country would stare at deadlocks in variety, and it did.

To begin with, the immediate cabinet, or what is called the ‘Executive’ in formal political parlance took almost two years to be commissioned in entirety. As envisaged under the agreement, the allocation of portfolios was to be an equally divided task and required approvals and vetting from both the heads. While getting the two to agree on the candidates, especially for critical ministerial berths, was in itself a challenge, the National Assembly of Afghanistan was another hurdle to be cleared to instate ministers and their deputies. The resultant delays implied that Afghanistan functioned without a Defense Minister until the last month.

Electoral reforms, which were to pave way for the conduct of Parliamentary and District elections and ultimately, lead to the convening of the Loya Jirga (Grand Council) for working on constitutional change, were another bone of contention between Ghani and Abdullah. It was decided at the time of the installation of NUG that a temporary Special Electoral Reforms Commission (SERC) will be incepted with immediate effect to draft recommendations for changing the electoral landscape of Afghanistan, which in its given avatar, was (and is) susceptible to easy and colossal fraud. Where it took the primary decree to install this commission a good five months to be passed, this commission did not begin working until June 2015. The difference in opinion between the President and CEO over the chairman of this commission kept it out of job since March 2015 when its composition was first approved. This commission worked under the supervision of Abdullah and advanced 11 recommendations of which 7 could pass the President’s muster. The current position of electoral reforms in Afghanistan is however, in limbo since the Wolesi Jirga (Lower House) of the National Assembly has refused to ratify the reforms even as Parliamentary elections in Afghanistan are around the corner.

Another grievance of Abdullah was of the shunting and replacement of his chosen/nominated people and even closing down of offices and administrative berths that were occupied by those who were ostensibly close to him. For instance, as quoted in the New York Times, one of the possible reasons behind the recent public outburst was the belief that the administration under the NUG has been disproportionately (and unfairly) cornered by Pashtuns, particularly the Ghilzai Pashtuns, who form the base of Ghani’s immediate political constituency. The rumored closing down amalgamation of the Afghan Chambers of Commerce and Industries run Qurban Haqju, who is believed to have helped Abdullah in his elections, is one such instance that could have left the CEO upset over his lack of substantive authority and privileges in NUG.

To top this, their ways of dealing with the Taliban insurgency and the foreign policies of Afghanistan have often been at odds. Where Abdullah is not in favor of political mainstreaming of Taliban as much as Ghani is, his opposition to kowtowing Islamabad and Rawalpindi too fell on deaf ears. Abdullah also claimed that “over a period of three months you (President) don’t have time to see your chief executive one-on-one for even an hour or two? What does your highness spend your time on?”

This public expression of disappointment and exasperation over the limited role, authority and privileges that Abdullah has been accorded reflects that the unity within the NUG is but for the sake of name. While some observers suggest that this public display of aggression was done to assuage those who had supported Abdullah, but who now sit dismayed at having earned little from this extension of support, there are some who believe that these are genuine grievances. In all however, as the ‘original deadline’ that was assigned to NUG’s tenure stands just a month away, these quarrels, if not managed, could precipitate into a consuming power struggle. Or, they may as well herald the changes that the NUG and people of Afghanistan have been waiting for two years – reforms, accountability, transparency and betterment.

*Chayanika Saxena is a Research Associate at the Society for Policy Studies, New Delhi and Web Editor of South Asia Monitor. She can be reached at: chayanika.saxena@spsindia.in

By Swadesh Roy*

How the people of Bangladesh will live now is a big question. Will they have to live with terrorism or will they overcome it? Today, a great part of the world is living under the shadow of terrorism. In fact, even the president of France said to his people that they have to learn to live with the terrorism. Similarly, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh said to the people of her country that they have to be alert through the entire month of August to avert the possibility of any terror attack striking the nation.

The Prime Minister of Bangladesh was in a conversation with her cabinet colleagues that the notorious criminal, Mir kasem Ali who is basically the treasury of Jammat –E- Islam continues to receive money from within the country and abroad to ‘fund’ the activities that his party is known for – spreading radicalism and fear in the nation.

How huge his nexus is unimaginable, but what has come to light is a worrying revelation: that 15 million Bangladeshi Takas used in the execution of the Gulshan Café attack was in fact, Mir Kasem Ali’s money.

The problem facing Bangladesh today is worrying: not only is it being victimized by attacks that are ostensibly orchestrated from abroad, but that its own people, especially educated, elite youth, are increasingly coming under the sway of extremist, radical ideologies. However, one of the government intelligences sources was quoted saying, “one of our main problems is that a number of terrorists are getting shelter in West Bengal, the province of India.”

Bangladesh and India share a border that is 4096 km long. Of this international border, West Bengal shares 2,217 km long border with Bangladesh. While India is ensuring surveillance around the border very strictly, but the character of the border facilitates easy sneaking both in and out. It has been reported that “the central government of India is very much tough against the terrorist but West Bengal provincial government is doing vote politics, they want Muslim vote, so they are overlooking it”. Besides West Bengal, Bangladesh shares a 443 km border with Meghalaya and 180 km with Mizoram.

The Indian government and Bangladesh government are working closely to take on the Islamic terrorists. Bangladesh has also observed that the Assam government is now very tough against the Islamic terrorists. According to one of the local newspapers published there, they have already arrested 69 Jammat-ul- Mujahidin of Bangladesh (JMB) in the last few days. What will be even more beneficial would be the hand-over of these criminals to Bangladesh.

Sheikh Hasina has told her people that they have to live with a great measure of alertness to the developments around them. The newly constituted counter-terrorism department of Bangladesh and all the elite and normal police forces are doing their best. Now, it is the responsibility of the people of Bangladesh to ensure that they lead the initiatives against radicalisation and extremism that some segments from within the Bangladeshi community are trying to spread. For after all, only social movements can overcome the social diseases that affect the nation of Bangladesh. The Muslims of Bangladesh have never been too conservative; they have always liberal and history tells us that they are more beholden to Bengali culture, which is intellectually rich and liberal to say the least.

*Swadesh Roy is the Executive Editor, The Daily Janakantha, Dhaka, Bangladesh. He can be reached at: swadeshroy@gmail.com

By Lt Gen P.C. Katoch*

When Indian Home Minister Rajnath Singh speaking at the recent SAARC Home and Interior Ministers Conference in Islamabad stated, “if we are to rid ourselves of terrorism, we will have to genuinely believe that attempts to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ terrorists are misleading”, he was echoing what Afghan President Ashraf Ghani had said in the past months. In fact, at home and during the NATO Summit in Warsaw in July 2016, Ghani pointedly accused Pakistan of making and maintaining this questionable distinction and for taking no actions against terrorists sheltered in the Pakistani territory.

That India sent its Home Minister to the SAARC Home and Interior Ministers Conference despite Pakistan stepping up violence in the Kashmir Valley is creditable, since Bangladesh was represented by a junior minister because of deterioration of Bangladesh-Pakistan relations particularly after the recent terror attack in Dhaka. The happenings at the conference were somewhat predictable with Pakistan adopting an anti-India resolution post the killing of Burhan Wani, declaring him a martyr, observing July 20 as a ‘Black Day’, Nawaz Sharif harping on Kashmir being the core issue; anti-India demonstrations at Wagah border, Nawaz Sharif announcing he will send medical aid to Kashmiris, anti-Rajnath demonstrations organized during his arrival in Islamabad and the like.

That the behavior of Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Pakistan’s interior minister, would be reckless too was expected since Pakistan appears to have outsourced its foreign policy spokesperson tasks to terrorists like Hafiz Saeed (LeT), Azhar Masood (JeM) and Salahuddin (HuM), latter even threatening a nuclear war as if Nawaz Sharif has transferred the nuclear button to him or he is carrying a uranium rod tucked up somewhere. Aside from the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ terrorist bit, Rajnath Singh had said: terrorists should not be eulogized as martyrs; strongest possible steps should be taken against countries supporting terrorism; South Asia is deeply affected by terror as witnessed recently through terrorist attacks in Pathankot, Dhaka, Kabul; mere condemnation of terrorist attacks is not enough; implementation of the SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism and its Additional Protocol crucial in fighting terrorism, and; ratification of the SAARC Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, amongst other things.

Following the SAARC Home Minister and Interior Minister’s Conference was a three-day conference of Pakistani envoys in Islamabad, where on the concluding day Nawaz Sharif told the diplomatic corps about the “desire of freedom is running in the blood of Kashmiris”. What he failed to qualify is the that his reference to Kashmir was limited to the Srinagar Valley which constitutes just 7% of territory of J&K and has less than 15% of the population. Kashmir, which Pakistani politicians, armed forces and the terrorists keep harping on alike, includes parts that have been illegitimately occupied by Pakistan (PoK) where the recent elections were horribly rigged and protesters were seen burning Pakistani flags openly. Interestingly, last year’s envoys’ conference in Islamabad focused on connectivity, regional issues and development, whereas the focus of this conference this time was on ‘violence’ in Kashmir which Pakistan itself is complicit in stoking.

It is well understood that Nawaz Sharif is under great pressure after being mired in charges of corruption, including the Panama Leaks. The desire to save his premiership, especially in the face of posters that had appeared in major Pakistani cities urging the army chief to take over, appears to have taken hold of him so much so that he is not desisting from making repeated, needless shots at India.

At the SAARC Home Minister and Interior Minister’s Conference, Nisar Ali Khan harped on the use of excessive force to suppress protests in Kashmir. He further stated that the issues between countries are not resolved through finger pointing or indulging in blame games, and countries need to sit down for dialogue to bring about real change and that no country should suppress freedom struggles while camouflaging them under the guise of terrorism. He pointedly said that the Kashmiri freedom struggle is sanctified by United Nations resolutions. Since he was speaking after HM Rajnath Singh, Nisar did not expect to be countered. But then with reference to use of excessive force, the attending delegates are fully aware Pakistan has been consistently using aerial and artillery bombardment in Balochistan and FATA against its own population, in addition to the genocide in Gilgit-Baltistan and Balochistan.

The Shia population in Gilgit-Baltistan has been reduced from 70% to 50% through institutionalized killings and forced demographic changes. Nisar’s call for countries to sit down and resolve issues through dialogue is laughable considering the innumerable times both India and Afghanistan have tried to do so, only to be stabbed in the back by Pakistan. Nisar’s reference of UN to Kashmir was also laughable because the UN resolution asked Pakistan to withdraw from POK before any plebiscite was to be held, and instead Pakistan beefed up her forces and changed the demography of POK. More importantly, the 1972 Indo-Pak Simla Agreement categorically stated that the all issues will only be discussed bilaterally, so the question of UN or international mediation does not arise.

The final words of former Afghan President, Hamid Karzai before demitting office were, “no peace will arrive unless the US or Pakistan want it”. He may have been referring to Afghanistan but what he said is relevant to South Asia. Pakistan continues to follow its state policy of terror and the US administration keeps on looking the other way. But a third factor has entered the scene – China. George Friedman (Stratfor) wrote about the emerging US doctrine in October 2012, summarizing it as: US does not take primary responsibility for events, but which allows regional crises to play out until a new regional balance is reached; move from military domination to more subtle manipulation – allow events to take their course, and; doesn’t mean US will disengage from world affairs – while disengagement is impossible, controlled engagement, based on a realistic understanding of the national interest, is possible.

China has been studying and adopting the ways of the West right from the Gulf War days, switching to hi-tech war and the like. Not that China has not been adept at firing the gun from someone else’s shoulder – notice Deng Xiaoping’s policy of nuclearizing Pakistan and North Korea so they should fire nukes at US and allies not traced back to China. But what China is doing now is to allow Pakistan to shape the region in sync with China’s national interests: destabilize Afghanistan to throw the US-NATO out while its own economic interests remain safe; destabilize India and confine it to South Asia, keeping its economy in check; while seeking opportunities to grab more territory in conjunction with Pakistan.

With PLA deployed in POK-Pakistan, Gwadar coming up as PLAN’s SSBN base and China-Pakistan nuclear nexus extending into the Indian Ocean, Pakistan is sitting cozy in China’s lap, emboldening it to behave in a much more roguish manner than previously.

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

The US Labor Department reported that the economy created 151,000 new jobs in August — slightly less than generally expected. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.9 percent and the employment-to-population ratio (EPOP) was also unchanged.

The big job gainers in August were restaurants, which added 34,000 jobs; government, which added 25,000 (almost all at the local level); and social assistance, which added 21,700 jobs. Mining continued to lose jobs, with a drop of 4,300 in August, while manufacturing lost 14,000. The drop in manufacturing was largely attributable to the loss of 5,600 jobs in auto manufacturing, reversing a gain of roughly the same size for July.

The gains in the government sector were largely driven by a reported 11,700 increase in employment in local education. This is likely a seasonal effect. Local government education has increased employment by 59,000 jobs over the last three months, after showing no gain over the year from May 2015 to May 2016. This could mean a large fall reported for September. (There was a reported drop of 30,700 in local government education jobs last September.) The jump in social assistance jobs is also out of line with its 9,400 rate of growth over the last year.

On the other side, the 14,400 new jobs reported in health care are well below the monthly pace of 36,900 over the last year. The 15,100 jobs reported in retail are also below the 24,500 average for the last year.

While the overall pace of job growth is still reasonably healthy even with the slowdown, a disconcerting item is a decline in the duration of the average workweek. This stood 34.3 hours in August, down from 34.4 hours in July and 34.6 hours in August of 2015. The drop was large enough to lead to a decline of 0.2 percent in the index of aggregate weekly hours, in spite of the growth in employment.

This downward trend could indicate slower hiring in the future. It also seems to contradict the common assertion in the business press that employers are having difficulty finding qualified workers. If this were true, they would be pushing the workers they have to work longer hours.

Wage growth also shows no evidence of accelerating. The average hourly wage increased by 2.4 percent over the last year. Over the last three months, compared with the prior three months, the average hourly wage increased at a 2.5 percent annual rate.

On the household side, the news was mostly positive. There was an increase in the percentage of unemployment due to voluntary quits to 11.3 percent. Although this is the highest level for the recovery, it’s a full percentage point below the pre-recession peak and almost 4.0 percentage points below the peak reached in 2000.

All the duration measures of unemployment fell in the month. With the mean duration of unemployment spells dropping by 0.5 weeks to 27.6 weeks and the median duration falling by 0.4 weeks to 11.2 weeks. And there was a rise in the percentage of black teens with jobs to 23.3 percent, an increase of 2.7 percentage points from the July figure and a new high for the recovery.

There was an increase of 113,000 in the number of people involuntarily working part-time, although this figure is still down by 428,000 from the year ago level. The number choosing to work part-time dropped in August, but is still up by 751,000 from last year’s level.

While the overall EPOP was unchanged in August, the EPOP for prime age workers (ages 25–54) edged down by 0.2 percentage points to 77.8 percent. This puts it 2.5 percentage points below its pre-recession peak and more than four full percentage points below the 2000 peak.

On the whole the August report suggests a moderately healthy labor market, but one that is not reaching any constraints. With the EPOP still well below pre-recession levels, there are still many potential workers who would like jobs. Similarly, the recent drop in hours suggests that firms are not straining to find workers as does the data showing wage growth is maintaining a moderate pace.

The unstable situation in the Middle East, numerous conflicts, threat of terrorism and migration crisis has forced European politicians to come back to the issue of the potential creation of joint EU force, aimed at the effective protection of the EU external borders.

“We need a common European foreign policy, security policy and common European defence policy with the aim to create a European army, to be able to fulfill our role in the world,” said the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker on the forum Alpbach in Austria.

The discussion of the EU joint armed forces creation to defend European interests began in spring 2015. But then the idea had not received further development, as it was strongly opposed by the United Kingdom.

Meanwhile Brexit has renewed the debate on the need to strengthen foreign policy cooperation between European countries, and the idea of a unified army creation has been already supported by many politicians from different EU countries.

“We need to create a common European army to protect the EU external borders. […] I am convinced that in the long term we won’t be able to do without a common European army,” Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka stated at a meeting of Czech diplomats in Prague.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has also reignited calls for closer cooperation in the defense sphere.

“We should list the issue of security as a priority, and we should start setting up a common European army,” he said at a briefing before the meeting between Visegrad leaders and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Moreover, Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borissov has also supported the idea of creating a European army. Such common structures would save money and let us act more rationally, he said.

However, according to the experts, the issue is complicated, and it will be extremely difficult to bring the idea to life in the near future.

According to Evgeniya Voyko, Research Fellow at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, today all the external problems of the EU are solved at the level of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance.

“The idea of creating a unified army is not new, but as we see, it is still unrealized, despite the great security challenges the European Union faces. At this stage, all the needs of the EU are covered by NATO activities. The only purpose that lies behind this idea is perhaps an attempt to weaken the connection of European armies with the army of the United States, which are closely integrated in the framework of NATO,” the expert told PenzaNews.

In her opinion, this idea seems not to be realized in the medium term, since it requires the consensus of all EU Member States on this issue, as well as their willingness to finance the project.

“It is doubtful whether there is this potential in Europe today, as the creation of a common army will require all European countries’ consolidation, which the EU lacks even in other issues, not to mention the question of the unified armed forces. Moreover, it will take quite serious financial costs and this burden will fall on the central EU authorities, as well as key European countries – Germany and France, which are not yet open supporters of the creation of joint security forces,” Evgeniya Voyko explained.

Meanwhile, in her opinion, the potential creation of the EU army would ensure more effective protection of European interests.

“Creation of such an army would mean the division between the European Union and the United States which seems quite unlikely taken into account the current political elite in Europe. At the same time it will allow the EU to solve its security problems more quickly, distancing itself from the ‘eastern vector’ proposed by NATO. One of the key threats according to the North Atlantic Alliance today is a mythical threat from Russia; however recent attacks in Europe have shown that they not always throw their efforts on what is needed,” the analyst said.

According to Rohan Gunaratna, Professor at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, Head of the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, global security requires coordinated work of not only European armed forces, but also armed forces of other countries.

“The US security forces are ten years more advance than EU forces. EU forces are 10–20 years ahead of the security forces in the developing world. To stabilize the world, advanced nations should work together and with their partners to promote peace, security and harmony,” the expert said.

Moreover, in his opinion, the main obstacle in solving security problems today is the differences between the United States and Russia on a number of key issues.

“The geopolitics between the west and east should end. The US should take the lead and work with the Russians and the Chinese, superpowers. The disputes between Russia and the West is an obstacle to creating world peace,” Rohan Gunaratna stressed.

In turn, Anthony Glees, Professor of Politics at the University of Buckingham and Director of its Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies (BUCSIS), said that EU needs are not the same as NATO’s and defending the EU will in the future be the task of EU members.

“EU Commission President is not wrong to start thinking seriously about how Brexit impacts on the EU’s status on the one hand, and whether a NATO led by a USA itself under new leadership, will continue to be the ‘sword and shield’ Europe needs. Everyone in Europe knows that NATO is an instrument of defence and in that sense an expression of power. It defends Europe but it does not give Europe and in particular the EU any operational power. […] In particular the EU needs to defend its Mediterranean borders against a massive influx of people from Arab North Africa, from Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan and Afghanistan,” the analyst explained.

Meanwhile, from his point of view, the EU army would have considerable resources, of fighting personnel but also of intelligence capacity.

“Four of the five largest intelligence communities would feed into it. An EU army could also rely on the EU’s satellite center SatCen, Galileo. With the political will to achieve it, the EU could indeed develop an armed forces to deliver defence and security and an intelligence-led response to terrorism,” Anthony Glees said.

These would be stronger with UK participation and this may well happen: allowing the UK to cut back on EU migration in return for access to the single market could be the price that is paid in return for continued UK Security and intelligence cooperation, he added.

“The EU is now at a cross-road. It can rise to the challenge of Brexit, become even stronger and achieve power, of which an EU defence force could be a major game changer, in Europe and perhaps in the Middle East. Or it can continue to be reactive rather than proactive. […] What Europe needs now is not just good proactive management but strong effective leadership. […] I think and hope it will come. Because without that leadership, the EU would have no power however assured its success in economic terms will be. My own feeling is that a strong EU with its own defence force would in fact reverse the Brexit effect, indeed so much so that, in 25 years’ time, the UK would once again be knocking on Europe’s door, asking to come in,” the expert said.

In turn, Oleg Shakirov from PIR Center think tank, Russia, said another call for the creation of the EU’s unified army is an “ordinary event.”

“This is a good old tradition of European officials. Jean-Claude Juncker’s view is shared by politicians from different EU countries, including heavyweights. However, it should be borne in mind that the ‘European army’ is a stamp, and the supporters of this idea want to get rid of it. It is all about closer cooperation between the EU member states in the field of security and defense in European format, within the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), but not in the Euro-Atlantic format, that is, without the United States. This is the main challenge. The vast majority of EU member states are NATO members, along with the US, and their joint defense is carried out within the alliance. CSDP should take into account the NATO commitments of the EU member states, and it turns out that it is formed by a residual principle,” the analyst explained.

According to him, in practice, a series of military operations outside the EU are carried out in the framework of CSDP, and EU battle groups are formed as part of it.

“These EU battle groups are often referred to as the prototype of a European army. This is the division of up to 1.5 thousand soldiers from one or several member states of the European Union, and sometimes third countries. Currently, there are nearly two dozen of such units, two of them are on duty for six months and should be ready for rapid deployment. However, these battle groups are more famous for the fact that they had never been used, although such possibility was discussed. Some observers believe that the situation may change after the United Kingdom leaves the union, as the country was the main opponent of using the battle groups, but it is oversimplification,” Oleg Shakirov said.

In his view, the EU strategic security will seek greater autonomy, but there are no preconditions for a real change in the situation surrounding the European army.

“As before, the joint defense in Europe will be carried out under the auspices of NATO and the European cooperation will actually fitted into this effort, but will not set the tone,” the expert added.

In turn, Fernand Kartheiser, Luxembourg Parliament member for the Alternative Democratic Reform Party (ADR), said he does not agree with the idea of creating an EU army.

“Especially for a small country such as mine, this could mean to be drawn into military conflicts for the egoistic interests of larger member states. The EU is not a state and has as such no mission in the world. Jean-Claude Juncker’s statements are neither realistic nor worthwhile considering. Creating an EU Army could in fact lead to even greater tensions within the EU,” the politician explained.

However, he welcomed the opportunity to strengthen cooperation between European states in the field of defence.

“I support an intensive cooperation between the armies of the EU member states as a confidence-building measure and a way to prepare for joint military operations on a low level, such as peace-keeping operations. I do also support common acquisition programmes and common training facilities for cost-saving reasons,” Fernand Kartheiser said.

According to him, the EU leaders did not foresee Brexit and have no real strategic thinking on Europe for the time being.

“The idea of the EU army is a federalistic project that, in a similar way as the common currency, would help forcing the path to political integration. But in no member state there is a clear political will for such integration,” Luxembourg Parliament member stressed.

The EU Army – if it existed – could of course lead some operations and be helpful, including in the fight against terrorism, he said.

“However there is no such army. Realistically, I expect only an increase in the number of multinational units. Their use in an area of conflict can however create many diplomatic and political tensions,” Fernand Kartheiser added.

However, from his point of view, Brexit will weaken the opposition in the EU against duplication of structures with NATO.

“Hence, we might see the creation of embryonic EU command structures but this is only political gesticulation. The military issues are far too sensitive to be effectively delegated to multinational structures,” the politician concluded.
Source: http://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/62602-2016

Since India has officially requested for NSG’s membership, it has become one of the burning issues in the South Asian region for countries like China, Pakistan and many others. It has also posed a serious challenge for the NSG members who are trying to increase the membership of the NSG since 1970s.

It is important to keep in mind the main purpose of the creation of this particular nuclear cartel also known as the ‘London Club’. It was established as a voluntary cartel in response to India’s so called Peaceful Nuclear Explosion in 1975. Its main focus was to impede its members from assisting India in producing nuclear weapons. It is quiet surprising today, that India’s application is being considered and deliberations are yet to take place whether to include her in the cartel or not.

Instead of supporting a complete and an effective implementation of the Non-proliferation treaty (NPT) has been using its 2008 waiver given by NSG for justifying its application.

Although the NSG’s guidelines are not binding upon the members but they should adhere to it if they are part of the NSG. Also in the process of incorporating new members in the nuclear cartel, NSG should be careful in accepting only those states which comply with the non-proliferation principle, on the basis of which NSG stands.

This would help the group strengthen its image internationally vis a vis other regimes created for peaceful use of nuclear weapons. Any country that wants to become a member of this prestigious group will have to make sure it does not put its hands in such activities that lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons for military purpose that might have a destructive outcome. It should be a member of the NPT and should also place their nuclear power reactors plus overall nuclear activities including exports under the safeguards of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

It is clear that India has a doubtful track record of its nuclear safety shown from 1974 and 1988 nuclear tests and mocking the whole non-proliferation regime until recently. India never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) because she felt it was discriminatory It vetoed the CTBT in 1996, such examples show that India has never been interested in contributing to the non-proliferation of regime. India wants to expand its nuclear industry. It wants to rise as a nuclear power in the region. There was no question of India to get accepted by the NSG as it has been under sanctions due to the violations India made with its donors.

It was the US-nuclear deal that paved a way for India to get an exceptional treatment by convincing the NSG members to grant India a waiver in 2008. India actually enjoyed the benefits of NSG membership without having being allowed to enter in the NSG. It got an opportunity to develop its nuclear programme and it was observed that India also increased its fissile stockpile. Also it intended to have an access to nuclear material that could be used for military purposes.

Once again the US is persuading NSG members to grant India membership. If India is granted NSG membership it will undermine the NPT because India has not sign it and it will further challenge the basic idea of the NSG. With expanding its membership the NSG also needs to maintain its efficiency. It will lose its relevance if it included India despite the fact that India will not be a sincere member of the group and that is it not ready to comply with the guidelines of the NSG. Therefore, the decision of entering India in the group will make NSG vulnerable and unable to fulfil its main objectives. It might get labelled as a discriminatory group.

Moreover it will give a chance to other nuclear countries to stand against this decision and make claims for their inclusion too. Such as Pakistan, Israel and North Korea who have not signed the NPT also deserves the NSG membership and equal treatment as India. Pakistan has already raised its voice at various international forums against the discrimination and the consequences in the region if India is given NSG membership. China and other countries like Ireland, Turkey and Brazil are supportive to Pakistan to veto the NSG membership to India.

Pakistan has a much stronger position as compared to India in safeguarding its nuclear assets as it has not misused the nuclear supplies given to it for peaceful purposes. China is emphasizing on making the consensus stronger among the members and that decision making based on consensus would be effective in the longer run. China was of the view that “NSG should have discussion on the joining of the non-NPT countries in a way agreed by all parties, so as to make a decision based on agreement. This position is not directed against any country and applies to all non-NPT states.”

Whatsoever the NSG should not grant any extra waiver or membership to any country including India that cannot stick to its guidelines. According to a US senator named Edward Markey, also was of the same opinion that “If India joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group, it would be the only participating government in the organisation that was not a party to NPT, weakening the NSG’s commitment to treaty. By refraining from admitting India, the NSG strengthened both the treaty and the broader global non-proliferation regime”. The NSG should not allow any country to misuse it for its national interest of rising as a hegemonic power in the South Asian region, which India is doing. If it kept on granting country specific exceptions, waivers or membership it would undermine the group’s credibility. A non-discriminatory criteria-based approach of NSG membership will help accommodate both nuclear and non-nuclear countries equally without losing its relevance.

*The writer works for Strategic Vision Institute Islamabad and can be reached at hirakhan4425@gmail.com

By Matthew Tempest

(EurActiv) — The space rocket which exploded before take-off yesterday (1 September) was carrying a satellite Facebook intended to use to connect sub-Saharan Africa to the Internet.

Whilst many critics have had doubts about the plan of founder Mark Zuckerberg to provide web access to the developing world, the destruction of the SpaceX rocket and its cargo will set the plan back many months, if not years.

The explosion of the Falcon 9 rocket on the launchpad at NASA’s Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida also saw the destruction of its AMOS-6 satellite, manufactured by an Israeli firm, but leased to Facebook through a French company.

It was intended to provide transmissions for sub-Saharan Africa as part of Zuckerberg’s controversial Internet.org project.

Zuckerberg by coincidence was in Africa when the news broke.

In a statement on his Facebook page, he called the malfunction – in which no one was injured – “a deep disappointment”.

Critics have accused the plan as philanthropic cover for making Facebook an early player in what could be a huge internet market in Africa.

His scheme has already been banned in India for breaching ‘net neutrality’, as Facebook was then the gatekeeper to which sites could be accessed.

Facebook and Eutelsat had leased the entire bandwith capability of the AMOS satellite for five years, intending to connect Africans with basic internet services such as weather and news targeted at older and slower smartphones.

Facebook has favoured satellites, whilst Google is pushing ahead with the concept of high-altitude balloons.

In his statement, Zuckerberg appeared to put the blame on the blast on SpaceX, and indirectly its founder, rival internet entrepreneur Elon Mus.

He wrote,“As I’m here in Africa, I’m deeply disappointed to hear that SpaceX’s launch failure destroyed our satellite that would have provided connectivity to so many entrepreneurs and everyone else across the continent.

“Fortunately, we have developed other technologies like Aquila that will connect people as well.

“We remain committed to our mission of connecting everyone, and we will keep working until everyone has the opportunities this satellite would have provided.”

Aquila is a solar-power drone that will be used to beam the Internet into remote areas. Facebook completed its first successful Aquila flight in June.

Zuckerberg refused to put a timeline on how long the project might now take to get back on its feet.

Asked by a Facebook user if the satellite was insured, he replied, “The problem isn’t the money; it’s that now it may take longer to connect people.

The Facebook internet project, called Internet.org was launched in 2013, with Zuckberg declaring that online connectivity was a “human right.”

The idea was for a limited number of free services, including Facebook, to educate users on how the internet might be useful – such as weather forecasts for farmers, and micro-payments.

A limited number of platforms included Facebook, Wikipedia, Bing search (but not Google), Accuweather and Ask.com

It was later named as the “Free Basics” platform. However, last year India banned the service, stating it breached net neutrality.

At least two surveys have found that in parts of the developing world, users thought ‘Facebook’ and the ‘internet’ were either synonymous, or did not know they were on the internet when they were using the social media platform.

For example, in Nigeria 9% of Facebook users said they “did not use the internet.”

Facebook has around 1.4 billion users worldwide. Most of the next billion users globally who connect to the internet are expected to do so largely through smartphones.

Ahuna Mons is a volcano that rises 13,000 feet high and spreads 11 miles wide at its base. This would be impressive for a volcano on Earth. But Ahuna Mons stands on Ceres, a dwarf planet less than 600 miles wide that orbits the Sun between Mars and Jupiter. Even stranger, Ahuna Mons isn’t built from lava the way terrestrial volcanoes are — it’s built from ice.

“Ahuna is the one true ‘mountain’ on Ceres,” said David Williams, associate research professor in Arizona State University’s School of Earth and Space Exploration. “After studying it closely, we interpret it as a dome raised by cryovolcanism.”

This is a form of low-temperature volcanic activity, where molten ice — water, usually mixed with salts or ammonia — replaces the molten silicate rock erupted by terrestrial volcanoes. Giant mountain Ahuna is a volcanic dome built from repeated eruptions of freezing salty water.

Williams is part of a team of scientists working with NASA’s Dawn mission who have published papers in the journal Science this week. His specialty is volcanism, and that drew him to the puzzle of Ahuna Mons.

“Ahuna is truly unique, being the only mountain of its kind on Ceres,” he said. “It shows nothing to indicate a tectonic formation, so that led us to consider cryovolcanism as a method for its origin.”

Dawn scientist Ottaviano Ruesch, of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, is the lead author on the Science paper about Ceres volcanism. He says, “This is the only known example of a cryovolcano that potentially formed from a salty mud mix, and which formed in the geologically recent past.”

Williams explained that “Ahuna has only a few craters on its surface, which points to an age of just couple hundred million years at most.”

According to the Dawn team, the implications of Ahuna Mons being volcanic in origin are enormous. It confirms that although Ceres’ surface temperature averages almost -40° (Celsius or Fahrenheit; the scales converge at this temperature), its interior has kept warm enough for liquid water or brines to exist for a relatively long period. And this has allowed volcanic activity at the surface in recent geological time.

Ahuna Mons is not the only place where icy volcanism happens on Ceres. Dawn’s instruments have spotted features that point to cryovolcanic activity that resurfaces areas rather than building tall structures. Numerous craters, for example, show floors that appear flatter than impacts by meteorites would leave them, so perhaps they have been flooded from below. In addition, such flat-floored craters often show cracks suggesting that icy “magma” has pushed them upward, then subsided.

A few places on Ceres exhibit a geo-museum of features. “Occator Crater has several bright spots on its floor,” said Williams. “The central spot contains what looks like a cryovolcanic dome, rich in sodium carbonates.” Other bright spots, he says, occur over fractures that suggest venting of water vapor mixed with bright salts.

“As the vapor has boiled away,” he explained, “it leaves the bright 1salts and carbonate minerals behind. ”

Looking inside

Although volcanic-related features appear across the surface of Ceres, for scientists perhaps the most interesting aspect is what these features say about the interior of the dwarf world. Dawn observations suggest that Ceres has an outer shell that’s not purely ice or rock, but rather a mixture of both.

Recently, Williams was involved in research that discovered that large impact craters are missing, presumably erased by internal heat, but smaller craters are preserved. “This shows that Ceres’ crust has a variable composition — it’s weak at large scales but strong at smaller scales,” he said. “It has also evolved geologically.”

In the big picture, said Williams, “Ceres appears differentiated internally, with a core and a complex crust made of 30 to 40 percent water ice mixed with silicate rock and salts.” And perhaps pockets of brine still exist in its interior.

“We need to continue studying the data to better understand the interior structure of Ceres,” said Williams.

Ceres is the second port of call for the Dawn mission, which was launched in 2007 and visited another asteroid, Vesta, from 2011 to 2012. The spacecraft arrived at Ceres in March 2015. It carries a suite of cameras, spectrometers, and gamma-ray and neutron detectors. These were built to image, map, and measure the shape and surface materials of Ceres, and they collect information to help scientists understand the history of these small worlds and what they can tell us of the solar system’s birth.

NASA plans for Dawn to continue orbiting Ceres and collecting data for another year or so. The dwarf planet is slowly moving toward its closest approach to the Sun, called perihelion, which will come in April 2018. Scientists expect that the growing solar warmth will produce some detectable changes in Ceres’ surface or maybe even trigger volcanic activity.

“We hope that by observing Ceres as it approaches perihelion, we might see some active venting. This would be an ideal way to end the mission,” said Williams.

The US has strengthened political, cultural, commercial ties with ASEAN that will last long after Obama leaves office.

By Satu Limaye*

Barack Obama heads to Laos in Southeast Asia for his last meeting as president with leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations as well as its offshoot, the East Asia Summit. Given China’s success in preventing ASEAN members from raising contentious territorial issues, the coming summit promises to lack drama. Yet Obama’s steady improvement in US relations with the group will leave long-lasting effects.

To be sure, the meeting has little of the high symbolism or strategic weightiness of the historic February 2016 US-ASEAN Summit, the first ever in the United States, held at the marvelously named Sunnylands – in Rancho Mirage, California, no less. The poignancy was all the greater because the president’s summit guest was China’s President Jinping Xi. Inevitably, many saw the summit and the selection of Sunnylands as a sign of Washington’s “strategic messaging” in the face of China’s assertive actions and extravagant claims to the South China Sea, claims decisively rejected by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in July.

Despite frustrations, even exasperation, about ASEAN’s snail-paced decision-making, lack of consensus on issues such as the South China Sea disputes and relentless meeting schedule, the United States gains strategic and foreign-policy benefits from engaging ASEAN and stands to lose much if it moves to the sidelines. The Obama team has been wise to pursue improved relationships with all Southeast Asian countries including, controversially, Myanmar, whose State Counselor and Foreign Minister Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, visits Washington later in September. For the first time in roughly a generation the US has full diplomatic relations with every ASEAN capital, and Obama, on arriving in Vientiane, Laos, will become the first sitting president to visit each Southeast Asian capital during his terms in office. And signing ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, assigning an ambassador to the organization, and participating in the various and reportedly tedious regional meetings that address Asia-Pacific issues are solid moves.

But modern Southeast Asia is not just for strategy anymore. And seeing the region primarily through the lens of the South China Sea or competition with China would be simplistic.

ASEAN’s 10 countries have a combined economy of $2.5 trillion – third in Asia after China and Japan. Together, they represent the seventh largest economy in the world, and ASEAN’s per capita income is more than double India’s. For the last decade, this economy has grown at a rate second only to China’s. Sure, there are wide income disparities among and within countries, but ASEAN is not alone. The potential for future growth is good given young populations – in sharp contrast with rapidly aging populations across northeast Asia – and governments which are open to making reforms and participating in the global economic system. Four ASEAN members – Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam – are already signatories to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia have expressed interest in joining down the line. Even if the TPP faces domestic US stumbling blocks in the short-term, Southeast Asian aspirations point to an interest in both regional and global integration including US-supported high-standard agreements such as TPP. This stands in sharp contrast with China’s rejection of adopting high labor or environmental standards.

Even absent a deal this year on TPP, ASEAN has robust commercial ties to the United States. Bilateral trade in goods and services is nearly $100 billion. The grouping ranks among the top few US trade partners in any recent year; 21 US states send at least $1 billion in goods exports to ASEAN each year. Some 560,000 American jobs, or 7 percent of all US jobs from exports, are supported by trade with ASEAN. The stock of US investment in ASEAN is around $200 billion – more than US investment in China, India, South Korea, Hong Kong Taiwan, and New Zealand combined. And ASEAN countries have invested almost $30 billion in the US – a growth of 1,400 percent over the past decade – making products, providing services and creating jobs. An example is Malaysia’s Genting Group, with its new leisure and gambling facility in New York creating an estimated 1,300 jobs. There are scores of other Southeast Asian business across the US. Travel and tourism between the US and ASEAN is growing: More than 3 million Americans travel in the region, and visitors from ASEAN spend $4 billion annually in the United States.

Another underappreciated element of the US-ASEAN connection comes from “ASEAN Americans”: Out of a total of 17 million Asian-Americans, 6 million identify with an ASEAN ethnicity, or about 36 percent. Some of these ASEAN ethnicities are among the fastest growing foreign-born populations. And 18 US states have populations in which over 40 percent of Asian Americans claim an ASEAN country ethnicity. These communities contribute to the next generation of US voters, with ASEAN-Americans accounting for nearly 11 percent of new citizenships through naturalization. American and Southeast Asian communities are becoming connected through sister-city, state and municipal relationships. Elected and other officials from states like Arizona, South Carolina and Wyoming travel to Southeast Asia to drum up business as well as to nurture cultural and educational links.

Strong partnership: ASEAN is the second-fastest growing economy in Asia after China (Source: Asia Matters for America)

Almost 50,000 Southeast Asians studied in the United States during the past school year, a growth rate of 30 percent over the past decade, and contributed $1.4 billion to the US economy. Vietnam, a country with which the US has normalized relations in the past 20 years, is the eighth largest source of foreign students worldwide, and depending on the year, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia are among the top 25. President Obama’s Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative, YSEALI, is a major effort to connect the next generation of Southeast Asian young professionals, artists, entrepreneurs and others with one another and engage with Americans to create a vision of a shared future.

The initiative’s innovative approach takes advantage of Southeast Asia’s “youth bulge” and works with a new generation to move beyond old attitudes and habits for a more dynamic and integrated US-Southeast Asian future. With 500 Southeast Asian students and professionals coming to the US under the program each year, the initiative’s academic fellows form long-term relations through participating in academic, leadership and community service institutes with peers at universities and colleges across America. Meanwhile, YSEALI professional fellows work in US nonprofit organizations and government offices across the country. The benefits of soft-power engagement for both the US and Southeast Asia are incalculable, connecting and building generations of fresh networks.

Finally, as ASEAN countries increasingly integrate with the world and with one another, becoming more active internationally – for example, Indonesia is a member of the Group of 20 leading economies meeting in China just before the East Asia Summit in Laos – the US must work closely with these governments and societies on issues ranging from health epidemics and natural disasters to countering terrorism and climate change.

So the US-ASEAN relationship on the eve of Obama’s final visit as president is promising at the strategic, bilateral and global levels. At the end of the day, the strength of bilateral relationships with each of the 10 Southeast Asian countries is key, but moving beyond a single strategic issue and recognizing the myriad productive ways in which the US and ASEAN connect and act is critical. The fact that such a diverse group living under China’s shadow is eager to maintain close and long-term relations with the United States is a valuable gain that needs nurturing.

*Satu Limaye is director of the East-West Center in Washington and senior advisor for the CNA Corporation. The views expressed here are entirely personal. He also directs the Asia Matters for America initiative.

Let me take this opportunity to make it clear that I am in no way sympathetic towards the unrepresentative Middle Eastern dictators in general and Bashar al-Assad in particular, but in order to assign blame for the wrongdoing in Syria, we need to remind ourselves of the elementary distinction between the constant and variable factors.

Bear in mind that Bashar al-Assad has been ruling Syria since 2000, and before that his father had ruled over Syria for another 30 years. I do concede that Syria was not a democratic state under their rule but it was at least a functioning state. The Syrian crisis that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and made millions of refugees dates back only to 2011, something changed in Syria in that fateful year and it was obviously not Assad since he has been ruling since 2000, and up to 2011 at least people were not dying or migrating en masse out of Syria.

Therefore, though I admit that Assad is responsible for dictatorship, heavy handed tactics and forceful suppression of dissent in Syria, but he is not responsible for all the killings and violence, except may be in self-defense; for all the casualties and population displacements, the “change or the variable” that was added to the Syrian equation in 2011 has primarily been responsible.

Now if that variable is the Islamic jihadists then why did the Western powers nurtured them, when the latter are ostensibly fighting a war against terrorism (Islamic jihadism) at the same time? And if that variable is the supposed “moderate rebels” then what difference does it makes whether their objectives are enforcing Shari’a or “bringing democracy” to Syria?

The goals of the “Syrian Opposition,” whatever its composition may be, are irrelevant in the context of preventing a humanitarian disaster that has reduced a whole a country of 22 million people to rubble; in other words, the first priority of the so-called “humanitarian interventionists” in Syria should have been to prevent all the killings, violence and mass migrations irrespective of the objectives for which the Syrian militants have been fighting.

It can be very easy to mislead the people merely by changing the labels while the content remains the same – call the Syrian opposition secular and nationalist “rebels, militants or insurgents” and they would become legitimate in the eyes of the audience of the Western mainstream media, and call the same armed militants “jihadists, or terrorists” and they would become illegitimate.

How do people expect from the armed thugs, whether they are Islamic jihadists or secular and nationalist rebels, to bring about democratic reform in Syria or Libya? And I squarely hold the powers that funded, trained, armed and internationally legitimized the Syrian militants as primarily responsible for the Syrian crisis.

For the whole of last five years of the Syrian civil war the focal point of the Western policy has been that “Assad must go!” But what difference would it make now to the lives of the Syrians even if the regime is replaced when the whole country now lies in ruins?

Qaddafi and his regime were ousted from power in September 2011; five years later Tripoli is ruled by the Misrata militia, Benghazi is under the control of Khalifa Haftar who is supported by Egypt and UAE, and Sirte has become a new battleground between the Islamic State-affiliate in Libya and the so-called “Government of National Accord.”

It will now take decades, not years, to restore even a semblance of stability in Libya and Syria; remember that the proxy war in Afghanistan was originally fought in the ‘80s and even 35 years later Afghanistan is still in the midst of perpetual anarchy, lawlessness and an unrelenting Taliban insurgency.

Notwithstanding, in political science the devil always lies in the definitions of the terms that we employ. For instance: how do you define a terrorist or a militant? In order to understand this we need to identify the core of a “militant,” that what essential feature distinguishes him from the rest?

A militant is basically an armed and violent individual who carries out subversive activities against the state. That being understood, now we need to examine the concept of “violence.” Is it violence per se that is wrong, or does some kind of justifiable violence exists?

I take the view, on empirical grounds, that all kinds of violence is essentially wrong; because the ends (goals) for which such violence is often employed are seldom right and elusive at best. Though, democracy and liberal ideals are cherished goals but such goals can only be accomplished through peaceful means; expecting from the armed and violent militants to bring about democratic reform is preposterous.

The Western mainstream media and its neoliberal constituents, however, take a different view. According to them, there are two kinds of violence: justifiable and unjustifiable. When a militant resorts to violence for the secular and nationalist goals, such as “bringing democracy” to Libya and Syria, the misguided neoliberals enthusiastically exhort such form of violence; however, if such militants later turn out to be Islamic jihadists, like the Misrata militia in Libya or the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front in Syria, the credulous neoliberals, who were duped by the mainstream narrative, promptly make a volte-face and label them as “terrorists.”

Truth be told, democracy as a ground for intervention was invented by the Machiavellian spin-doctors of the Western powers during the Cold War. Here we must keep the backdrop in mind, the whole world was divided into two camps vying for supremacy and global domination: the communist and the capitalist bloc.

The communist bloc had a clear moral advantage over the latter; using its rhetoric of social justice, revolution of the proletariat and communal ownership of the modes of production, it could stir up insurgency against the status quo anywhere in the world, and especially in the impoverished Third World.

The capitalists with their “trickle down” economics had no answer to the moral superiority of the communist bloc. That’s when the Western propagandists came up with democracy and human rights as grounds for intervention and to offset the moral advantage of their archrivals vying for global supremacy.

Since then, and even after the dissolution of Soviet Union, it has become a customary tactic in the Western playbook to bomb a country, reduce it to rubble and then hold sham elections in the absence of political culture and representative institutions, like political parties, in order to legitimize the intervention and include the occupied territory in the neocolonial sphere of influence.

Whether it’s Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, the same exercise has been followed ad nauseam to create a charade of justice and fair play. To answer the central theme of this write-up in a nutshell, “intervention” is a euphemism for war; and any kind of functioning government is much better than the death and destruction brought about by wars.

Fact of the matter is that the neocolonial powers only pay lip service to the cause of morality, justice and humanity in the international relations and their foreign policies are solely driven by the motive to protect their national interest without any regard for the human suffering in the remote regions of the world.

More often than not, it isn’t even about protecting their national interests, bear in mind that the Western powers are not true democracies; they are plutocratic-oligarchies catering to the needs of their business interests that wield a disproportionate influence in the governmental decision-making and the formulation of public policy. Thus, the real core of the oft-quoted “Western national interests” has mainly been comprised of the Western corporate interests.

Dear Mr. President,

The wave of political enthusiasm which generates hope for a nation sans, bribery & corruption, mismanagement of the state resources, and the cunning culture of bureaucracy, in general the culture of cheating the ordinary citizen, is sadly being shattering and flattening, though you are still managing to keep the high tone in the course correction. It is you who have power and the political authority to make this country a better place for all, who loves peace and dignity of the life also respect each group’s rights equally.

I do not need to explain to you – which part of this country went off out of the rule of law while distorting the very governing structure of the state. Everything was distorted and deteriorated. The history of this nation is lying on this basic tragic reality, and it required a non-violent revolution to re-engineer.

We are now on the same page, as seen by the factual situation in this nation, and we cannot claim that what has happened in this country in January 2015 was the revolution, but we could claim it was a triggering point for future revolution. It is indeed the most important and historical spontaneous reaction against the predecessor rather than a collective effort to put you on the top. The nation is now on the edge.

Nonetheless, the country and her people must be proud of the way you solved the deadly challenge you have faced, and your tremendous effort to drive the country in a civilised direction. As the popular saying goes, the direction you walk is not an issue when you are in hell, and the important thing is just keep on walking.

It was the status the country was in, and the social fear which was pretty much of ruling weapon and self-censorship was the way to survival. Such challenging time just after the brutal civil war has assassinated the last milestone of civil liberty in the nation. It has created political slavery.

We do not need to repeat, the so-called “victory” against the rebels who went mad in the late part of their liberation struggle, and as we all know what went wrong and how good it has been for this society. Let’s leave that sad, bad and mad history aside for the time being, as you correctly identified it as the symptoms of the epidemic of social disorder.

You as one of our highly sensitive and experienced politicians ever produced by this country are proving the maturity, discipline, and tolerance in most fallible and flammable issues. You were not in a hurry, but those who are surrounding you, are in a hurry to get what they desire by hook or by crook. The goal you are dreaming and the dream they seem to be having seem contradictory to each other. I am afraid that paradox is turning your dream into a daydream, and sabotaging the nation which is passing through its most crucial time in history. At last, it looks as if you will have to have leave the office as yet another failed leader.

The main objective of writing this brief note is towards sharing our grasp of the present situation and expressing our anxieties about the uncertain political future that you as the leader and we as the part of this nation are going to face. We do not see the precautions or the real mechanism in action but few attractive projects are walking here and there. Your noble action to eradicate the practice of corruption is something which we have never had in the past; also your projection on true reconciliation is notable.

Public Education & Reconciliation

Reconciliation without truth is nothing but a smokescreen. It is time to release all the “political prisoners”, as the country’s security forces and other related agencies have already expressed their confidence in the national security and territorial integrity. Then there is no reason unless otherwise held due to pseudo-political affiliation, to prevent such release of those fellow human beings into open society and letting them also breathe fresh air with new hope of noble livelihood.

The main element of true reconciliation is the public education system. Statistics on how much attention you and your cabinet have paid those innocent kids of inmates in each prison are not in the public domain. Those kids would be seen as important gems in a nation, if you start using your power to delight their future, rather than, caging their parents as alleged criminals. It could be a long term process to eradicate the crimes and the criminal mindset in society. The same could apply to all sorts of prisoners, whose kids have been victimised.

It is time to develop series of discussions in the public education system that lead all our kids to understand the importance of reconciliation, unity, freedom, happiness; in other words how to be themselves, rather than celebrating the “victory”, or mourning the “failure”, of the bloodshed of our own people.

We realise more and more that the examination orientated education system is producing “mechanical student mindset” which is losing the human spirit while reducing the degree of humanity. We are producing our kids to leave the country and set up their lives in the “developed” societies about which we must rethink. If we are letting our brains go away, who will have the opportunity to contribute substantively to this country?

Healing deep wounds can be successful when it addresses the rooted anxiety in each mind. A society is driven by “social fear” always produces the seeds of doubt and unhappiness. This is what we have deserved since the 1970s to date, therefore it must be changed sooner than later. The whole purpose of the national government based on the Good Governance principle is centralised on sincerity to the people’s mandate.

However, creating such public education discourse is indeed one of the most expensive and difficult tasks. It requires not only paid teachers but also unpaid committed volunteers. But, we have no alternative to avoid this noble mission, if we need to erase the vicious elements of the culture in the country. Education is the key to all social changes and movements. Education is the key to generating authentic public discourse on any issue.

Curbing Corruption

Your attempt in eradicating the practice of corruption has been widely appreciated. It has not only met the expectations in global political arena but is also helping common Sri Lankans realise their dreams in this regard. In terms of propaganda it has won the international media and certain other groups but it is doubtful as to how much it would return as a substantive contribution to the people in general.

Nonetheless, how far you can walk through and how sincere the officers-in-charge in this mechanism are, are being pictured differently by the general public. The anti-corruption operation is getting more space in the media rather than it occupying the spaces in the courtrooms. This shows the reality of the prevailing system, in which impunity enjoyed by white collar criminals who plundered the state resources are standing out.

Without taking bold steps through litigations in courtrooms, and letting people understand, success in Good Governance seems doubtful. Unfortunately, creating such media orientated drama could keep the emotions of public in a higher degree, which could benefit in achieving temporary political advantages. This will expand the “Bystander Effort” (Genovese Syndrome) within society while making irrelevant those who can contribute towards a better society. Your noble mission will melt in the corrupted hands when you accidently or those around you due to their scheming take out the cream of creators and change makers.

As in an experiment by John Watson of Harvard University in 1974, findings reveals us, there are three absolute positions one could take in any circumstances; first, you will become a perpetrator of evil, second, you will become guilty of passive inaction, third, you will become a hero. I think, the anti- corruption mission is hanging on these stages, and as the leader with absolute power, it is your time to decide either become a perpetrator of evil, guilty of passive inaction or hero before the justice of humanity.

My mind goes back to the memories recalls by the former President Mrs Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga during her infamous confession of three mistakes during her governing tenure. It shows the truth is out there. You are lucky here to have an authentic friend to avoid the past mistakes of the predecessors.

That is obvious there is no exact formula to eradicate corruption, as it has its own hierarchy and complicated web. But, not a single country can achieve the basic of secure society without eliminating of this inhuman practice. The viciousness of the practice you know better than any politicians as once you were served as the Ministry of Health, one of the most important areas of the public which has systematically dismantled for the sake of a few pharmaceutical companies of individuals. Life of the 22 millions of innocent have less value than those companies, and the government or the minister in charge is deliberately ignoring the actions the people wanted.

Eradicate the practice of corruption requires authentic collective actions. What one could see is that the majority of ordinary citizens and the leader are eager to establish a society without corruption. The leader can talk from one side while the ordinary citizen can talk from another side. But the real challenge is who will manage in creating the strong link between them. The most important fact the action taken by the socio-political multitudes such as ministers, bureaucracy, local bodies; to implement the leader’s message and public desire. This has been absence or distorted throughout the discourse.

Like achieving the real reconciliation, establishing the anti-corruption mechanism also has well place in the public education system. Developing the mechanism which can be created anti-corruption culture, while prosecuting those who corrupted the state resources, and taking popular media attention is important to long-term task to develop. This should be avoided the petty party politics. Your responsibility is to develop a situation for our future generation to learn from the past and avoid the horrendous mistakes our past generations were encountered.

Diplomacy and the future Relationships

Another most important area of the country’s future hanging is the strength of the Sri Lankan diplomacy. The most important question here is that what else we could see rather than receive a few press releases on organised events and political stigma in the name of “Sri Lankan Diplomacy”.

Two open letters by the Minister in charge of the subject addressed the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa have attempted to educate the someone who has already put a different agenda in place by ignoring what the country needs at the moment. That is somehow laughable attempts, though it has well attraction by the media in the country as well as the outside. However, the fact is that there is no point of putting effort awake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

However, most of the internal sources indicate that the administrative system is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is nothing but an absolute muck which is second to the situation in the Ministry of Defense which was the ruling compose of the previous government.

What we could learn from the infamous “WikiLeaks Revelation” is that how the one country has organised their diplomacy and the responsibilities those officers who are in charge. They are bound to inform the country they represent and improve the condition of the country’s reputation. We as the nation which is the long way ahead to “develop” urgently requires the true mechanism to monitor our every diplomatic mission.

One good suggestion would be appointed the “voluntarily task force of the reputed retired government and non-governmental officials” who can monitor, evaluate and suggest the recommendations for the improvement of the each mission abroad including the ministry of the subject. Unfortunately, in this country, many reputed retired officials either spending time at home while recalling their fascinating professionalism or serving for foreign nations.

We have “diplomats” those who passed the exams. But the practical experience has enlightened us that is not enough to serve the country. We as the island nation which has tremendous potential to develop peoples’ friendly diplomacy has to take multi actions urgently otherwise, it will continue producing the rotten eggs.

Along with the diplomacy, the most important area of the country is the state intelligence services. In Sri Lanka we have two major state intelligence agencies, both primarily concern the direct security aspects of the country. Other than three forces and police are maintaining their own intelligence agencies. But, unfortunately, what the history has proven us, despite the remarkable role played during the civil war, all agencies were utterly politicised. The crisis within crisis has been created the fragile survival game. Not a single country in the world which has developed and improved the conditions of the citizen marinating a “politicised intelligence agencies”.

If I may quote the sage words of George Washington, “there is nothing more necessary than good intelligence to frustrate a designing enemy and nothing that requires greater pain to obtain.” (Letter to Robert Morris by Washington on January 1, 1756)

There are many reports indicates the diplomatic dilemma the country undergoing over an influence of the neighbours. When we need to buy “fighter jets” we have to obey the words from a neighbour whom will say don’t. When the country signed the new projects with another country, a neighbour will be pressurised not to go with that. This is the situation our country, so it requires actions which can strength the strategic partnership to rescue our nation from an eclipse of an abyss. Otherwise, we will be the nation which is secondary to all.

Mr President, as you know quite well, every country is passing through the desperate and darkest period. When such time occupied the nation, it will lose the creativity, authentic administration, happiness, and well beings. When such times occupied the nation, it will produce the pseudo-patriotism, basic principles of the faiths (religions) will be replaced with the distorted threats of hopelessness, despair and disunity among the people.

Winning Formula

As I have pointed to at the beginning of the letter, what we as citizens of this nation experienced in January 2015 is the rare triggering point of future revolution. The era of revolution by military means produced a greater degree of desperation and frustration. This was brought to an end by the people. This is what our history has taught us. There is no longer the grounds for utilising our youth for another “brainwashing” about armed rebellion. Consolidating people power into democratic movement is what the country needs.

However, all this can be changed overnight, if interested parties or evil forces trigger the extremist elements to manipulate the youth.

As the leader of this nation, you have a greater degree of responsibility to drive this nation and change the cunning destructive culture of control and administration by force. The most fundamental problem is not that we don’t have a system to run but those with knowledge are cynically manipulating the system for petty personal desires. The concept of oversight has thus turned into a trick of overlooking.

Those who retired with the reputation of their profession were cornered; while corrupted elements were overwhelming in most public institutions. In such situation, accountability and transparency are nothing but distorted ideas to ambuscade the other party. This is harsh reality anyone could experience from political party to small scale government department. This drama has to end. That can be openly ended by those who earned reputation, respect and dignity of their profession.

But, unfortunately, many evil forces are disguised and preventing the intervention of good men. We are not a country without resources. The most powerful resource out of all, the human resources is extremely rich in this country. What is lacking here is that there is no mechanism to consolidate those resources.

Mr President, facilitate our countrymen and countrywomen enjoy liberty. Then, you will be the true hero of all times.

Yours Faithfully

Nilantha Ilangamuwa

*Nilantha Ilangamuwa edits the Sri Lanka Guardian, an online daily newspaper, and he also an editor of the Torture: Asian and Global Perspectives, bi-monthly print magazine. He is the author of the just released non-fictions, “Nagna Balaya” (The Naked Power), in Sinhalese and “The Conflation”, in English. He can be reached at ilangamuwa@gmail.com

The Berlin Wall was a tool for oppression. It prevented people from exercising a very important right — the right to leave. In doing so it also helped ensure continuing abuse of individuals trapped by the wall and armed enforcers. In November of 1989, gates of the wall were opened for passage and people began to demolish the wall.

Move ahead almost thirty years and prominent American politicians are calling for building a wall on American borders. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump regularly promotes building an American wall. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, even boasted in 2013 that an immigration bill he supported would create “the most militarized border since the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

The purpose many politicians offer for the desired American border wall is to block illegal immigration, not to keep people in. But, once built, such a wall can be used as a tool for oppression in a similar manner as was the Berlin Wall in East Germany.

I spoke about this danger in a new interview with host Robert Wenzel on the Robert Wenzel Show. Asked by Wenzel what is my “greatest concern right now as far as the big government growing,” I answered in part with the following comments:

Another thing I find disturbing is the talk about building a wall that Donald Trump talks about. It is something that John McCain and others have been pushing as well. You know, it’s a scary thing when you put a wall up, because a wall won’t just keep people out. It keeps people in as well. So, you combine that with the restrictions on people moving their financial assets and the TSA-type security that you encounter in airports and you have a real restriction on liberty and you prevent the ability of people to escape. People talk about how important it is to vote in elections, but really a more important right is your right to vote with your feet. And putting up walls is a way of preventing people from doing that.

Listen to the complete interview here:

By the way, the interview is not all gloomy. In the wide-ranging discussion you will also hear about my early exploring of libertarian ideas, my experience working for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in the House of Representatives, and some of the reasons for optimism I offer in my new book A Tipping Point for Liberty: Exposing and Defeating Leviathan Government.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute

As the noose tightens around the beleaguered Syrian city of Aleppo yet again, it might be time to take stock of the accomplishments of Western foreign policy objectives in Syria. The results are very bleak indeed. The consequences are even bleaker and in great part due to a moral paralysis verging on outright hypocrisy on the part of Western nations – America, the European Union, Canada and Australia. By turning a blind eye to the massive injustice dealt out to our democratic friends and allies in Syria fighting often with insufficient material assistance, the West has allowed indolence to fester thereby enabling the development of the Islamic State, Al Nusra and other Islamist affiliate groupings.

This Western hypocrisy is coming at a terrible human and geopolitical cost. First, the Syrian conflict has created significant refugee flows and affected every single Western government. It has revealed new fault lines in the EU and contributed to the ongoing BREXIT fiasco. It continues to play a role in the present US presidential election campaign and has the potential to create a serious divide in Canadian-American relations. In this regard, Bashar and his Russian and Iranian colleagues have succeeded in destabilizing the political chessboard in the West. A Trump presidency, still a real possibility, would be a by-product of this instability. A Clinton presidency might well find itself in a similar or worse situation being unable to make progress on the Syrian refugee front when faced with widespread anti-Islam sentiment.

By allowing ISIL to form and fester in Syria, the West has destabilized further the Middle East and contributed to Islamic terrorism in Europe and America. One may argue that much of the Islamist terrorism in Europe and North America is the result of lone wolf assailants with no organic links to ISIL. Perhaps, but these lone wolf terrorists find their inspiration in the Syrian conflict and inflict on innocent people their Salafist narrative of history. Syria is a spawning ground in more ways than one and our moral disdain and reluctance to support democracy and freedom there have been paid for by a heavy tribute on our unsuspecting citizenry.

President Obama’s fatally weak foreign policy edict of ‘leading from behind’ has pushed secular Syrian patriots for democracy into the eager hands of the Saudis and Qataris. It has promoted Islamic extremism in a country where it previously was almost unknown. It has given Bashar and his cronies the very excuse they needed to appeal to world opinion, in the throes of Islamic terrorism. The early enthusiasm and support for the Syrian opposition and its call for democratic change and the overthrow of the Bashar al Assad regime was demonstrated by work of the Canadian diplomats in Turkey (http://www.macleans.ca/politics/bruce-mabley-is-canadas-rogue-diplomat/).

With the passage of time, this early alliance with the democratic and youth opposition has given way to Western indolence and inaction. The hypocritical spectacle of phantom negotiations in Geneva between Russia and the US will lead nowhere and provides a convenient excuse as the Russians continue to bombard Aleppo and kill any hope for democracy in Syria. Even the Syrian opposition fighters caught inside Aleppo know not to give up and trust Bashar with their lives. There can be no free Syria with Bashar al Assad still in power and left unpunished for his crimes against humanity.

So the Western powers, in particular the US, dilly dallies, vacillates and makes feeble attempts at beginning a dialogue for peace using the UN and Russia as interlocutors. This is no Syria policy rather they are just attempts at stemming the tide of Syrian refugees and developing timid cease fire agreements with the corrupt Assad and his allies. The non-policy represents Western drift in the Middle East and explains why ISIL has become the force that it has in Iraq, Syria and beyond.

It is time to begin to fill the Western policy vacuum and move on the offensive against ISIL and the Bashar al Assad regime. Every day, the forces of brutality and extremism increase with the arrival of Iranian and Russian fighters. Every day more Syrians lose hope in the West and our values of justice, rule of law and freedom.

What would an enlightened policy of Syria look like? First, the West needs to reverse the tide of Islamic fundamentalism in Syria by persuading opposition Commanders to leave their Islamist masters. After all, when the conflict began most Commanders were secularists and anxious to deal with the West. The Western policy of ‘doing nothing’ drove them into the hands of the Islamists. Time to reverse that and provide to the Free Syrian Army the kinds of weapons it needs to re-take the offensive, gain back lost territory, relieve the siege of Aleppo and liberate the country.

Feckless Western and Turkish political observers and pundits predicate the non- interventionist ‘leading from behind’ non-policy on the view that the West does not know who the FSA or the democratic opposition is. Giving arms to unknown opposition factions on the ground might empower those who seek to do the West harm, so the argument claims. Well, on that view, the West is suffering from self-inflicted damage in addition to undermining its most important strategic objectives. The situation cannot be much worse. This argument is just false. US and Western sources know full well who the Syrian opposition and its ideological composition are and if we are required to wean some back into the fold, we only have ourselves to blame for letting them go in the first place.

Sophisticated anti-aircraft weapons are needed to blunt Russian air-strikes and secure the ground game. Significant numbers of trainers need to be sent to help train the FSA and succeed in welcoming those commanders whose fighters are interested in a free Syria in which Islam thrives alongside other religions but not in a solely Islamist Syria. By far the majority of fighters and commanders would prefer a reliable Western partner to the doctrinaire narcissistic Gulf religious and elitist mentality. The latter is foreign to the Syrian political culture.

Military force might possibly stop ISIL but it cannot win the ultimate battle for the hearts and minds of the Syrian people.

Accepting Syrian immigrants is a small but insufficient part of that struggle. The West needs to take the offensive in Syria and win back the hearts and minds of those who support the values of justice, the rule of law and freedom. Syria could be the decisive battleground (Kampfplatz) where the errant West finds its true north again and pursues it with hope and determination. Without this, we are condemned to endure one Islamist terror attack after another with only a fatally weakened political class to defend us and our political values. The Sanders-Trump phenomenon illustrates the depth of popular disgust with Western leaders, their political parties and their inability to craft authentic democratic policies to promote a freer and just world. Make no mistake: this phenomenon has swept much of the Western world at a time when leadership in foreign affairs and the Syria matter is urgently required. ‘Leading from behind’ has been an abject failure with tragic consequences. It has emboldened dictators like Assad, enemies of freedom and rule of law represented by the Russian and Iranian leadership and international Islamic terrorism. As such, the crafting and execution of an enlightened Syria policy may ultimately signal the beginning of the end of Islamic terrorism and achieve what military means cannot and has not yet achieved.

So far Islamic terrorism has won by default. If the West draws a line in Syria and stands by it (unlike the vacuous line that President Obama drew in 2012 to prevent Bashar from using chemical weapons on his own people), Crimea will mean nothing to Russian expansion in the Mediterranean and Hezbollah will finally have to release its strangle hold on Lebanese politics. By living up to and implementing the values of freedom, rule of law and justice in Syria, the West can begin to ensure that Islamist terrorism will retreat with time and patience but we must make a principled stand in Syria. If not, who will ever believe us again?