Low-cost interventions, big data analysis and new regulations on landfills are key factors for the smart management of waste in cities. There are several ongoing studies and trials underway across Europe, with both researchers and city planners looking for efficient solutions.

Rotterdam, The Netherlands, is using big data to improve the logistics of paper and cardboard waste collection. In this project, digital sensors help ensure there is space inside waste containers and prevent obstructions. “We started in March 2015,” said Joost van Maaren, head of Collection and Reuse of Waste in Rotterdam. “At present we check about 250 paper containers. Real-time analysis of data allows us to empty bins when they are about 80% full.”

Another example comes from Genoa, Italy, where researchers at the European project R2Cities have drawn up a feasibility study to introduce low-cost innovations to enhance separated rubbish collection at a social housing estate in a suburb of the city. 1200 residents live in the Lavatrici complex (also known as ‘washing machines’ in Italian, because of its unique shape).

“The main focus of our project is the retrofitting of four edifices built 40 years ago,” said Giorgio Bonvicini, engineer at project partner D’Appolonia. “But improvement of the waste management system is also an aspect to consider because it contributes to cut CO2 emissions.” Since Genoa has not been able to digest its waste in recent years, the material has been transferred to the adjacent Piedmont region, producing extra carbon emissions.

The estimated total cost for the proposed innovations is about €120,000. This could allow savings for €20-22,000 euro per year with a return period of six years.

Project plans include increasing the percentage of door-to-door collections to 72%, compared with the present 30%, and stockpiling wastes at recycling plants to obtain revenue from it. A second phase of the project looks to allocate the organic portion of the waste to a local compost site to avoid transport costs and pollution, then use the organic material in green areas of the city.

Alongside high-tech and low-cost initiatives to improve separated waste collection and recycling rates, there is also an urgent need to reconsider role and features of landfills to close the lifecycle of materials, while minimizing risks to the environment.

“We can’t talk about a proper ‘circular economy’ if we don’t understand that we need to create and manage landfills in an authentic sustainable way, because no natural process happens without leaving some remains”, said Raffaello Cossu, professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Padua, Italy, and editor-in-chief of the journal Waste Management.

In a recent editorial, he has been critical of European legislation in this field. “The Landfill Directive doesn’t mention environmental sustainability,” he said, “No mentions on how the long-term impact of a landfill should be exhausted within the span of one generation. Moreover, the post-operational phase, which follows the closure of a landfill, is addressed only in economical terms.”

Today is the UN’s International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer – the perfect opportunity to look at how and why measurements of this molecule are taken from space.

The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica became an international cause for concern in the latter half of the 20th Century, but as EUMETSAT’s Atmospheric Composition Product Development Team Leader Dr Christian Retscher points out, issues relating to ozone levels are complex and wide-reaching.

What is ozone?

Ozone is a molecule consisting of three oxygen atoms and occurs naturally in the atmosphere. However, close to the surface of the Earth, it is considered a pollutant.

The ozone layer in the stratosphere, with a bulk concentration at 15-30km above the surface of the Earth, is crucial for protecting humans and other species from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation from the sun, Christian said.

The ozone layer in the stratosphere absorbs UV radiation. While UV radiation is essential for life on Earth, it is also linked to skin cancer and damage to plant life. That is why the thinning of the ozone layer (often referred to as the ozone hole), causes concern.

But measurements of ozone in the troposphere (the lowest level of the Earth’s atmosphere, extending up to between 7km above sea level at polar regions and 20km over the tropics) are also needed because this molecule, which can be a by-product of industrial production, is harmful to breathe and damaging to plants.

About 90 percent of ozone is in the stratosphere and 10 percent in the troposphere, Christian said.

Measuring and monitoring ozone

EUMETSAT’s Metop-A (launched in 2006) and Metop-B (2012) satellites, flying in a sun-synchronised polar orbit approximately 817km above the Earth’s surface, carry an instrument called GOME-2 (Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment), which is dedicated to measuring ozone in the atmosphere.

“GOME-2 maps ozone from above,” Christian explained. “It takes total column (through the stratosphere and troposphere) ozone measurements.

“What is important about GOME-2 is that this is an instrument of an operational satellite mission, in other words, we are flying the same sensor more than once. This provides long time series of measurements, contributes to a better understanding of ozone production and destruction processes and also allows trend analysis.”

“The primary goal is to measure how the ozone layer is changing in general, not only the so-called ozone hole over Antarctica. There, meteorological conditions favour the accelerated depletion of stratospheric ozone, but ozone is thinning over the Arctic as well,” Christian said.

“When we look at how the ozone is behaving over the long term, what we hope to see is that stratospheric ozone is recovering somewhat.”

“Specifically, measurements from the last couple of years hint at a slight recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer over the South Pole.”

Ozone in the troposphere

“When we look at ozone with instruments like GOME-2, we see the whole column, but we want to separate between the troposphere and stratosphere,” Christian added.

“While ozone measurements in the stratosphere are more related to climate aspects, thus long-term effects, ozone in the troposphere has different implications for human health.

“When we are measuring ozone in the troposphere, short term trends or diurnal variations of ozone concentrations are much more relevant. We are interested in improvements over short time ranges like hours or days and much finer geographical scales, for example, cities.

“When inhaled, ozone is harmful to the respiratory system, so what is interesting is the understanding of changes of ozone levels on, for example, a daily basis. How much ozone is there and what is the threat level – is it safe for you to be outside or not? Novel instruments, for example, Sentinel-4, will support this kind of research since ozone profile data will be available on an hourly basis.”

Instruments measuring ozone

The GOME-2 instruments are dedicated to monitoring ozone but are not the only satellite-borne instruments taking ozone measurements.

Metop satellites also carry the Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI) instruments, which measure ozone as well.

Other relevant European ozone-monitoring instruments were GOME on ERS-2 , or SCIAMACHY, MIPAS and GOMOS, which were flown on ESA’s Envisat satellite. Very important contributions to ozone research are based on the more than 30 years time series of data from satellites flown by, for example, NASA and NOAA, with the successful series of TOMS , SBUV , POAM , and SAGE instruments or the later OMI or the OMPS sensors.

Planning is well in hand to continue monitoring ozone into the future.

Metop-A is approaching the end of its lifetime in space but Metop-C, also with a GOME-2 instrument, is expected to be launched in 2018, so the all-important long time series of measurements will be maintained.

Under the EU’s flagship Copernicus programme for monitoring the environment from space, EUMETSAT’s Meteosat Third Generation (MTG) geostationary meteorological satellites, and the EPS-Second Generation satellites will carry the Copernicus Sentinel-4 and -5 instruments respectively. Prior to these, ESA will launch the Sentinel-5 Precursor mission. All of these Sentinels have capacity to monitor ozone. In addition, there will be other European sensors in space supporting the monitoring of ozone, although not their primary mission objective, for example, IASI-NG (IASI- Next Generation) on EPS-SG and the IRS (Infrared Sounder) on MTG-S.

EUMETSAT will launch its EPS-SG satellites in the 2022-2042 timeframe, while the first in the series of MTG-S (sounding) platforms is expected to be launched in 2022 as well.

The development of the smart power grid and the smart meter in our homes to accompany it brings several benefits, such as improved delivery and more efficient billing. Conversely, any digital, connected technology also represents a security risk.

Writing in the International Journal of Smart Grid and Green Communications, UK researchers explain how a malicious third party that hacked into the metering system could manipulate en masse the data being sent back to the smart grid and perhaps trigger a power generation shortfall.

Carl Chalmers, Michael Mackay and Aine MacDermott of Liverpool John Moores University, explain how the implementation of the smart grid brings many improvements over the traditional energy grid by making use of the vast interconnected infrastructure that allows two-way communication and automation throughout the entire grid, from generator to consumer and back.

“A smart grid is a complex modern electricity system which utilises sensors, monitoring, communications, and automation, to improve the electricity system,” the team writes. “Smart grids fundamentally change the way in which we generate, distribute and monitor our electricity. They dramatically improve the efficiency, flexibility and reliability of the existing electricity infrastructure,” they add.

The researchers point out that a critical difference between the old “passive” electricity grid and the new smart grid, is the presence of the advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) which provides the two-way communication between consumer and generator. The flow of data between consumers and generators allows the power generation companies to match demand with generation, to spot patterns in changing demand on a day to day basis or through the changing seasons and more.

However, as the UK has shifted focus from coal- and oil-fired electricity generation to being more reliant on natural gas as the fuel of choice (irrespective of wind, solar, nuclear and other alternatives), this makes the electricity grid somewhat vulnerable to accidental and incidental problems with the flow of data and to malicious manipulation for the sake of sabotage, criminal or online military/terrorist action.

The team adds that, “Critical infrastructures in particular, present a tempting target for terrorists, military strikes and hackers wanting to cause disruption, steal information or incapacitate a country remotely.”

The team suggests that now we are forewarned of the possible worst-case scenario with regard to the smart grid and smart meters, we must put in place security measures to protect the infrastructure and maintain that security as the hackers advance to stay at least one step ahead of the threat.

By Charles Powell*

The EU leaders meeting in Bratislava on 16 September face a challenging, not to say hostile, environment. Although globalisation and European integration have served to increase prosperity, the negative consequences of the former, which have hit the European working and middle classes especially hard, have provoked widespread discontent with politics, parties and politicians. Furthermore, European citizens have come to perceive the EU as part of the problem (whether or not their diagnosis is an accurate reflection of reality is, of course, an entirely different matter), rather than part of the solution. The 2005 French and Dutch referendums provided a foretaste of this shift in opinion, which intensified after the worldwide financial and economic crisis of 2008. One possible interpretation of the Brexit referendum outcome is to see it as a reflection of the same kind of concerns.

It is in this context that political parties allegedly offering alternatives to traditional politics – featuring ready-made ‘solutions’ such as xenophobia, racism, populism, nationalism and Euroscepticism – have increasingly managed to elicit citizens’ sympathy for their programmes.

This troubling state of affairs makes it imperative for the EU to address a number of clearly identifiable socioeconomic and political challenges, including some related to identity and multiculturalism, and to provide appropriate and imaginative solutions to them. Responding to people’s fundamental concerns will simultaneously help member states and enhance the value of the EU for its citizens.

Increasing inequality, rising poverty and the lack of decent jobs and opportunities

Not since the aftermath of World War II has Europe had to endure such a weak recovery from crisis as the one we are currently experiencing. Rapid technological change, open economic borders and the economic policies pursued by most EU countries in the wake of the crisis have resulted in stagnant middle class wages, increased inequality (with growing concentrations of income in the top 10%) and new forms of poverty and social exclusion throughout the EU, particularly in the South. Furthermore, the quality of jobs available has declined even in those countries with low unemployment, and the working poor have emerged as a distinct social category. Most Europeans feel that their children will be worse off than they are, that they will not benefit in the future from current levels of welfare, and that they face declining economic opportunities.

Moreover, many perceive that the EU, far from providing a buffer protecting them from these powerful global trends, is actually exacerbating them. A clear instance of this is the persistent innovation gap that is creating sharp divisions between labour markets, separating them along national lines. This result is that broad sectors of the population perceive intra-EU mobility as a threat, rather than an opportunity. In short, there is a growing concern that neither the EU nor its member states are doing enough to compensate those who have lost out from globalisation. As a result, the sense of on-going economic progress and rising shared prosperity that once characterised the EU has been lost. An era of diminished expectations has arrived, and economic insecurity and anxiety about the future is leading to a backlash against globalisation in general and the EU in particular. Unless urgent measures are taken to protect Europe’s middle and working classes, we will soon face populist, anti-European and even undemocratic attitudes that could threaten everything the EU is meant to stand for.

The sustainability of the euro

The Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath have proved that the Eurozone is unsustainable without further fiscal integration. Since the Greek debt crisis (2010), the leaders of the Eurozone have tried to address the structural flaws of EMU, but many economists remain sceptical about the Euro’s chances of surviving another crisis. Financial history suggests that banking unions cannot work without fiscal unions, but in the case of Europe the latter is so far nowhere to be seen. The foundations on which such a fiscal union would need to rest do not currently exist: distrust is now widespread, and debtor countries feel the costs of the crisis need to be shared, while creditor countries are adamant in their refusal to mutualise past and future debt, insisting that this can happen only if there is central control of national budgets. Countries with fiscal surpluses mistrust the ability and/or willingness of debtor and deficit member states to reform, and the latter in turn believe that the Euro mostly benefits one particular economic model, distant from their own. Naturally, policymakers in less prosperous states worry about divergence in per capita incomes. But policymakers in the richest states should be concerned as well. After all, economic convergence has been at the heart of the social contract in the EU; increasing divergence may stimulate disaffection among those who feel they are being left behind, but will also alienate those who feel they are being taken advantage of. Convergence, however, cannot happen without new investment, and this requires fresh money.

Immigration and asylum

The arrival of 1.5 million asylum-seekers over the past two years has stoked anti-immigration sentiment, which has been exacerbated by socioeconomic, security and identity concerns. Perceived competition between locals and immigrants for scarce public resources and fears about national identity have fuelled xenophobic movements that are especially strong among the least qualified groups, and fears of a wave of unregistered asylum-seekers hailing from Muslim countries have only served to intensify apprehension. Terrorist attacks in France, Belgium and Germany have connected these fears with antagonism towards Muslim communities. At the same time, EU populations –particularly in the South- are declining and ageing, and some experts have seen the arrival of refugees as a demographic blessing. Furthermore, the survival of the EU in the highly-competitive global trade arena – and the future of its pension system – requires it to attract highly-qualified immigrants, especially since it is still losing home-grown talent to the USA and other countries. Additionally, the recent arrival of poorly-qualified immigrants is aggravating the difficulties already faced by stressed welfare states.

Terrorism, security and neighbourhoods

The threat of jihadist terrorism and its impact on Europe and the neighbouring regions has brought to the fore the importance of internal and external security for EU states and their citizens. The major threats to Europe emanate from three areas: the South, the Middle East (due in part to failed Western policies in Iraq, Syria and Libya), and Russia, whose recent aggressive behaviour in the East poses a threat to the EU and causes very real concern in the member states closest to its borders. All three areas require a robust and effective Common Foreign and Defence Policy, a reinforcement of antiterrorist cooperation, and a renewed approach to neighbouring regions, where aid and development policies have been found totally wanting.

Flexibility and non-domination

The Union has become more internally differentiated than ever before. Many constituencies in a variety of member states object to one-size-fits-all solutions that apply equally to all member states, and in all situations. In part, the Brexit vote reflects this concern. Meanwhile, many citizens resent what they perceive as German dominance of the European project, and are dismayed by the failure of other governments to provide alternative policies and leadership. In the long run, this may lead not only to growing confrontation, but also to disaffection with a European integration model that appears to benefit some member states more than others.

Citizens are demanding better European (and not just EU) governance. This will require better national governance, and also an improvement of the EU’s ability to enforce the rule of law, administrate effectively, and contribute to the fight against corruption. Instead of ‘more Europe’, what Europe really needs is a more constructive balance between the national and EU levels (with strong and effective member states).

Proposals

Ensuring economic growth and better jobs while making the Euro sustainable in the long run are closely interrelated goals, even for non-Eurozone member states. Both require innovation on the revenue and spending sides of the budget, at the national and EU levels. They will also require new economic policies.

• The EU must remain an open economy and reject attempts to return to protectionist policies. Openness, however, should not be allowed to lead to the dismantling of the European social model.
• The EU should have more scope for establishing guidelines to encourage member states to concentrate expenditure on specific areas, such as education and R&D. These guidelines could take the form of more specific recommendations in the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedures and the Stability and Growth Pact.
• The EU should take measures to increase internal labour market mobility, including those based on the budgetary instruments mentioned below.
• The EU should demonstrate stronger leadership in specific global initiatives seeking to achieve a more balanced globalization process, starting with the fight against tax evasion and the introduction of a Financial Transaction Tax to limit the influence of international finance in the global economy.
• More equal and progressive taxation to achieve more effective redistribution leading to real equality of opportunity, particularly to protect those more severely affected by global trends (children and young people in the South, the working poor everywhere). This will mean increasing progressivity within national tax systems and ensuring that multinational corporations pay what they should in every member state, but also generating new sources of revenue that should be collected at the EU (or at least at the Eurozone) level.
  • A travel tax + a new environmental tax + a financial transactions tax + further taxes associated with the activities of the internal market (all could be agreed upon with an enhanced cooperation procedure). Their benefits would be manifold:
    • First, they would generate a sense of ownership. People paying the tax would see tangible benefits.
    • Second, they would be the embryo of a fiscal backstop for the Eurozone, and perhaps a larger budget for the EU later on.
    • Third, they would require the creation in the first instance of a Eurozone parliament, which, deciding jointly with the Eurogroup, would ensure the efficient use of the funds.
  • These new taxes would finance a budget of 1% of GDP (up to €140bn), which would fund policies in four concrete areas across the EU:
    • Developing vocational dual education
    • Improving active entrepreneurial and labour market policies
    • Financing an Erasmus scheme for workers
    • Increasing investment in pan-European projects (green infrastructure and technology)
• The EU (and the Eurozone) urgently needs to design and set up institutions able to cope with asymmetrical shocks and external crises.

Migration and asylum policies need to adapt to the new environment and its challenges. This requires:

• A complete revision of the EU asylum system, to adapt it to a much larger and more diverse EU. The EU has to take into account that refugees in Europe usually become permanent migrants and hence the chances of integration in the labour market must be included as one of the key factors that shape asylum policies.
• The unification of national criteria for granting asylum and the homogenisation of the nature and volume of public aid offered to refugees to avoid the present highly unequal distribution. The EU cannot protect all those potential asylum-seekers in its territory who are fleeing violent conflicts, and must therefore reinforce its financial aid to the UNHCR and those states in Africa and Asia where refugees first find refuge and help.

EU security policy must adapt to the growing importance of non-conventional threats, in particular terrorism. This requires:

• Furthering cooperation in areas such as policing, intelligence and justice.
• Strengthening the cyber-security capabilities of some member states and partners in Central and Eastern Europe.
• More broadly, as NATO re-emerges as the main locus of European defence cooperation, greater coordination is needed between NATO and the EU in the realm of capability development.
• The best contribution CSDP can make in the context of the ongoing migration crisis and the threat of terrorism is to help address their root causes, i.e. instability in the broader southern European neighbourhood.
• A profound renewal of the EU’s neighbourhood policies towards the East and the MENA region, as well as Sub-Saharan Africa, with new and better financed and managed instruments.

Finally, the EU needs to accommodate growing internal divergences and different views on its own development. This requires:

• An imaginative use of available solutions to accommodate diversity and pluralism, and the avoidance of dogmatic interpretation of rules and procedures, so as to prevent the emergence of monolithic conceptions of the Union.
• A shift to methods of constitution-making and governance that increase inclusiveness and minimize unilateralism.
• Reinforcing joint scrutiny of EU and national governance in areas such as corruption and the rule of law.

About the author:
*Charles Powell is director of the Elcano Royal Institute, Madrid.

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute.

(EurActiv) — Former Italian president, prime minister and central bank governor Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, who played a key role in guiding the country into the European single currency, has died, the government said on Friday (16 September).

He was 95 and had been ill for some time.

One of Italy’s most respected figures on the international stage, Ciampi helped steer the country through the dark days of corruption scandals in the 1990s and persuaded sceptical EU allies that the economy was fit to join the euro.

“One of our fathers has left us. If Italy is (still) a great country then we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Ciampi,” former prime minister Enrico Letta wrote on Twitter.

Jean-Claude Juncker wrote: “Today, we have lost a great Italian and a great European.” Pope Francis praised Ciampi’s “gentlemanly discretion and great sense of duty”.

While tributes flowed in from across Europe, the head of the anti-EU Northern League party struck a discordant note, denouncing Ciampi for the crucial role he had played in making sure Italy was part of the euro from its birth in 1999.

“Politically speaking, Ciampi is one of the traitors of Italy,” Matteo Salvini told Sky Italia TV.

“He carries on his conscience the disaster that has befallen 50 million Italians,” said Salvini, who regularly rails against the euro, arguing that a loss of monetary independence has brought years of economic misery to Italy.

Ciampi spent most of his working life at the Bank of Italy, which he joined in 1946 after the Second World War when he fought with the Italian partisans against Mussolini. During his 14 years as its head, the Bank was freed from political control, winning leeway to set interest rates and exchange rate policy.

He often said he expected to retire when he left the central bank but in 1993, with Italy mired in the corruption scandals of “”Tangentopoli” (Bribesville), Ciampi was persuaded to become prime minister to stave off crisis.

Charm offensive

He launched himself with gusto into Italy’s myriad financial and economic problems and his lack of political ties gave his government a “”can-do” image contrasting with the tortuous deal-making that characterised many previous administrations.

Always a non-partisan figure, Ciampi took no part in the 1994 election which launched Silvio Berlusconi’s political career, But he returned two years later when Berlusconi was defeated by Romano Prodi at the head of a centre-left alliance.

When Prodi took office in 1996, he called on Ciampi to lend credibility to his campaign to get Italy included into the first wave of euro zone members.

With doubts about Italy’s financial fitness stacked up as high as its mountain of debt, the calm, confident Ciampi was sent on a charm offensive among its partners, especially to Germany. It paid off.

Ciampi, who spoke German having studied in Leipzig in his youth, enjoyed warm relations with the then-Bundesbank President Hans Tietmeyer and Finance Minister Theo Waigel.

Thanks to drastic tax hikes, including a one-off “euro tax”, and plunging interest rates, Ciampi slashed Italy’s fiscal deficit from 6.7 percent in 1996 to 2.7 percent in 1997 to secure Italy’s entry into the currency club.

His team of talented economists at the Treasury known as the “Ciampi Boys” included the current European Central Bank President Mario Draghi.

The Prodi government was brought down by its Communist allies the following year, but Ciampi’s retirement was delayed yet again when parliament overwhelmingly elected him president of the republic in 1999, for a seven-year term.

Three years in the Italian army from 1941-44 and the horrors of World War Two made Ciampi a fervent Europhile who believed that monetary union must be only a first step in a process of broader political integration.

In recent years he had expressed frustration at what he saw as a lack of vision behind the euro’s travails, as well as at Italy’s economic woes which have seen the public debt rise far above the levels he presided over back in the 1990s.

By Danijel Kovacevic and Srecko Latal

After international diplomacy failed to halt an ethnically-divisive referendum planned by Bosnia’s Serb-dominated entity Republika Srpska, its opponents hope that the country’s Constitutional Court can find a last-minute solution.

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s state-level Constitutional Court is due to consider two appeals on Saturday that critics of the ethnically-divisive referendum planned by the Republika Srpska authorities for September 25 hope could stop the vote being held.

The court in Sarajevo is set to consider an appeal by the Bosnian Serb authorities against its own ruling which declared the annual Day of Republika Srpska unconstitutional because it discriminated against non-Serbs – a ruling that sparked the referendum that is intended to defend the ‘statehood’ holiday.

The court will also consider an appeal by Bosniak political leaders against the referendum. They want the referendum banned because they say it challenges decisions of the state Constitutional Court, which they argue Republika Srpska does not have the authority to do.

Over the past few weeks, EU and US officials have tried to resolve the controversy through diplomacy, meeting Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik, who launched the referendum initiative, and asking him to cancel it.

Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic also met Dodik several times and attempted to use Belgrade’s influence on the Bosnian Serbs by publicly refusing to support the referendum.

However, the situation was complicated by the closeness of local elections, scheduled for October 2, only a week after the referendum.

International diplomats and Bosnian Serb officials said that the referendum was deliberately scheduled so close to the elections to boost the election chances of Dodik’s Alliance of Independent Social Democrats, SNSD, which is the ruling party in Republika Srpska.

Diplomats and Republika Srpska officials said in recent days that Dodik had agreed to make a concession by proposing changes to the Republika Srpska law on public holidays, which meant that the entity would effectively conform with the ruling of the Constitutional Court and significantly reduce the importance of the referendum.

However, Bosnian Serb and international sources told BIRN that Dodik has now changed his mind, fearing that a compromise would show him as weak in the eyes of his potential voters, which would hurt him and the SNSD in the upcoming elections.

Some Bosniak officials have meanwhile called on Bosnia’s international overseer, High Representative Valentin Inzko, to use his executive powers to stop the referendum and impose sanctions on the Republika Srpska leadership.

But the international community is deeply divided on the issue and Inzko does not have the backing to use his executive powers. While he officially does not need anyone’s approval, he does need international support to make sure that his decisions are implemented.

In this situation, the international community’s last hopes are pinned on the Constitutional Court.

The court is made up of nine members – three international judges and two judges from each of country’s three main ethnic groups, Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs.

It has often been criticised by Bosnian Serb and Croat officials, who accused the international judges of regularly taking the Bosniaks’ side, allowing the Serb and Croat judges to be outvoted.

Because of this criticism, but also because of the general weakness of Bosnia’s judicial institutions, Constitutional Court decisions are often not implemented.

At the moment there are at least 76 constitutional court decisions which are being ignored by different institutions, organisations and individuals.

This adds to the uncertainty about whether the court can halt the referendum.

Bosnian officials have told BIRN that a compromise solution is possible, but refused to elaborate.

Bosnian Serb officials told BIRN meanwhile that even if the Constitutional Court finds a solution, Dodik could still decide to hold the referendum, just to make sure that his party wins as many seats as possible in the upcoming local elections.

However this could lead to serious destabilisation in the country, as Bosniak officials have repeatedly argued that Dodik could use this referendum as a stepping stone to organise another popular vote in Republika Srpska, this time on secession from Bosnia and Herzegovina, which according to Bosniaks would lead to new violence.

Europol and Eurojust supported this week a major international operation carried out by authorities from Belgium, Italy and Spain against an international organized criminal group (OCG) involved in large-scale trafficking of luxury cars stolen within the European Union and destined for locations in northern Europe and North Africa.

After several months of investigations, intense collaboration among law enforcement authorities of the concerned Member States, and the support provided by Europol and Eurojust at the international level, today’s action led to the arrest of 28 suspects, searches of several businesses and homes, and the seizure of a large amount of documents and other assets.

The operation was also supported from a coordination center at Eurojust’s headquarters in The Hague.

The OCG, with key players in Belgium and Spain, was composed of Italian and Moroccan suspects, with a network of associates in several other Member States.

The modus operandi adopted by the OCG was highly sophisticated:

• OCG members obtained identification data on the potential stolen vehicles and their owners from the Public Vehicles Registry in Italy;
• such data were then used to create counterfeit documents to be used in Spain to obtain copies of the original key to be later used in the theft;
• after the theft of the vehicle, OCG members made a second inspection at the Public Vehicles Registry to obtain the data of vehicles similar to those that were stolen; and
• false documents, including vehicle registration, license plates and insurance, were then created on the basis of legitimate vehicles, and these replaced the original documentation of the stolen vehicles. In this manner, the ‘clone vehicles’ were able to circulate in Italy and mislead possible police checks before finally being exported abroad.

Investigations began in Italy in 2015 by the Piedmont and Valle D’Aosta’s Street Police Compartment of the Italian State Police, under the leadership of the Public Prosecution Office of Turin, after victims reported a large number of stolen luxury vehicles. The Italian authorities identified patterns in the modus operandi and discovered important links with other countries. Independent investigations were carried out in Belgium and Spain.

Given its international dimension, the case was brought to the attention of Europol and Eurojust at the end of 2015.

Europol’s property crime experts immediately performed cross-checks against the Agency’s databases, which revealed that the same OCG had been under police radar in other Member States. In November 2015, Europol funded a first operational meeting between law enforcement officers from Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Spain, aimed at facilitating the exchange of information and coordinating the investigation.

• Number of arrests carried out: 4 in Belgium, 6 in Spain and 18 in Italy
• Number of premises searched: 8 in Spain and 21 in Italy
• Assets seized: 40 stolen luxury vehicles, several computer devices and telephone handsets, shipping container documents, false IDs, license plates and driving licenses, counterfeit currency (approximately EUR 25.000) and a large amount of other documents.

The trend for arrivals of illegal immigrants in Spain by sea posted in 2015 was similar to that for 2014, with a slight upturn in the Canary Islands, according to the Spanish government, despite a double digit increase last year from the previous year.

According to the Spanish government, 5,312 illegal immigrants arrived on Spanish coasts by sea in 2015 compared with 4,552 in 2014, an increase of 16.7%, in other words, 760 more than in the previous year.

Strong migratory pressure towards Spain seen in recent years in addition to the rising flow of refugees from Syria has led to an increase in illegal immigrants in 2015, particularly through the land borders of Ceuta and Melilla. In 2011, 5,443 illegal immigrants arrived (up 49.8%), 3,804 in 2012 (down 30%), 3,237 in 2013 (down 15%) and 4,552 in 2014 (up 40.6%).

However, the number of illegal immigrants arriving in Spain by sea is significantly lower than the 157,220 posted in the Central Mediterranean, the 880,820 posted in the Eastern Mediterranean and the 763,958 posted along the Balkan route, according to data from the European agency FRONTEX.

Despite the increase posted in 2015, the immigration management model implemented by the Ministry of Home Affairs is the main factor in the maintenance of the general trend of the global figures on the flows of illegal immigration from Africa.

The results obtained in recent years are based on a joint work ethic of efficiency and commitment, with noteworthy actions in regard to: The daily task of the National Police and the Guardia Civil; The responses from the Ministry for Home Affairs adapted to the new challenges of the immigration networks; and te consolidated collaboration between Spain and the main countries of origin and transit of illegal immigration.

A total of 4,437 illegal immigrants reached the mainland or the Balearic Islands in 2015, compared with 4,256 in 2014. This is a rise of 187 on the previous years, a slight increase of 4.3%.

The downward trend is particularly significant in the period 2006-2015. While 7,502 illegal immigrants reached the mainland or Balearic Islands in 2006, only 4,437 arrived in 2015, a 40.8% decline. In the case of the Canary Islands, this figure has plummeted from 31,678 illegal immigrants in 2006 to only 875 in 2015, a decline of 97.2%.

However, and despite the good results seen in the fight against illegal immigration in the Canary Islands over recent years, 2015 closed with the arrival of 875 immigrants, 579 more than in 2014, when only 296 illegal immigrants reached the shores of the islands.

The Spanish government said that it should be pointed out that this increase does not alter the downward trend being seen year after year in the fight against illegal immigration in the Canary Islands, as can be patently seen in the historical series from 2001 to 2015 (see chart).

Ceuta and Melilla posted a year-on-year rise of illegal immigrants trying to gain access to the two autonomous cities in 2015, either by swimming to their shores, hidden in vehicles or other means of transport, or by breaching the border perimeter.

Specifically, a total of 11,624 illegal immigrants reached Ceuta or Melilla in 2015, a rise of 55.3%, or 4,139, on 2014, when 7,485 gained access.

In 2015, attempts to breach the border perimeter to Ceuta and Melilla fell by 67.8% and arrivals in the two cities by this means fell by 78%, thanks to the dissuasive methods employed by the State law enforcement agencies.

The Spanish government said that it should be pointed out that of the 7,485 illegal immigrants to arrive in Ceuta or Melilla in 2014, 3,305 were from Syria and 4.180 from other countries. This figure rose in 2015 with the arrival of 11.624 illegal immigrants, of which 7,189 were potential refugees from Syria while 4,435 were of other nationalities.

In this regard, 7,164 refugees reached Melilla from Syria in 2015, 78.1% of the total, compared with 3,072 in 2014, 52.8% of the total. This is a rise of 133.2%, or 4,092 refugees more than in the previous year.

The International Protection Offices inaugurated by the Minister for Home Affairs, Jorge Fernández Díaz, in 2015, at the border posts in Ceuta and Melilla to help cope with the already existing number of claims for asylum, have allowed the arrival of this number of Syrian refugees at the border with Ceuta, and particularly Melilla, to be handled more efficiently.

In 2015, the Ministry for Home Affairs repatriated a total of 20,091 illegal immigrants, down by 4.3% (902 fewer) on the total of 20,993 in 2014, the fourth straight year of declines.

The Associated Press and two other news organizations sued the FBI on Friday to learn who the government paid and how much it spent to hack into an iPhone in its investigation into last year’s San Bernardino, California, massacre.

The lawsuit seeks records about the FBI’s contract with an unidentified vendor who provided a tool to unlock the phone belonging to Syed Rizwan Farook, who with his wife killed 14 people at a holiday gathering of county workers in December 2015.

Gannett Co., which owns USA Today, and Vice Media LLC joined the complaint with the AP, seeking to learn more about the mysterious transaction that cut short a legal dispute in which the government sought to force Apple Inc. to unlock the phone.

“Understanding the amount that the FBI deemed appropriate to spend on the tool, as well as the identity and reputation of the vendor it did business with, is essential for the public to provide effective oversight of government functions and help guard against potential improprieties,” said the suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

In rejecting earlier requests to divulge the information, the government said revealing the records could affect “enforcement proceedings,” but did not elaborate.

The case stems from the FBI’s announcement in March that it had purchased a tool to unlock the iPhone, aborting the court fight with Apple that had in turn triggered a debate about the proper balance between electronic privacy and national security.

The FBI for weeks had maintained that only Apple could help it unlock the phone. At the Justice Department’s request, a magistrate judge in February directed Apple to create software that would bypass security features on the phone so that the FBI could get into the device and scour it for potential evidence. Apple contested the order, saying the FBI’s demand set a dangerous precedent and could undercut security protections for its customers.

The two sides were headed for a court showdown when Justice Department officials revealed that a party outside the U.S. government brought it a potential solution to unlock the phone. The FBI said a week later it successfully unlocked the phone using the tool. The suit cites media reports as saying investigators did not find any links to foreign extremist groups.

The FBI would not say how much the solution cost or reveal how it worked. It also refused to share the information with Apple, which had expressed concern that circumventing its security protections could compromise its products.

The suit by the media organizations argues that there was no legal basis to withhold the information and challenges the adequacy of the FBI’s search for relevant records. It also said the public has a right to know whether the vendor has adequate security measures, is a proper recipient of government funds and will act only in the public interest.

It was the third suit the AP has filed against the Obama administration under the Freedom of Information Act.

By Amitava Mukherjee*

The apprehension has come true. The Taliban has now expressed its displeasure over India’s decision to supply arms to the Afghanistan government. New Delhi has already supplied to Afghanistan three Russian made Mi-25 gunship helicopters and the fourth one is likely to be delivered soon. But Afghanistan has requested for more lethal arms of different kinds. There is a buzz in concerned circles that Afghanistan has requested for supply of Mi-35 attack helicopters also.

This could be a complete departure from India’s earlier policy on Afghanistan when New Delhi chose to restrict itself to giving economic aid only – up to USD 2 billion till now which has gone towards capacity buildings in the field of infrastructure, education, agriculture etc. This apparent change of attitude on the part of India may have been prompted by a sustained deterioration of Pakistan-Afghanistan bilateral relations and rapid spread of Islamic State(IS) influence in the eastern part of Afghanistan.

But, by sticking its neck out into the Afghan quagmire India has certainly taken a great amount of risk. It maybe a calculated one given the fact that Pakistan is now raising barbed wire fences on a two kilometer stretch near Torkham which is situated on the Durand Line, the cartographical border between Pakistan and Afghanistan ,which the latter never accepted as. Recently there was heavy fighting between the Pakistani and the Afghan army at Torkham, as Pakistan tried to build up a post on its side of the border and the Afghans tried to stop it. Relation between the two countries is likely to deteriorate further as the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is wreaking havoc inside its own country with active support from the Afghan Taliban.

Actual request for shipment of Indian arms to the Afghan government has however been prompted by the United States because most of the critical weapons in the hands of the Afghan National Army(ANA) are Russian made and, except Moscow, only New Delhi can ensure steady supply of spare parts. However India should keep in mind the organizational weakness of the Afghan National Army(ANA) before handing over such lethal weapons to it. Besides there is a deep schism within the Afghan administration with the President Ashraf Ghani and the Chief Executive Office (CEO) Abdullah Abdullah pulling on strings at opposite directions.

As a result of all these factors Afghanistan is now at a dangerous cross road. The IS has dug its heels deep in the eastern provinces of Nangarhar and Kunar. Sometime back thirty five people had died from IS attack in Jalalabad, capital of the Nangarhar province. In addition Taliban has been attacking at will in all directions, a notable example being the explosion at the American University in Kabul resulting in the death of at least thirteen people. Their latest push into the capital of the Uruzgan province has completely exposed the vulnerability of the ANA.

But, the most worrisome incident in recent times has been the Taliban’s frequent attacks and off and on seizures of the northern city of Kunduz which is situated near the border of Tajikistan and is thus distant from the Taliban’s supply line coming through Pakistan. Worried about the Taliban’s penetration of northern Afghanistan the mujahideen warlords of the former Northern Alliance had earnestly asked Ashraf Ghani, the president and Abdullah Abdullah, the CE, to bury the hatchet.

Before committing itself to supply of lethal weapons India should have taken note of the Afghan politics and society which now stand asunder. Ashraf Ghani represents the Pashtun tribe whose domination is opposed by the former mujahideen warlords like Ismail Khan, Mohammed Mohaqiq and Abdul Rashid Dostam. Now Dostum is an Uzbeck, Ismail Khan a Tajik and Mohaqiq a Hazara Shia. Dostum, the first vice president of Afghanistan, has openly held Ghani responsible for his(Dostum’s) gradual marginalization while Ismail Khan had publicly announced his disapproval of the former Interior Minister Nur-ul-Huq Ulumi who is viewed in some quarters as a supporter of the previous Soviet backed government.

The Afghan society is replete with records of schisms based on sectarian and ethnic lines and some actions of Ashraf Gani, the president of Afghanistan, have not helped to smoothen the ties among various sections of Afghan administration and society. There is no love lost between Abdul Rashid Dostum, the first vice president, and Atta Mohammed Noor, the governor of the Balkh province, culminating in at least one clash between their respective militias in the Fariyab province. Unfortunately in February this year Ghani had permitted Dostum to make use of the latter’s own militias against militants including the Taliban. Perhaps he is trying to kill two birds with one stone- to repair his relations with Dostum for the latter’s continued participation in government and at the same time neutralize his (Ghani’s) bête noire, Atta Mohammed Noor.

This sectarian schism has affected the ANA. It is already suffering from attrition and desertion. It is now an established fact that the ANA can give a fight to the Taliban and the IS only when it gets air support. It has forty seven Mi-17 transport helicopters half of which are now grounded due to war fatigues and combat damages. In the area of fixed wing air transport the ANA has some already existing small sized C-208 and four C-130 aircraft. Although eight A-29 Super Tucano combat aircraft which the ANA is likely to receive this year will give the latter some amount of lethal edge yet most of the troop movements are still done on land, thus exposing them to Taliban ambushes.

It is true that India has reasons to be emboldened as Ashraf Ghani has terminated his 18-month long engagement with Pakistan after the last April 19 terrorist attack in Kabul. But there is a distinct possibility that a good amount of arms and equipments to be delivered to Afghanistan in future – likely to be air support systems, light mountain artilleries, bridge laying equipments and medium trucks capable to transport 2.5- 7 ton cargoes- may ultimately fall into Taliban or IS hands.

Last year ANA’s strength stood at 1, 69, 203. This was the lowest numerical strength of the outfit since 2011. It is also plagued by ethnic loyalties. It is widely rumoured in strategic circles that at the time of Taliban’s last capture of the Kunduz city the Uzbeks loyal to Abdul Rashid Dostum and the Tajik top commanders of the ANA remained largely inactive as Ashraf Ghani has effected a widespread reshuffling of governors and commanders of the ANA by removing many and bringing in personnel from his own Pashtun community

*Amitava Mukherjee is a senior Indian journalist and commentator. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent on: editor@spsindia.in

With the growing number of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Nepal, most Nepali seems to know about it. Some blame them as one of the causes of corruption and have great influence on nation’s internal affairs and their readymade program and projects have a negligible participation of local stakeholders during the plan formulation and its implementation. They are also criticized for their non-transparency. Often, many publications and the World Hindu Federation accuse some International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) of generating controversy by proselytizing.

Not only in Nepal but also in other developing world, many argue that the excess number of NGOs has been accused of damaging the public sector instead of promoting equity and alleviating poverty and they are being designed and used as extensions of the normal foreign-policy instruments of certain countries and groups of the countries. They have great influence and power in global affairs and backing of the powerful organizations and the government.

NGOs in Nepal

There are around 200 INGOs and 4000 NGOs in Nepal, registered with the Social Service National Coordination Council, one of the biggest numbers among developing countries.

The history of social welfare service in Nepal is very mature, as the society itself. The centuries-old social entities such as guthi (trust), parma (labour exchange system), dhikur (saving/credit) are still prevalent as significant social institutions. The organization of civil society along modern lines began with the Arya Samaj in 1909 to awaken the Nepalese from blind faith, prejudice, and conservative thinking as well as to abolish child marriage, promote widow remarriage and initiate social reforms.

Once these informal entities were well organized, self-sustained and agent of social change. They had strong root to serve and support the poor and the vulnerable in society. There was people’s huge participation and still some remains of these social service entities prevalent in our society, which has now been replaced by the modern external assisted NGOs.

NGOs, in Nepal, are carrying out many good works into some areas such as community and rural development, empowerment of women, improvement of an environment, delivery of public health, AIDS and drug abuse control, child welfare, educational development, handicapped and disabled service, youth activities, and development of moral values.

Some NGOs engaged in social development have been actively involved in relief package and development along with other activities like resource mobilization, social mobilization, awareness, skill development, and rehabilitation. During the period of the great earthquake of 2015, national and international government and non-government organization’s humanitarian supports were praiseworthy. NGOs related to humanitarians and advocacy is comparatively doing better in Nepal.

According to statistics of the Finance Ministry that around 20 percent of the aid Nepal receives during a year was routed through INGOs. Their annual contribution in development sector is around 7 to 9 percent.

People working in the INGOs agree that there is a possibility of anomalies in some INGOs but it is not true that all of them are bad. In the lack of elected representatives at the local level, Nepal’s INGOs have been making a lot of differences.

Some INGOs say that only a few people understand their positive role and contributions. Most government officials, media, and politicians, in Nepal, interpret the INGOs in a negative manner without understanding the truthfulness.

Opportunities and challenges

The governments’ disappointing situation, worldwide during the 1970s started a faster rise of modern civil society organizations and an increased partnership between public, non-profit and the profit-oriented organizations. The government itself cannot go to all remote and deprived areas proportionally; therefore the involvement and engagement of NGOs are ever increasing.

The developing countries have to follow the guidelines prescribed by the United Nations regarding INGOs. The term “Non-Governmental Organization” was popularized by the United Nations Charter (Chapter 10, Article 71), which gives a consultative role to organizations that are not part of the structure of government. An International NGO was broadly defined by the UN Economic and Social Commission (ECOSOC) as “any international organization that is not founded by an international treaty.

INGOs are the source of track two diplomacy consists of experts, scientists, professors, and other figures that are not involved in government affairs, which have more freedom to exchange ideas and come up with compromises on their own. If properly utilized them, the government can receive good supports in respect to nation building.

In order to be accountable to the society, I/NGOs should take the questions raised by the society seriously, and do their own evaluation on a regular basis. Unless the issues of transparency and accountability are implemented sternly, the social prestige cannot be elevated. Many INGOs do not comply with the national laws of the countries; engaged with unseen unwanted activities. Consequently, some countries in Africa have formulated special strong additional laws for INGOs to control their unwanted activities and regulate them properly.

Who is going to investigate and correct the corrupt NGOs, there should be some sort of legal mechanism to control corruptions, unseen unwanted activities and low level of achievements?

Many INGOs are doing good jobs to transform society while some of them, with wrong motives, are creating some sort of controversies in society. One of the reasons may be that INGOs lack publicity about the good practices they generate. Another reason may be their inability to disseminate the information widely in the society by exposing such institutions.

*Author is a former Undersecretary at the Ministry of Finance and was associated with United Nations Development Program at Sierra Leone and South Sudan. He is also writer of a book – Melting Everest and falling Mountains.

By Nick Buffie*

The Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for August showed that prices over the past three months (June, July, and August) are less than 1.0 percent higher than from the same three months of 2015. “Core” inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, is up by almost 2.3 percent using the same methodology. Interestingly, this is actually the inflation rate targeted by the Fed for the core CPI (the normal 2.0 percent target is for a different price index). The discrepancy between actual inflation and core inflation was driven predominantly by declining energy costs. Whereas food prices increased 0.2 percent last year, energy prices fell by 9.9 percent.

Much of the increase in prices last year was driven by rising shelter costs, which are up 3.4 percent from one year ago. Excluding shelter, overall prices actually fell by 0.2 percent last year — meaning there was outright deflation. Core inflation minus shelter was a meager 1.4 percent. This represents a slight acceleration over the previous three years. According to this measure, price growth was 1.2 percent in 2013, 1.1 percent in 2014, and 0.9 percent in 2015.

In terms of the prices for specific goods, a few items showed notable declines. Prices for televisions fell 20.0 percent over the past year, continuing a six-decade decline in costs. In fact, adjusted for changes in quality, televisions today cost less than three percent of what they did in 1983. The prices of eggs declined 31.5 percent, while the prices of used cars and trucks declined 3.6 percent. Furniture and bedding costs fell 3.0 percent.

Apparel prices have moved in different directions depending on the type of price. Costs for women’s apparel are up 0.9 percent relative to last year, while the prices for men’s apparel haven’t moved at all. On the other hand, prices for jewelry and watches increased 6.4 percent.

Recreational reading materials increased in price last month after a previous bout of deflation; the July-over-July price drop of 1.6 percent represented the largest-ever annual decline, and the price increase in August means that there is no August-to-August price change. On the other hand, the prices of college textbooks are up 6.6 percent over the past year. This discrepancy is likely due to a combination of monopoly pricing and inelastic demand (thanks to the fact that students themselves can’t change the textbooks used in their courses) in the market for college textbooks.

In terms of different parts of the country, regional inflation data show that the South and the Northeast are tracking national price changes. Inflation is above-average in the West but remains weak in the Midwest region. In two major Midwestern cities — Cleveland and Chicago — the local economies are experiencing outright deflation, with Chicago seeming to experience an accelerating rate of deflation. (Prices fell 0.1 percent between July 2015 and July 2016 but fell 0.3 percent between August 2015 and August 2016.) This may prove to be a temporary blip, but at the very least, prices in Chicago should be watched going forward.

Besides the CPI-U, the other price indexes also showed very low rates of inflation. The producer price index (PPI) showed no change in prices over the past 12 months. The PPI excluding food, energy, and trade increased 1.2 percent over the last year. Over the past 10 months, monthly inflation has been negative just once, but for all months it has stayed in the relatively low range of -0.1 to +0.3 percent.

Data in the import-export price indexes were slightly discouraging. Import prices declined 2.2 percent over the past 12 months thanks largely to a 12.2 percent decline in fuel imports. (Prices for all other imports declined just 0.9 percent.) This represents a real income gain for the American public since it means that consumers are paying cheaper prices for imported goods. Unfortunately, the decline in import prices was paralleled by a 2.4 percent decline in export prices, meaning that other countries’ consumers are sending less money our way as well.

The latest inflation data show mixed results, though there seems to a very sluggish movement back towards target inflation. Core inflation in the CPI finally ran (just about) at the Fed’s target, though much of this was driven by a single item, shelter costs. Moreover, inflation remains incredibly low in one region of the country, the Midwest. This indicates that inflation is beginning to pick up, but is doing so very slowly and isn’t showing up in a uniform way across the country.

*Nick Buffie is a Research Associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, DC.

Campania, Italy is a stronghold of the Camorra, local organized crime. In this rural area, the Camorra operates in both legal and illegal markets, such as construction and drugs. It also extorts money from local businesses, corrupts politicians and public servants and siphons off public funds. It impoverishes the area both economically and socially.

In this setting, a dynamic social enterprise has been revolutionizing mental health care while also opposing the Camorra. The organization in question is the Nuova Cucina Organizzata (the New Organized Kitchen), which runs a restaurant on Camorra-confiscated property, employing mental health patients.

The Nuova Cucina Organizzata is successfully bringing about social change, using its position in two very different fields to its advantage. As such, it provides an illuminating case study of how “multiple embeddedness” — that is, operating in multiple fields at once — helps enterprises become more entrepreneurial and innovative.

In a paper recognized as one of the Academy of Management’s Best Paper Proceedings for 2015, co-authors Valeria Cavotta, Tommaso Ramus and IESE’s Antonino Vaccaro examine three essential strategies implemented by the Nuova Cucina Organizzata to achieve its impressive results.

The Nuova Cucina Organizzata: Reclaiming Land and Health

Since 2007, the Nuova Cucina Organizzata has operated its restaurant on property confiscated from the Camorra, which would normally be left unused for fear of reprisals. Boldly challenging the old subjugation to organized crime, the very presence of the Nuova Cucina Organizzata stands as a powerful symbol. It helps expose the Camorra as an economic system shamelessly dedicated to individual personal enrichment at the community’s expense.

At the same time, the Nuova Cucina Organizzata is working to improve the treatment of mental health. It employs people with mental health problems in its restaurant, hosting them in home-like accommodations, and providing them with support networks and social rehabilitation within the community. In contrast, traditional treatment methods may isolate patients in clinics or hospitals for prolonged periods of time — and that isolation may then contribute to future relapses.

Via interviewing stakeholders and analyzing related materials, the co-authors identified the Nuova Cucina Organizzata’s three main strategies in their ambitious work:

1. Common problems call for common solutions.

First of all, the Nuova Cucina Organizzata identified a common social problem and proposed a common solution — a sort of social rehabilitation. Specifically, this social enterprise argued that “giving rights to the weakest members of the community [was] a way to nourish the wellbeing of the community.” In contrast to the criminal model of enrichment at the expense of others, this business model promoted solidarity and fairness.

2. A badge of honor… or a mark of shame.

Second, the organization had to counter considerable resistance, marshal recalcitrant community members and shift perceptions of its restaurant project. It did this through a process called “motivational framing,” dividing the actors involved into categories. In this case, the categories were “the good,” “the bad” and “the ugly.”

“The bad” category fit the Camorra, which opposed the restaurant with threats and vandalism, angry at the use of “its” property. The category was also used to describe the mental health establishment, which actively pushed back against the new model of treating patients outside of traditional protective structures.

Countering “the bad,” the organization positioned itself, its allies and the mental patients working for them as “the good.” Calling people with mental disorders “good” helped shift perceptions from their traditional label of “socially dangerous people.” This framing contrasted their productive and pro-social work with the moral and community breakdown brought about by organized crime.

The organization also created a third category: “the ugly.” Since the weakness of the state enabled organized crime to flourish in the region, the Nuova Cucina Organizzata used this third category to shame those who simply refused to offer support. Most notably, the regional president was included in this category in an attempt to nudge him into action.

3. Unite allies to the cause.

Thanks in part to this framing technique, the Nuova Cucina Organizzata mobilized more allies than enemies. In fact, it recruited a wide variety of anti-Camorra actors — associations, magistrates, politicians — to collaborate with their health care initiative. Similarly, health care actors — ranging from social enterprises to public health administrators — have taken on the Camorra-free, social business model.

A Model for Change

The Nuova Cucina Organizzata illustrates the power of multiple embeddedness to help implement institutional change. It allows entrepreneurs to question practices that may be taken for granted by others. In doing so, it helps open people’s minds to new possibilities — possibilities it can thus make reality.

The organization also sheds light on how entrepreneurs can motivate others. By successfully countering opponents and bringing together allies from different fields, innovators embedded in more than one field can bring about more profound change than that yielded within the confines of any single field. In other words, it seems that sometimes having a foot in both camps is the best way to move forward.

The participants of G20 Summit agreed to improve global economic governance system and financial management, and vowed to streamline innovation and formulate new strategy for global trade growth, said President of China Xi Jinping commenting on the results of the 11th meeting of G20 leaders in Chinese Hangzhou on 5 September 2016.

“We agreed to improve G20 trade and investment mechanisms, endorse the G20 strategy for global trade growth and move toward inclusive and coordinated global value chains. We support the multilateral trading regime and oppose protectionism, so as to release the potential of global business cooperation and reverse the decline of global trade growth,” Xi Jinping said at a press-conference.

According to him, G20 leaders highlighted the importance of the transition from the mechanism of crisis response to long-term governance.

“These measures will open up greater market, increase the efficiency of resource allocation, production factors and services,” Chinese President added.

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that the work at the G20 Summit in China was fruitful.

“As far as the work is concerned, it was rather serious and substantial. It really reflected the interests of all countries of the 20, including Russia. This year, we focused on key issues of today, at the proposal of the Chinese side,” Russian leader told reporters.

In addition to the official events of the summit, Vladimir Putin took part in an informal meeting with BRICS leaders and held a series of bilateral negotiations, in particular, with US President Barack Obama, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, British Prime Minister Theresa May, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Egypt’s leader Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and President of Argentina Mauricio Macri.

Analyzing the results of the Summit, Zhixiao Chang, Associate Dean School of Government, Peking University, said that G20 in Hangzhou was the first time for China to host this broad international conference.

“The Summit is held during the period of weak, unstable and unbalanced recovery growth of world economy. So, it is natural for the whole world to put strong expectations on the conference this year and hope it can come up with constructive measures to foster and accelerate growth,” the analyst told PenzaNews.

He also stressed that in 2016 G20 was widely represented by not only the traditional developed economies but also by significant emerging economies and growing economies from developing world, as China also invited some non-members from Africa and Asia to attend the event.

“Beyond the general principles and declarations of economic growth, G20 came up with very significant measures to G20 Blueprint on Innovation Growth and related G20 2016 Innovation Action Plan,” Zhixiao Chang said.

According to him, innovation and the utilization of new science and technology, new infrastructures and new trade platforms will be the core of the new round of world growth.

“Traditionally, innovation and high-tech is dominated by developed countries. However, G20 in Hangzhou also urged and encouraged the developing economies to innovate, update and restructure economic system,” the Chinese expert said.

First of all, G20 is a multilateral mechanism by focusing on economic issues particularly growth policy; however, the collaboration of different types of countries will definitely affect and form a new structure of global economic, financial and trade governance, he said.

“The institutionalization of G20 decision and policy initiatives will be the key to guarantee the solid performance and constructive outcomes. Otherwise, those declarations, communiqués and policy options will flow in the wind. Therefore, the internal governance mechanism of G20 will be crucial to make its policy initiatives more accountable, feasible and checkable. In other words, G20 needs a set of rules, charters and performance monitoring mechanism to form a credible structure and accountable organization,” the expert said.

In turn, Amitendu Palit, Economist, the Institute of South Asian Studies in the National University of Singapore, stressed that the meeting took place in the backdrop of a number of difficult issues.

“Over the years, the G20 has become one of the most important global summits. It was not an exception this time. The most important background for the Summit was the internal problems that many of the members were facing. The relationships between members were also difficult, such as between China and the US,” the expert said.

The decision to activate global trade and take the pledge to stay away from protectionism for the next couple of years is an important move for the world economy, he said.

“Free trade is experiencing a lot of resistance, particularly in the US and Europe. To that extent, efforts to push trade are important. Along with trade, the commitment to the Paris Climate Decision and controlling black money are also important steps. Finally, the decision to expand trade with Africa and LDCs is also important as it is the first time the G20 has taken such a step,” Amitendu Palit added.

According to him, the Summit was important in sending a signal to the rest of the world about the seriousness of the world’s major economies in addressing global concerns.

“However, the Summit itself is not capable of directly addressing many serious problems, such as refugee crisis in the Europe or terrorism. So to that extent, the political effect of the G20 is likely to remain limited to efforts of individual economies,” the economist said.

In his opinion, the success of the Summit will be in its ability to deliver results on key global concerns.

“It was relatively successful in handling financial issues, such as greater financial coordination after the financial crisis. But whether it can handle major political issues is difficult to say. The effectiveness of the Summit as a political forum is limited due to lack of political consensus on many issues among members,” the analyst said.

Meanwhile, Philip Hanson, Associate Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program, Chatham House, drew attention to the special significance of the Summit as a platform for the talks between the countries’ leaders.

“The G20 Summit has been important to Moscow chiefly as a setting for informal bilateral meetings with foreign leaders. The Russian leadership maintains that the G20 is a more relevant grouping for Russia than the Western-dominated G8 forum used to be. Given the present state of relations between Russia and the West, this is undoubtedly the case,” the British expert said.

According to him, one of the important outcomes of the Summit was the statement by Russia that it is open for business cooperation with all states.

“Russia has declared its interest in strengthening both political and commercial ties with other BRICS countries and with Asia in particular. Above all, Moscow seeks to establish to the wider world – including the West – that it is open for business,” Philip Hanson said.

In turn, Stefano Maullu, member of the European Parliament from Italy, Group of the European People’s Party member, called the Summit’s format the most effective.

“In a multilateral world, meetings, to be successful, must be as open and inclusive as possible. On this regard the Summit was very well done. Having all the major players sat at the same table discussing important themes, as world economic growth, is a vital step toward peace,” the European politician said.

He also reminded that in his opening speech, Xi Jinping stated there are five priorities.

“All of them are centered on the global growth. This is not business as usual. This is a road to success, because commit us all to remove the obstacles to achieve this goal. Sanctions against Russia, imposed by EU, arise as an example. Removing them should be listed as a priority, to ensure prosperity and peace globally,” Stefano Maullu said.

According to him, these summits should not be judged on a short term base.

“They inform the action of governments and international agencies on the long run. On this regard, we can safely affirm the meeting was a steady success. The coordination of macroeconomic interventions, for example, is something we cannot overlook. A mere two years ago we were in a long and tiring currency war, we all hope it never repeats, for example,” the MEP said.

From his point of view, China hosted this Summit in an unparalleled way, showing the world its maturity and readiness to sit at the decisions table.

“We should keep in mind the statement of the French economist Frederic Bastiat: when goods don’t pass borders, soldiers will. Economic peace anticipates world peace, this Summit was a good step toward both goals,” Stefano Maullu concluded.

The Group of Twenty (G20) is the leading international forum on the most important aspects of the global economic and financial agenda.

The Group of Twenty brings together the world’s leading industrialized and emerging economies which make almost two-thirds of the world’s population. The group accounts for 85 percent of world GDP and 75 percent of all trade in the world.

G20 consists of 19 states and the European Union. Its permanent members in addition to Russia and the EU, include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey and the US.

The Summit of G20 leaders held in Hangzhou, China, from 4–5 September 2016, became the 11th meeting of the Group of Twenty and the first one held in China.

The next G20 Summit will be held under the German Presidency; it is expected to take place in Hamburg on 7–8 July 2017.

Source: http://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/62713-2016

The first TV debate between US Presidential Candidates will take place on September 26, 2016. Later debates will be on October 9th and 19th for the candidates to face each other. During live debates on TV screens, candidates will respond to questions from anchor speakers, and also criticize each other within given time periods. Afterwards we shall read the evaluations on the printed press how capable they were.

Donald Trump is a TV star. He has his own very popular reality show “Apprentice” on TV with high ratings. He is very comfortable on the TV screen. In a TV debate, your writer feels that Mrs. Hillary Clinton has no chance to win the sessions. Mrs. Clinton has other problems to solve, such as her undisclosed unverified pneumonia and parkinson health rumors, confidential private emails during her FM tenure, and her difficulties and mismanagement during misfortunate Benghazi disaster. These are not so easy to cope in near future.

We are sure that she will continue the existing Foreign policy of the Obama administration with the same stalemate without any new solutions to the current world affairs. Mrs. Hillary Clinton has an eroding image in the discourse. Whereas Donald Trump has more fun, with solutions good or bad questionable, he is easy to improvise, easy to understand, with many solutions to ongoing problems, and flexible to apologize when and where necessary.

Your author does not believe the US pre-election public opinion polls. Donald Trump has an ongoing rating band of 40-42%. Hillary Clinton seems to be in the 46-48% band, but it seems that the gap is getting smaller very day.

Mrs. Hillary Clinton emerges as true follower if not designer of the current Obama foreign policies. She does not bring anything new. Donald Trump reveals more radical public decision for US voters. These are very attractive initiatives for average US voters, such as deportation of undocumented illegal immigrants, opening and exploitation of the coal mines for more employment and more jobs for coal country. These new policies reverse the existing norms and overtakes very attractive terms for average US voters. Bernie Sanders, would be more tough opponent for Donald Trump in social policies.

Donald Trump also promotes more isolation from the problems of the outside world, the Middle East, Afghanistan. He is inexperienced in foreign relations so he will try to avoid any further involvement. He promises no adventures in the foreign lands. So, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan wars will be left to neighboring geographies to solve. USA will withdraw foot soldiers and avoid land operations there. US arms manufacturers are traditionally support Republican candidates. So US arm manufacturers will continue to sell conventional weapons to these conflict regions to let them to kill each other. We are left to our destiny on our south border. US involvement will be limited to air strikes through drones with no pilots. Furthermore US visa applications will be more stringent. It will be difficult to get US visa. It will be to difficult to make business with USA in the long run.

Please do note that the “Trump Tower” which is located in Kustepe Mecidiyekoy Istanbul, does not belong to Donald Trump. Trump sold license, projects, architectural services, and right to use his name for Shopping mall, business center and accommodation facilities. “Trump Tower” in Istanbul is financed, constructed, promoted and operated by a Turkish real estate investment group.

Donald Trump does not have any direct investments in Turkey. He is a successful investor on entertainment centers, hotels, golf courses. In order to have Trump investments in Turkey, Turkish investment environment should get improved, and Turkey should get better financing evaluations from rating agencies in the long run.

Your writer finds always fun to follow foreign policies. I review cartoons which mock most foreign politicians. Putin (63) is described as naked, macho, in harsh attitude with green military camouflage pants. Cartoonists often love Putin. Putin is seen as a counter balance against Western leaders.

Obama (55) is lean, long, thin in black business suit with big ears in cartoons. I watch Donald Trump (70), Hillary Clinton (68), Bernie Sanders (74) in funny cartoons with pleasure.

Cartoonists love to exaggerate particulars of the politicians with uncomfortable details. Donald Trump’s hair style, his small hands, obesity, Hillary Clinton’s weird pants to cover her large basin, her high cheekbones, Bernie’s advancing age. Politicians are to stand to cartoonists’ hard cruel sense of humor at all times. They need to have hard skin to stand. Donald Trump has a thick hard skin. He is unconcerned and indifferent to hard satire that cartoonists draw, and he presumes credit for every appearance on the printed press. There is nothing else to do. Politicians are to get used to all that satire.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was drawn as poodle dog, due to his unconditional support of US foreign policies. The next Prime Minister David Cameron once accidentally pronounced “condom” in one of his public speeches. He is drawn with condom on his head from that date on.

The new British Prime Minister Mrs Theresa May(59) has crow’s nose, hump back, feminist attitude, in funny cloths, especially with her leopard print heel shoes, as appeared in her cartoons.

German Chancellor Mrs. Angela Merkel (62) is depicted as nude, short, fat, submissive. American Painter Vincent Desiderio has a famous painting names “Sleep” where men and women sleep naked in the same bed. There are cartoons using the same theme, where Angela Merkel sleeps naked with other politicians. Merkel does not deserve them all. She is well educated, beautiful lovely lady. But in politics, one has to be resistant to all unreasonable irrational rouge hard criticism. In the last regional elections, in her own constituency, Merkel lost her public support and dropped to third place due to her immigration policies. She had incorrect inappropriate domestic policies for incoming refugee problem. She lost her chance to become the next Chancellor in the next period. Other European countries took hard decisions for refugee problems. They refuse to have refugees in Poland, Hungary, Czech, Austria.

A recent report has appeared in British tabloid DailyMail on Donald Trump’s third and last wife 1970 Slovenia born Melanie Trump (46). Upon her arrival to the USA in 1996, she was with fashion model (and even escort) agency. Donald Trump responded “It is not my subject, ask to Melanie”. Melanie Trump opened 150 million US dollar defamation lawsuit against the newspaper. The Newspaper later corrected the story and said that Melanie worked with fashion agency within legal terms. “Melanie was not an escort, she worked as a legal model,” they made adjustments.

Cartoonists and satirists have freedom of expression, and it is impossible unreasonable to prevent their freedom of expression in Western democracies. Their band of criticism is too wide in the Western world. The youngest Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio(45) told for his rival Donald Trump (70) “his hands are too small”, meaning an old-age obscene remark. Trump after three marriages with five children, responded with confidence, “And, he referred to my hands — ‘if they’re small, something else must be small.’ I guarantee you there’s no problem. I guarantee.” Republicans are very casual for such obscene remarks waist down.

But that obscene remark was pronounced and cartoonists loved that statement and started to draw Trump with small hands. Naked Trump statues are installed in one early morning in major city parks. People loved to tale selfie photos with that identical naked Trump fiber sculptures.

We shall miss President Barrack H. Obama for sure. He was a real intellectual, humanist, environmentalist, a model father and husband with full of humor. He avoided US foot soldiers in conflict zones. ObamaCare social security for all poor was his initiative.

Could Trump become the President of the United States? The answer is YES. He may get elected and become the next President in November 2016 US Presidential elections. If Hollywood star Ronald Reagan could become the US President for two consecutive terms, businessman and prominent TV star Donald Trump can become the next President. So all these satirical cartoons, sculptures may work for Donald Trump, we all have fun to enjoy. We columnists will have ample wording to write every day.

Haluk Direskeneli, is a graduate of METU Mechanical Engineering department (1973). He worked in public, private enterprises, USA Turkish JV companies (B&W, CSWI, AEP), in fabrication, basic and detail design, marketing, sales and project management of thermal power plants. He is currently working as freelance consultant/ energy analyst with thermal power plants basic/ detail design software expertise for private engineering companies, investors, universities and research institutions. He is a member of ODTÜ Alumni and Chamber of Turkish Mechanical Engineers Energy Working Group.

American and NATO aggressions must be opposed wherever they surface in the world. That statement ought to be the starting point for anyone calling themselves left, progressive, or anti-war. Of course the aggressors always use a ruse to diminish resistance to their wars of terror. In Syria and elsewhere they claim to support freedom fighters, the moderate opposition and any other designation that helps hide imperialist intervention. They label their target as a tyrant, a butcher, or a modern day Hitler who commits unspeakable acts against his own populace. The need to silence opposition is obvious and creating the image of a monster is the most reliable means of securing that result.

The anti-war movement thus finds itself confused and rendered immobile by this predictable propaganda. It is all too easily manipulated into being at best ineffectual and at worst supporters of American state sponsored terror.

For five years the United States, NATO, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar and Turkey have given arms and money to terrorist groups in an effort to topple Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Some of those bad actors felt flush with success after overthrowing and killing Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. They had high hopes of picking off another secular Arab government. Fortunately, Assad was hard to defeat and the barbarians cannot storm the gates. Most importantly, Russia stopped giving lip service to Assad and finally provided military support to the Syrian government in 2015.

The United States government is responsible for the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria. The so-called barrel bomb doesn’t kill more people than conventional weapons provided by the United States and its puppets. There would not be bombs of any kind, sieges, starving children, or refugees if the Obama administration had not given the green light to the rogues gallery.

Whatever their political beliefs or feelings about Assad, Syrians did not ask the United States to turn their country into a ruin. They don’t want ISIS to behead children, as they infamously did on camera. American presidents, beginning with Jimmy Carter, have all used jihadists at opportune moments when they want regime change. The name of the country under attack changes but the story ends with massive human suffering.

Instead of siding unequivocally with America’s victims some in the anti-war movement instead live in greater fear of being labeled “pro Assad.” Assad didn’t invade Iraq and kill one million people. George W. Bush did that. Assad did not give support to jihadists to destroy Libya, kill 50,000 people, ignite a race war and create another refugee crisis. Barack Obama did that. The list of human rights abuses carried out by the American government is a long one indeed. There is torture in the United States prison system, the largest in the world. American police are given tacit permission to kill three people every day. Yet the fear of being thought of as an Assad supporter is so powerful that it silences people and organizations who should be in the forefront of confronting their country domestically and internationally.

Of course American propaganda is ratcheted up at the very moment that sides must be chosen. Any discussion or debate regarding Syria’s political system was rendered moot as soon as the United States targeted that country for destruction. There is only one question now: when will America tell its minions to stop fighting?

Obama didn’t start a proxy war with an expectation of losing, and Hillary Clinton makes clear her allegiance to regime change. The United States will only leave if Syria and its allies gain enough ground to force a retreat. They will call defeat something else at a negotiating table but Assad must win in order for justice and reconciliation to begin.

Focusing on Assad’s government and treatment of his people may seem like a reasonable thing to do. Most people who call themselves anti-war are serious in their concern for humanity. But the most basic human right, the right to survive, was taken from 400,000 people because the American president decided to add one more notch on his gun. Whether intended or not, criticism of the victimized government makes the case for further aggression.

The al-Nusra Front may change its name in a public relations effort, but it is still al Qaeda and still an ally of the United States. The unpredictable Donald Trump may not be able to explain that he spoke the truth when he accused Obama and Clinton of being ISIS supporters, but the anti-war movement should be able to explain without any problem. Cessations of hostilities are a sham meant to protect American assets whenever Assad is winning. If concern for the wellbeing of Syrians is a paramount concern, then the American anti-war movement must be united in condemning their own government without reservation or hesitation.

By K. P. Fabian*

On 10 September 2016, US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov announced a cease-fire agreement in Geneva following negotiations that lasted over ten months. The agreement was not a cease-fire between Russia and the US, but one between their proxies. Russia was answerable for President Bashar Assad and his allies that include Russia. The US was responsible for the ‘moderate’ rebels supported by the West and its allies. The two major rebel groups, ISIL and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, were excluded from the cease-fire. Since the cease-fire has been violated a number of times, one may assume that those who signed the agreement did not have full control over those who fire.

This cease-fire is a strange one. No text was shared with the media. There was not even a joint communique. It was given out that there were five texts which will remain secret. There was only a joint press conference. Lavrov took pity on the journalists waiting for hours and handed over some pizza around midnight and added that it was from the US delegation. A little later, he re-appeared with bottles of vodka, this time from his own delegation. Perhaps, the intended message was that the two sides were about to make a deal.

The deal that was announced has the following elements:

1. A week-long cease-fire to take effect from 12 September, but initially valid for 48 hours and renewable for the same period from time to time.
2. During the cease-fire, the Syrian government should refrain from flying combat missions in areas “agreed on with real specificity”.
3. There should be “unimpeded and sustained humanitarian access to all of the besieged and hard-to-reach areas including Aleppo”.
4. The US will get the ‘moderates’ to separate themselves from the Jabhat Fateh al-Sham so that, at the end of the cease-fire, Russia can bomb the latter without hurting the former.
5. The US and Russia will create a Joint Implementation Centre for the “sharing of information necessary for the delineation of territories controlled by (Jabhat Fateh al-Sham) and ‘the moderates’ in the area of active hostilities”.
6. If the cease-fire holds, Russia and the US will coordinate or cooperate in the fight against ISIL.
   l)

Two major violations, one by each side, shattered the cease-fire, proving how fragile the understanding and trust between Washington and Moscow is. The first violation was by the US-led coalition, which bombed and killed about 60 Syrian troops at Jebel Tharda, near Deir al-Zore airport, on 17 September. The troops were fighting ISIL. Washington claimed that the actual target was ISIL and regretted the mistake. Russia was not satisfied and insisted on a closed- door Security Council session to discuss the matter which was held. The US Permanent Representative to UN, Samantha Power, publicly accused Russia of resorting to a ‘cheap stunt’ by demanding such a session. Moscow actually asked for the session to satisfy Assad who did not accept the US explanation about the mistaken identity of the target. He probably believes that the US bombed his troops deliberately.

The second major violation was the attack on 20 September on a convoy of 31 trucks, which had stopped to offload supplies, at a rebel held area, Urum al-Kubra, near Aleppo. The convoy had been sent by the UN and other relief agencies after obtaining the necessary permission and informing all concerned. 20 aid workers were killed and 18 trucks destroyed. Washington has asserted that Russian aircraft bombed the trucks. Russia has denied responsibility, adding that the West-supported rebels themselves might have done it. It is difficult to believe that the rebels who were to benefit from the supplies would have attacked the convoy. Russia issued a series of contradictory explanations. It has been speculated that Russia might have carried out the attack as revenge for the attack on Syrian troops. We still do not know what exactly happened. What is painfully evident is that in Syria human life has no value. The attack on the convoy should be treated as a war crime.

One wonders why the five texts have been kept secret. One possible reason might be that Russia and the US have agreed on some political steps on the transition after the cease-fire which they might have hoped to extend after the first week. Here the US has a real difficulty. Since August 2011, it has been asking Assad to quit. The US knows that at present there is no question of Assad’s quitting. The US has accepted this, but cannot say it openly as Saudi Arabia is still insisting that Assad should quit for the transition to be completed. In December 2015, Riyadh formed a High Negotiating Committee (HNC) of which the head is Riyad Hijab, Prime Minister of Syria for a few months in 2012. On 7 September 2016, when the Kerry-Lavrov negotiations appeared deadlocked, the UK hosted a meeting of ‘Friends of Syria’ who can be more accurately described as ‘Foes of Assad’. UK’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was the host. Hijab presented a plan starting with the return of refugees and internally displaced to their homes and the release of prisoners in jails, followed by an 18-month cease-fire managed by a transitional government without Assad, and, finally, an UN-supervised election after which an elected government will take over. Hijab warned that the HNC would not accept any US-Russia plan that deviated from its own plan.

It is obvious that the HNC is delusional. It has prepared its plan based on the Geneva Communique of 2012. It does not realize that the said Communique is as dead as a dodo. In fact, while those who wanted to see the beginning of the end of Syria’s agony are saddened by the collapse of the cease-fire and the trust between Washington and Moscow, the HNC might feel glad. There is no real move towards peace in Syria as many, if not all, of the actors do not want to move towards peace. For example, Saudi men are not fighting and getting killed in Syria. Riyadh has only to pump in money to keep the war going.

We have seen one too many aerial attacks on hospitals for years. Assad has carried out such attacks recklessly and so far has got away unpunished. The latest is an attack (21st September) at a medical facility at Khan Touman in Aleppo province. Nine patients (possibly al Nusra fighters) and five medical workers were killed. It follows that Assad wants the injured fighters and those who attend to them to be killed.

Apart from the HNC, ISIL also might be pleased at the collapse of the cease-fire. If the cease-fire had held, the US and Russia would have carried out operations against ISIL with a degree of coordination. The same argument applies to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham too.

Another recent development to note is the Turkish incursion into Syria. Turkey has been planning Operation Euphrates Shield for about two years. It started the incursion on 24 August 2016, hours before US Vice President Biden came on a penitential visit. He had come to mollify President Erdogan who complained that the US had not shown any concern for him and Turkey when there was a coup attempt. Erdogan accused the US of shielding his foe Fehtullah Gulen, ‘the master mind behind the coup attempt’. The Turkish operation was aimed at ISIL as well as at YPG (Kurdish People’s Protection Units), a US ally in the fight against ISIL. Erdogan’s plan worked and Biden publicly warned ally YPG not to cross the Euphrates. The Kurds complied and wondered whether the US could be trusted. As of 19 September 2016, Turkey holds about 900 square kilometre of Syrian territory. Will Turkey move in further and run into a quagmire?

In conclusion, the Kerry-Lavrov agreement did not work because those who had to cease fire were not willing to abide by it. Lavrov had the easier task as he had to make only Assad comply. Kerry had to convince a multiplicity of actors and his colleague Defense Secretary Carter who had publicly aired his strong reservations about coordinating military action with Russia. The Geneva cease-fire agreement showed Kerry’s tenacity of purpose; he had worked on it for 10 months. There was an unpleasant exchange between Kerry and Lavrov at the Security Council (21 September). Kerry wondered whether Lavrov inhabited a ‘parallel universe’. Kerry may be right. But it follows that Kerry too is in a parallel universe of his own if he honestly believed that Russia and Assad really wanted an end to the horrendous bloodletting except on their terms and that he (Kerry) had the necessary clout to make the multitudinous actors in Syria comply with the agreement he made with Lavrov, even if they are called ‘moderates’. The US under Obama has painted itself into a corner in Syria with diminishing good options. What Obama’s successor might do is anybody’s guess. But, any worthwhile progress towards an end to the killing in Syria is unlikely to take place before the next US President assumes office. And it needs inexhaustible optimism to believe that the killing will stop any time soon.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India. Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/idsacomments/syria-the-cease-fire-that-was-and-wasnt_kpfabian_230916

Dalibor Gjuric, inmate at the prison in the Montenegrin city of Kotor sentenced as part of a high profile cocaine running gang, was killed by a sniper as he was exercising in the prison yard on Thursday afternoon.

The killer hid on a hill overlooking the Spuzh prison, and shot Gjuric who died in hospital where he was rushed for treatment. The bullet went through a wire fence and hit him in the chest. Gjuric had survived several earlier assassination attempts. Police found a burning Skoda vehicle with Italian license plates near the prison, and believes it was used by the mafia sniper.

It’s believed that a dozen of mafia killings related to Kotor based gangs are related to a 2014 incident in which 200 kilograms of cocaine were stolen in Spain.

By Danijel Kovacevic

Russian President Vladimir Putin met Milorad Dodik just ahead of the controversial Bosnian Serb referendum, but the substance of their talks could not be judged from terse statements.

Ahead of the meeting in Moscow on Thursday evening, media in the mainly Serbian entity of Bosnia, Republika Srpska, RS, hailed it as clear sign of Russian support for the controversial referendum on the RS’s National Day, which is set for Sunday.

The meeting produced only a brief statement from the Russian President. His office said the two leaders had “discussed the situation in the Balkans and various issues of bilateral cooperation. Views were exchanged on topical issues of the international agenda.”

The meeting lasted almost an hour and ended just before midnight, Moscow time, officials said.

Dodik was more vocal after the meeting. “President Putin expressed his support for the stabilization of the region, support for the [1995] Dayton Peace Agreement, wished for progress both for the RS and Bosnia and Herzegovina and, in this regard, expressed confidence that the Russian Federation with its positive attitude would contribute to stabilization and an overall good state of affairs”, Dodik reported to RS state radio and TV, RTRS.

Dodik said that during the meeting both leaders had expressed satisfaction with the economic cooperation between Russia and RS, and added that Russian investors remain interested in the RS.

“This was an opportunity to inform the President … about how the situation in Bosnia has been developing, and to express my opinion about it, particularly pointing to the fact that even after 20 years the High Representative is still present in Bosnia,” he said, adding that foreign nationals are present in other state institutions, such as the Constitutional Court.

“As for the referendum, there have not been any specific conversations, except for the conclusion that the people have the right to the referendum,” Dodik added.

No wonder the United States insisted that its Syria ceasefire deal with Russia remain secret! It turns out that one of the US demands was that the Syrian air force must be prohibited from attacking al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria).

Crazy conspiracy theory? Listen to John Kerry’s own words at the UN on Wednesday:

Why US kept Syria truce terms secret:
Syrian planes prohibited from flying over areas where al-Nusra is present
i.e. US protecting al-Qaeda pic.twitter.com/LQ6NuUZqSI

— the Lemniscat (@theLemniscat) September 22, 2016

Kerry argued at the UN that it would be impossible to separate Washington’s “moderates” from al-Qaeda while al-Qaeda was under attack:

Now, I have said to Russia many times it’s very hard to separate people when they are being bombed indiscriminately and when Assad has the right to determine who he’s going to bomb, because he can, quote, ‘go after Nusrah’ but go after the opposition at the same time because he wants to.

Does this make any sense? It seem much more logical to argue that the threat of being bombed alongside al-Qaeda would be the greatest incentive for “moderates” to separate themselves from al-Qaeda as soon as possible!

You would think Washington would tell its “moderates”: “You must cease and desist from fighting alongside al-Qaeda in Syria within the next 48 hours or you will yourselves become targets of Syrian, Russian, and coalition planes.”

Instead Washington argues that because its “moderates” refuse to separate from al-Qaeda the Russians and Syrians must stop attacking al-Qaeda!

George W. Bush famously said, “either you’re with us, or you are with the terrorists.” But what happens when Washington itself is “with the terrorists”?

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.