The United States government on September 28, 2016, imposed targeted sanctions against two senior security force officers in the Democratic Republic of Congo who have long been implicated in serious abuses, Human Rights Watch said. The officials are Gabriel Amisi (known as “Tango Four”), army commander of the country’s western region, and John Numbi, a former national police inspector.

“The US announcement of targeted sanctions against two senior Congolese security force officers sends a powerful message that there are consequences for the government’s violent repression of political demonstrations and other serious abuses,” said Ida Sawyer, senior Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch. “For the greatest impact, the US should expand sanctions to include other senior government, security, and intelligence officials responsible for brutal repression over the past two years.”

In a statement to announce the new designations, the acting director of the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), John E. Smith, said that Amisi and Numbi “have engaged in actions that undermine democratic processes in the DRC and repress the political rights and freedoms of the Congolese people, risking further and more widespread instability in the DRC, and the broader Great Lakes region.” He noted that the “action is not directed at the people of DRC,” but “is intended to alter the behavior of the targeted individuals.”

On June 23, the US announced targeted sanctions against Gen. Célestin Kanyama, the police commissioner for the capital, Kinshasa.

Since January 2015, Congolese government officials and security forces have carried out a brutal campaign of repression against people who opposed attempts to extend President Joseph Kabila’s presidency beyond the constitutionally mandated two-term limit, which ends on December 19. The officials arrested scores of activists and opposition leaders and supporters, repeatedly banned opposition demonstrations, shut down media outlets, prevented opposition leaders from moving freely around the country, and fired on peaceful protesters.

Government repression reached new heights during the week of September 18, when Congolese across the country took to the streets to protest election delays. In Kinshasa, security forces fatally shot at least 50 people and detained scores of others. The security forces took away some of the bodies, witnesses reported, in an apparent effort to hide the evidence and prevent families from organizing funerals.

In an apparent attempt to block independent observers from documenting government repression, security forces detained several international and Congolese journalists and a Congolese human rights activist soon after the protests began. The offices of a prominent human rights organization and a civil society organization were also vandalized. Some of the protesters also turned violent, beating or burning to death several police officers.

“The European Union and the United Nations Security Council should urgently adopt similar sanctions as the US,” Sawyer said. “Taking strong action now could put further pressure on President Kabila to abide by the constitutional requirement to step down at the end of his term, and help prevent a broader crisis, with potentially volatile repercussions throughout the region.”

By Hannah Brockhaus

God’s love and our unity in Christ are what enable us to overcome conflict and disagreement, and to spread the Gospel – which is what bears spiritual and artistic fruit, Pope Francis said in Georgia on Friday.

“Truly, the love of the Lord raises us up, because it enables us to rise above the misunderstandings of the past, above the calculations of the present and fears for the future,” the Pope said in a meeting with the head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, which is one of the 14 autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Unity between the Georgian Orthodox Church and Catholic Church, joined with a firm faith in Christ, the Pope said, is necessary so that “the Gospel may bear fruit in our day,” just as saints “put the Gospel before all else.”

Pope Francis met with Ilia II, Catholicos and Patriarch of All Georgia, at the Patriarchal Palace in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi Sept. 30.

Tbilisi is the Pope’s first stop during his Sept. 30-Oct. 2 visit to Georgia and Azerbaijan. Expected to largely focus on the topics of peace, ecumenism, and interreligious dialogue, the trip is seen as a conclusion of his Caucasus tour, following his visit to Armenia in June.

In his speech, the Pope expressed that love is the path to overcoming all disagreements and conflict, stating that the “true enemy” is not other people, but the evil spirit that is within ourselves.

“It is as if the great poet of this land, Shota Rustaveli, is speaking to us with some of his renowned words,” Pope Francis said.

Quoting from the epic poem “The Knight in the Panther’s Skin,” he said: “Have you read how the Apostles write about love, how they speak, how they praise it? Know this love, and turn your mind to these words: love raises us up.”

Even in the face of countless trials, Francis stated, the people of Georgia have testified to the greatness of God’s love by rising up to “the heights of extraordinary artistic beauty.”

Historically, the head of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Bishop of Rome have always had a good relationship, Pope Francis noted. The last time Ilia II met with the head of the Catholic Church was during St. John Paul II’s apostolic visit to Georgia in 1999.

Speaking of the future, Pope Francis expressed a wish for even greater peace and forgiveness between people and regions.

“May difficulties not be an obstacle, but rather a stimulus to know each other better,” he said, “to share the vital sap of the faith, to intensify our prayers for each other and to cooperate with apostolic charity in our common witness, to the glory of God in heaven and in the service of peace on earth.”

The Georgian Orthodox Church was one of the four Eastern Orthodox Churches which declined to participate in the ‘pan-Orthodox Council’ organized by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople which was held in June.

The Church also objected to an ecumenical document agreed to earlier this month by the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches which regarded synodality and primacy during the first millennium.

Noting how the Georgian people love to celebrate, Francis said this joy has its roots in the faith, “which leads Georgians, when gathered around their tables, to invoke peace for all, and to remember even one’s enemies.”

“Joined to their exaltation of love, friendship is given a special place,” he said.

“I want to be a genuine friend to this land and its beloved people, who do not forget the good they have received and whose unique hospitality is intimately united to a way of living that is full of true hope, even though there is no shortage of difficulties.”

After his encounter with Ilia II, Pope Francis had a meeting with the Assyrian and Chaldean Catholic communities of Georgia at the Chaldean parish of St. Simon Bar Sabbae.

There, he offered a prayer for many different things, including that by Christ’s glorious passion, he may “conquer the hardness of our hearts, imprisoned by hatred and selfishness.”

The Holy Father prayed for persecuted Christians, those who are abused, and for refugees. He also prayed for all those harmed by war, asking especially that “the peoples so wearied by bombing” experience the joy of Christ’s resurrection, and that Iraq and Syria will be raised up from “devastation.”

Environmental activist groups have called on Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to pass policies that will address “waste and pollution prevention and reduction” in the country.

At a press briefing on Sept. 28, the groups said the president should wage a “war on waste” and launch an ecological justice program that will address public health “as a matter of national priority.”

Father Edwin Gariguez, executive secretary of the Catholic Church’s social action secretariat, said addressing environmental issues “is as urgent as other social or political issues.”

The priest said efforts of pro-environment groups are not enough without the government’s support through the implementation of laws.

Abigail Aguilar, a campaigner for Greenpeace, said: “Having laws that outline the country’s waste pollution problems are not enough if serious implementation is lacking.”

Aguilar said addressing waste issues “do not seem to figure” as among the priorities of the Duterte administration.

Froilan Grate, coordinator of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, said he wanted the government to change its attitude.

“We hope that this government will take plastic pollution, particularly its leakage into our waterways and marine environment, more seriously,” said Grate.

Imagine a little gadget called an i-Everything. You can’t get it yet, but if technology keeps moving as fast as it is now, the i-Everything will be with us before you know it.

A combination of intelligent computing, 3-D manufacturing, big data crunching, and advanced bio-technology, this little machine will be able to do everything you want and give you everything you need.

There’s only one hitch. As the economy is now organized, no one will be able to buy it, because there won’t be any paying jobs left. You see, the i-Everything will do … everything.

We’re heading toward the i-Everything far quicker than most people realize. Even now, we’re producing more and more with fewer and fewer people.

Internet sales are on the way to replacing millions of retail workers. Diagnostic apps will be replacing hundreds of thousands of health-care workers. Self-driving cars and trucks will replace 5 million drivers.

Researchers estimate that almost half of all U.S. jobs are at risk of being automated in the next two decades.

This isn’t necessarily bad. The economy we’re heading toward could offer millions of people more free time to do what they want to do instead of what they have to do to earn a living.

But to make this work, we’ll have to figure out some way to recirculate the money from the handful of people who design and own i-Everythings, to the rest of us who will want to buy i-Everythings.

One answer: A universal basic income – possibly financed out of the profits going to such labor replacing innovations, or perhaps even a revenue stream off of the underlying intellectual property.

The idea of a universal basic income historically isn’t as radical as it may sound. It’s had support from people on both the left and the right.  In the 1970s, President Nixon proposed a similar concept for the United States, and it even passed the House of Representatives.

The idea is getting some traction again, partly because of the speed of technological change. I keep running into executives of high-tech companies who tell me a universal basic income is inevitable, eventually.

Some conservatives believe it’s superior or other kinds of public assistance because a universal basic income doesn’t tell people what to spend the assistance on, and doesn’t stigmatize recipients because everyone qualifies.

In recent years, evidence has shown that giving people cash as a way to address poverty actually works. In study after study, people don’t stop working and they don’t drink it away.

Interest in a basic income is surging, with governments debating it from Finland to Canada to Switzerland to Namibia. The charity “Give Directly” is about to launch a basic income pilot in Kenya, providing an income for more than 10 years to some of the poorest and most vulnerable families on the planet. And then rigorously evaluate the results.

As new technologies replace work, the question for the future is how best to provide economic security for all.

A universal basic income will almost certainly be part of the answer.

To promote peace and stability and in an attempt to eradicate the nuclear and conventional arms race in the region, Pakistan has always given positive gestures to India and international community. In such an attempt, to foster peace and stability in the region, Pakistan has recently offered India for a bi-lateral arrangement on non-testing of nuclear weapons. The Advisor to Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Sartaj Aziz, in the last month has advanced a proposal to India for simultaneous adherence to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). This is not the first time that Pakistan has given such a proposal to India, Pakistan had also advanced such a proposal in 1998 upon which India had not responded in a positive manner.

Such repeated gestures from Pakistan clearly manifest that the Nuclear Program of Pakistan was never initiated for offensive purposes or to gain undue advantage over the other states, it was only initiated for the purposes of its defense. Secondly, Pakistan never wanted to enter in the arms race at the cost of peace and development of the people of the region. In addition, the sacrifices made by Pakistan in war against terrorism are not hidden by anyone. The marvelous steps like Zarb-e-Azb, a joint military action carried out by Pakistan Armed Forces, to eradicate the terrorist groups, and to make this world a better place to live have also received support and applaud from international community.

The aforementioned facts clearly testify that Pakistan is a peace loving country, which is desirous of leaving no stone unturned to forward and strengthen peace, prosperity and development of people of the region, but at the same time, Pakistan is also conscious and mindful of defending itself from any external aggression.

On the other hand, it was India, which became the core reason of the creation of Nuclear Supply Group when it conducted the nuclear explosion in 1974 at Pokhran, and termed it a peaceful explosion in an untruthful and obstinate manner. India has also demonstrated to the world at large that nuclear technology transferred for peaceful purposes could be misused. This fact is also not hidden from anyone that it was India, which, at first, while attempting to give an impression that it is keenly interested in nuclear non-proliferation regime, contributed heavily in the preparation of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but thereafter refused to sign it in a deceptive manner.

India must not blame other countries as it remained unsuccessful in getting membership in the elite nuclear club. It were instead the actions and choices (as elaborated in the preceding para) that India had made in the past, which have prevented it from securing membership. This is evident from the fact that NSG had failed to achieve consensus on Indian application at its last plenary in Seoul, because some members of the elite group insisted on adhering to the NPT criteria for new membership, while some members criticized India on non-fulfilling the commitments it made while getting NSG waiver in 2008. Some member countries have also raised the concerns regarding India’s progress towards CTBT and also separation of its civilian and military nuclear reactors and reports about the safety of nuclear programme.

Since both the countries, i.e. India and Pakistan, are desirous of getting entry into the meritorious Nuclear Supply Group, therefore, they should take such steps and enter into such arrangements that could reflect to the international community that any transfer of nuclear material to these states would never contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but such a transfer would only advance the development and prosperity of people of the region.

A bilateral arrangement on non-testing will also send a positive signal to the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) countries, which are discussing the non-proliferation commitments of non-NPT states in relation to the question of membership. The Foreign Office of Pakistan had said last month that Pakistan’s proposal to India for bilateral moratorium on nuclear testing is aimed at preventing arms race in the region and strengthening non-proliferation credentials of countries that are not NPT signatories. But, India is not expected to respond positively to the bona fide Pakistani proposal as it has not accepted an earlier Pakistani proposal for Strategic Restraint Regime.

Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, it can be safely concluded that if compared with India, Pakistan is comparatively a strong candidate to get entry into the Nuclear Supply Group being ready to enter into Strategic Restrain Regime with India and ready to adhere to CTBT jointly with India.

*Ali Raza is a visiting faculty member at Air University, Islamabad. He holds masters degree in Strategic and Nuclear Studies (S&NS) from National Defense University, Islamabad. His area of research includes Strategic Stability, Arms control and disarmament and Non-Proliferation. His opinion articles appear in national and international newspapers, blogs and websites. He can be reached at razaali566@gmail.com

Here’s your economics quiz for the day:

Question 1– What do you think would happen if you put $3 trillion into the financial system?

a–Stock prices would rise

b–Stock prices would fall

c–Stock prices would stay the same

Question 2– What do you think would happen if you put $3 trillion into the economy? (Via fiscal stimulus for infrastructure projects, extended unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc)

a–Activity would increase and the economy would grow

b–Activity would slow and the economy would shrink

c–Activity would stay the same, so growth would remain unchanged

If you picked “a” for both questions, then pat yourself on the back because you got the right answers.

Now try to answer this one, last “bonus” question:

Question 3– If adding money to the financial system boosts asset prices, and adding money to the economy boosts growth, then why did the Fed add $3 trillion to the financial system expecting the economy to grow?

Is the Fed confused about how the economy works? Is the Fed confused about how the financial system works?

Probably not. There’s probably some other explanation altogether, after all, why would someone put gas in their radiator when the gas-tank is empty. That’s not going to provide fuel for the engine, is it? The same rule applies to stimulus.  The only way stimulus can work is if its put where it’s needed. And we can now say with 100 percent certainty, that the Fed’s stimulus wasn’t put where it was needed which is why it hasn’t worked.

How do we know that?

Just take a look at GDP. Second Quarter GDP came in at a dismal 1.2 percent even though interest rates are still locked at near-zero and the Fed is still recycling the cash from maturing bonds into more government debt.

Do you know what 1.2 percent GDP means?

It means that spending is weak, business investment is anemic, personal consumption is in the toilet and credit growth is kaput.  It means that the economy has basically stopped breathing, been taken off the respirator and is being rushed  to the morgue for embalming before rigor mortis sets in. It means that the people who are assigned the task of managing the system either don’t know how the system works or have an ulterior motive for the policies they’re using.

So, which is it? Is the Fed a moron or a liar?

Now we’ve all heard the expression, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result”.

Well, the Fed has been doing the same thing for the last seven years — dumping money into the financial system while predicting stronger growth. That would seem to suggest that the Fed is insane, but is the Fed insane?

No, in fact, the members of the FOMC are extremely-bright, well-educated professionals who have a solid grasp of the economy and the many intricacies of the financial system. These are smart guys, real smart. So, maybe they have an ulterior motive. Maybe that’s why they’ve stuck with the same failed policies all these years.

But if they have an ulterior motive,  then what is it?  What are they trying to achieve?

The easiest way to answer that question is by simply following the money. We’ve already seen that QE and zero rates have done nothing for growth, so –the question is– where have these policies had the greatest impact?

Why, the stock market, of course!

Did you know that the Dow Jones Industrials (DJIA) bottomed on March 9, 2009 at 6,507.  As of Thursday (9-15-16), the Dow finished the day at 18,211 nearly three times higher.  The same goes for the S and P 500 which slipped to 676 in March 2009, but rebounded to 2,147 as of yesterday afternoon. Then there’s the Nasdaq which fared even better bouncing back from an abysmal 1,268 in 2009 to a lofty 5,249 yesterday.

Now if stocks rise due to fundamentals, then that’s just great because it means the underlying strength of the economy is driving prices higher.  But if stock prices rise because the people who are supposed to be the  referees (The Fed) are gaming the system by printing up trillions of dollars and sticking it in the financial markets so their crooked friends can send their kids to Ivy League schools and drive around in Lamborghinis, then it’s not so great.

When the Fed pumps liquidity directly into the financial system, that liquidity cannot accurately be called “monetary stimulus”.  It’s not stimulus anymore than if the Fed put a billion bucks into your fledgling-Podunk  landscape business.  It’s a subsidy, a gift, a handout.  Even so, $3 trillion is a lot of money, enough money to light a fire under stocks and send them into the stratosphere. Which it has.  But let’s not kid ourselves,   stocks didn’t triple because production, earnings and growth are all going great-guns. That’s not it at all, in fact, they’re all unusually weak.  Stocks are in record territory because the Fed’s relentless interventions have kept them elevated, which has propped up the insolvent banking system and generated gigantic profits for Wall Street.

And while rising stock prices don’t necessarily prove that the Fed has an ulterior motive; identifying the people who benefit from those inflated prices certainly does. After all, who owns stocks and bonds?

We can break these people up into three separate groups; The pretty rich, the very rich and the filthy rich.  These are the people who own stocks and who benefit from the Fed’s policies.

So what does this tell us about the Fed’s “full employment, price stability” mandate?

It tells us its baloney. It tells us its public relations-hype designed to bamboozle the sheeple who can’t see what’s going on right beneath their noses.. It tells us the Fed has a secret mandate to assist the profit-accumulation process for the Kleptocrat class of  ivy league moochers. (Wall Street) It tells us that the Fed’s real job is implement the policies that best facilitate the upward distribution of wealth.  It tells us that the Fed’s so called “independence” is a complete and utter fraud  and that if Janet Yellen or any of her meat-puppet-colleagues on the FOMC ever veered as much as a centimeter to the left of her corporate marching orders– they’d find themselves wrapped in plastic-sheeting and gasping for air at the bottom of the East River in a pair of cement booties.

The whole idea that the mousy Ms Yellen is calling the shots for the world’s most powerful financial institution is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Does anyone actually believe that rubbish?

Yellen is a public relations invention, a small but critical part of a larger charade that is intended to conceal the manner by which the vast bulk of the nation’s wealth is transferred from one class to another. Let’s call it The Great Central Bank Policy Swindle, because that’s what it is. The Fed is merely an apparatchik agency that keeps its thumb on the scale to make sure all the loot goes to its bloodsucking constituents. That’s how the system works.  Here’s a little background from an article at the WSWS:

“A new report issued by the Swiss bank Credit Suisse finds that global wealth inequality continues to worsen and has reached a new milestone, with the top 1 percent owning more of the world’s assets than the bottom 99 percent combined.

Of the estimated $250 trillion in global assets, the top 1 percent owned almost exactly 50 percent, while the bottom 50 percent of humanity owned collectively less than 1 percent. The richest 10 percent owned 87.7 percent of the world’s wealth, leaving 12.3 percent for the bottom 90 percent of the population.” (“Top 1 percent own more than half of world’s wealth“, World Socialist Web Site)

But it’s not just the fact that half of everything is owned by a handful of obscenely-wealthy, money-grubbing loafers. This same voracious crew of miscreants is pulling down the lions-share of the yearly income too.  Check it out:

“The census data also reveals that income inequality in America remained virtually unchanged from 2014, with the wealthy in the top fifth of the population taking in about half of all household income, while the bottom fifth earned only 3.4 percent.”  (“Despite increase in 2015, US household income still lags behind pre-recession levels“, Kate Randall, World Socialist web Site)

So –not only do the plutocrats own half of everything on planet earth– their share of the booty is actually increasing every year. Nice, eh?

The point is,  none of this is accidental. These outcomes are the direct result of policy, the Fed’s policies.  And the Fed is not alone either. This greatly-accelerated class war is a now global phenom.  Just look at this tidbit I picked up  from an article at CNBC:

“Data from JPMorgan shows that the top 50 central banks around the world have cut rates 672 times since the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a figure that translates to an average of one interest rate cut every three trading days. This has also been combined with $24 trillion worth of asset purchases.” (“QE Infinity: Are we heading into the unknown?“, CNBC)

$24 trillion!

$24 trillion represents the biggest freaking bank heist in human history, and what do we have to show for it?

A big fat nothing, that’s what! All the data is sagging and global growth has slowed to a crawl. It’s like all the dough that was supposed to strengthen the fictitious recovery just vanished into thin air. Poof!

So why hasn’t that  $24 trillion had more of an impact?  Why isn’t their more inflation, more activity, more spending, more consumption and more growth???

It’s because everywhere the global bank cartel has its tentacles, the same policies of austerity and QE have been adopted. (Japan, UK, EU, US etc) Everywhere you look it’s caviar and Dom Perignon for the investor class and thin gruel and table scraps for everyone else. Everywhere economies are being gutted, looted, hollowed out by financial parasites who seek greater gain by holding down wages, slashing benefits and retirement, and eviscerating standards of living for ordinary working slobs while the big money honchos are living the life of Riley. Everywhere it’s starve the beast but gorge the rich.

This is political economy writ large. Trump is right, the Fed is the most political institution in government. It IS the government, and it has an absolute stranglehold on the economy.

Is it any wonder why owners of wealth are no longer using their money to invest in future production or growth or retooling or building factories or anything. Instead, they’re buying back their own shares, issuing fat dividends on droopy earnings, and shrinking their businesses in the relentless pursuit of short-term gain.

This type of destructive behavior didn’t just appear out of the ether. Heck, no. The Fed’s easy money policies created irresistible incentives for this reckless, suicidal behavior. That means the Fed is 100 percent responsible for the fragile condition of the financial system and the ginormous asset-price bubble that’s headed lickety-split for the powerlines.

But now it’s all coming to a head. Now all the bigtime global institutions (IMF, BIS, WTO, OECD) are warning that a “Hard Rain’s a-gonna Fall” and that the day of reckoning may be at hand. According to a recent report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), GDP-per-capita will grow only 1% in 2016, “which is half the average in the two decades preceding the crisis.”

As it happens, the OECD report is no more apocalyptic then the others, it’s just more explicit in what it expects to transpire.   Here’s more on the report from Wolf Street:

“Financial instability risks are rising, including from exceptionally low interest rates and their effects on financial assets and real estate prices.”…

Share prices have risen significantly in recent years in advanced economies, notably in the United States. By contrast, the growth of profits for non-financial companies has recently slowed to a modest pace, following a post-crisis recovery…

A reassessment in financial markets of interest rates could result in substantial re-pricing of assets and heighten financial volatility even if interest rates were to remain below long-term averages….”

(“OECD Warns Fed, BOJ, ECB of Asset Bubbles, “Risks to Financial Stability,” Pinpoints US Stocks & Real Estate “, Wolf Street)

Okay, let’s summarize: The global economy is slowing, corporate profits are tanking, monetary stimulus has lost its mojo, and financial instability risks are rising.

Oh, and did you catch the part about “a substantial re-pricing of assets”.  That’s financial jargon for “a crash”, a big, thundering, cataclysmic, earth-shattering CRASH.  The author is simply stating the obvious, that Central Banks have brought us to the brink of another gut-wrenching downward spiral followed by another excruciating financial crisis.

And it’s all by design, the unavoidable result of the Fed’s destabilizing, wealth-shifting policies.

How many times are we going to go through this drill before we disband the Fed and start from scratch?

The investigation into the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over two years ago always had the flavour of pre-emption, caked with assumptions of premature adjudication. Neither side, be it the assembled Joint Investigation Team, nor those on the Russian side, was going to budge on the issue of the material. In the world of the post-factoid, what matters is the sale of what we believe to be facts.

In this marketplace of saleable facts, the issue becomes how fabulous the narrative can be. Find your audience, and the relevant pitch, and half your work is done. Discoveries are made at short notice, be it data captured by a smart phone, intercepts of conversations, or radar data of the raw sort revealed with impeccable timing.

What is lost in this agitated discussion are the bloody realities of conflict, the hideous nature of those last moments when 298 civilians lost their lives over a war zone. It took a decision, made on the spur, to end the lives of those people. What we have gotten, instead of a broader reflection of the conflict that caused those deaths, not to mention thousands of others, is a deeper quagmire, a furiously ideological joust between detractors and participants.

The cruel and broadly sobering picture of those moments in July 2014 did not seem to have much truck in the JIT display. In the presentation, the JIT makes it clear that it was presenting “the first results of the criminal investigation into the downing of flight MH17 on 17 July 2014.”[1]

This was meant to be a show by the avengers of objectivity, coming to the rescue with clarity and positivist reassurance. “The big difference with a journalistic commentary or an internet-based investigation report,” went the presentation, “is that in our case conclusions based on probability will not suffice.” There was, in fact “legal and convincing evidence.” Helped along, of course, with the bells and smells of modern animation and social media.

That convincing evidence supposedly found the culprit: “that flight MH17 was shot down… by a missile of the 9M38 series, launched by a BUK-TELAR, from farmland in the vicinity of Pervomaiskiy (or: Pervomaiskyi).”

At that time, the area was under pro-Russian rebel control, while the BUK-TELAR had been “brought in from the territory of the Russian Federation and subsequently, after having shot down flight MH-17, was taken back to the Russian Federation.”

For such pomp and certainty, much of the detail remained as before, with similar questions left tantalisingly dangling in the aftermath. For instance, an acknowledgment is made about the role played by the generous supply line from Bellingcat, which purports to use readily available open source material in the name of citizen journalism.

The lingering sense of a conspiratorial design to murder, a point that has been unequivocally embraced by such figures as former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, was never dispersed. A hundred persons had been identified “who in one way or the other can be linked to the crash of flight MH17 or the transport of the BUK.” Their identity, the JIT noted smugly, had been established.

As Editor-in-Chief at Fort Russ explained to Russia Today, the origins behind the makeup of the JIT lay in a NATO ploy, creating an inquiry team that was always compromised for its raison d’être. What mattered was how Russia was involved, not the question of who actually pulled the trigger.[2] This very point was amply illustrated by the dominant role played by Ukraine on the JIT, when its absence might have been contemplated along with that of Russia.

Bathed in the aura of criminality, the note of the report never loses the whodunit sense, the forensic pursuit of twenty weapons systems, the perusal of five billion internet pages, the inspection of dozens of containers “with thousands of wreckage parts” all examined by an army of some 100 to 200 investigators.

Absent in the JIT presentation was one glaring elephant waiting to stomp in the room. Where, for instance, did Ukraine figure in this? This is not to even take the line, as has been put forth by the Russian Defence Ministry, that there had been no signs of a missile being fired at MH17 from rebel controlled territory. (This was deemed “raw data” newly unearthed by Almaz-Antey.)

The broad issue of Ukrainian culpability in permitting MH17 to be in the vicinity of a conflict area when there had been prior knowledge of targeted flights, was not a point the JIT considered. Ukrainian criminal law was mentioned in so far as it might be useful in prosecuting any personnel who had manned the BUK, but not the violations of an assortment of aviation conventions and protocols. What we saw instead was the relentless cold march of minutiae.

The sense of creeping under a shroud of international deception, releasing the missile with callous calculation, then moving back into Russian territory, suggested a trick of terrorist import, a mission of the damned. By the JIT conveying such a tone, the sense that a war of tragic miscalculation and foolishness, along with the bloody mistakes that came with it, and continue to do so, was lost.

Notes:
[1] https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/mh17-vliegramp/presentaties/presentation-joint/

[2] https://www.rt.com/news/360946-mh17-ukraine-fabricate-evidence/

By Muhammad Faisal*

On 29 September, the Indian Army claimed that it had conducted a “surgical strike” along the Line of Control (LoC), in the Pakistani-administered region of Kashmir. Pakistani authorities, both civil and military, quickly rebutted it while confirming that it had responded to “unprovoked” ceasefire violations in four sectors along the LoC earlier that night. These developments came in the wake of deteriorating Islamabad-New Delhi relations with widespread unrest in the Kashmir valley. The present rise in tensions is a direct result of a militant attack on an Indian Army base at Uri, in the Indian-administered region of Kashmir. India blamed the attack on anti-India militants based in Pakistan, while Pakistan vehemently denied the accusation.

At present, details of what actually took place along the LoC are scant. Indian claims, however, still need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Yet, the Indian announcement is an admission of violating the ceasefire agreement. Pakistani sources confirm that Indian troops did attack a forward post in the Hot Springs subsector, of the Kotli sector. Indian soldiers taking advantage of physical features of the area had moved close to the Pakistani post and opened fire on the forward post. Pakistani soldiers swiftly retaliated. In the ensuing exchange of small arms and light weapons, the Indian attack was repelled by the Pakistani troops.

Earlier in the morning the Pakistan Army’s public relations department announced that Pakistani troops had responded to “unprovoked firing” on four sectors along the LoC during the early hours of the day. It was taken as return of “cross-LoC firing” by most Pakistani analysts and media, in the current volatile environment. In the currently prevailing hostile climate, cross-LoC firing and artillery exchanges were being anticipated by observers. The announcement made by the Indian DGMO and the spokesperson of India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) that India had conducted a “surgical strike,” has obviously increased the tensions.

This Indian armed incursion is by no means a “surgical strike.” A surgical strike would mean Indian Army conducting an operation with “boots on ground” across the LoC, deep into Pakistani-administered territory, instead of a forward post. For such an operation, the Indian Army would either have to rely on heli-borne special forces or conduct airstrikes on selected targets using precision-guided munitions (PGMs). Based on the available information, at this time, the Indian military did not go for any of these options.

The DGMO of the Indian Army choose to describe a usual ceasefire violation and an attack on a forward Pakistan army post as a “surgical strike.” Most significantly, the Indian DGMO and the MEA spokesman deliberately used ambiguous language to announce violation of ceasefire and called it a “surgical strike.”

The Indian DGMO claimed that a “surgical strike was conducted along the LoC,” which means that Indian authorities are essentially claiming that Indian troops did not cross into the Pakistani-administered territory. Meanwhile, the stress on a “surgical strike” was enough to create ambiguity for political purposes. Some were quick to misinterpret this as “Indian boots on Pakistani held territory” scenario, which it certainly was not.

Moreover, it is also for the first time that India has admitted to violating the ceasefire agreement in place between the two armies. In the past, the Indian military had blamed the Pakistan Army for violating the ceasefire to assist infiltration across the LoC into the Indian-administered Kashmir. As India reverts to the situation reminiscent of the 1990s, questions would surely be raised by Pakistani military and Foreign Office on the future of the ceasefire agreement and its feasibility. So far, Pakistan has acted responsibly and has not undertaken a counter-attack on a forward Indian post along the LoC.

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has called an emergency meeting of the cabinet to deliberate further steps, while Pakistani officials are vehemently denying that a surgical strike took place.

In rebranding a cross-LoC duel as a surgical strike, Indian military quickly claimed political victory that the Pakistanis have been punished for Uri attack. In a limited war, a side can attack first, but it cannot decide the course of action in the battlefield. Without waiting for the other side to respond first, acknowledge and respond to the “so-called” surgical strike. In Islamabad, this appears to be an attempt to assuage the domestic constituency by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. This, however, sets a dangerous precedent for the future where any side could claim to have undertaken a successful raid/attack and launch a media blitz, thus, worsening the already complex bilateral relations.

This attack has raised the prospect of a military escalation as the bilateral relationship takes a plunge and acrimony deepens. Even the future of the 2003 Kashmir ceasefire agreement that has largely kept the peace between two armies for nearly 13 years, is in jeopardy. The nature of this attempt is repeat of cross-LoC duels between the Indian and Pakistani Armies’ pre-ceasefire agreements. Both sides used to attack and capture posts on the opposite sides to gain tactical and operational advantage over the other. Former Indian and Pakistani military officers who have served in operational areas along the LoC during the 1990s have penned accounts of posts exchanging hands for tactical advantages. The latest Indian attack along the LoC can lead to return of violent 1990s when artillery duels were a regular feature of the conflict between Pakistan and India.

* Muhammad Faisal
Research Fellow, Center for International Strategic Studies (CISS), Islamabad

It is a recognized reality that the Middle East is divided into two greater blocs, where Syria, Iraq and Hezbollah are spearheaded by Iran (often addressed as shia bloc) and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey and Qatar are spearheaded by Saudi Arabia (often addressed as sunni bloc). However, a new reality is trending.

The Sunni bloc is increasingly experiencing fractures within itself because of the differences of views between two further sub-groupings within the bloc. One group, which is led by Saudi Arabia, includes United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt. This group opposes any kind of democracy. The other group, consisting of Turkey & Qatar, supports their own version of democracy.

On the other side, while Algeria maintained good economic relations with Saudi Arabia for a long time, it seems from the recent developments that Algeria is moving away from the influence of Saudi Arabia in its attempt to establish regular relations with Iran.

TRADITIONAL BLOCS

The traditional sunni bloc, which includes Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Morocco and Turkey, are using the sunni brand in order to rally the sunnis around the world behind their back against their rival Iran.

On the other side, Iran is playing the same game by using the card of shia-ism in pulling the shias around the world towards its cause of portraying Saudi Arabia an evil power.

GROWING IRANIAN INFLUENCE IN THE REGION

The Iranian influence in the region is growing and such an increasing trend is perceivable from a number of developments. First, Iran-backed Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guards have been operating inside Syria and Iraq. Secondly, Iran was successful in establishing its influence substantially within the Lebanese social fabric and there is a strong presence of Hezbollah within Lebanon. Thirdly, the Iran-influenced government of Iraq consults with Iran about each and every matter, even on petty issues. Fourthly, a pro-Iranian regime, led by Bashar-al-Assad, is still holding onto power in war-torn Syria, Fifthly, Iran has been increasingly attaining a good control over the shia community within Bahrain which has a shia majority population under the sunni monarch.

Sixth, Iran has backed the Houthis, an armed group in Yemen, to successfully capture Yemeni capital Sana, and also to hold onto it for a long while until now. Finally, the nuclear done deal among the six nuclear powers and Iran was a landmark political, diplomatic and economic achievement for Iran, creating the possibility for strengthening Iran’s regional influence against its major foe Saudi Arabia.

SAUDI-LED SUB-GROUPING

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Morocco – all share many social, political and economic characteristics in common. The most notable common characteristic is, without any doubt, the fact that all of these countries are monarchies. Any other systems of governance that challenge the state’s ruling mechanisms are, at times, checked and balanced through cracking down on such voices that are raised against the monarchy and its governance system.

Egypt, under a dictatorship, has been maintaining good relationship and deep cooperation with Saudi Arabia, because there are many common interests between these two countries. Saudi Arabia prefers to keep the Saudi Arabia’s Muslim Brotherhood largely ineffective by making sure that the government of Egypt is neutralizing the organization inside Egypt, from where the organization runs its regional campaigns.

Egypt’s current president, Abdul Fatah al-Sisi, came to power by overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood backed president Mohammad Morsi. Besides keeping Muslim Brotherhood under check in the region, Saudi Arabia needs Egypt for overall balance of power in the region. Availing an ally like Egypt, which is a sunni populated regional military power, gives Saudi Arabia a boost against its regional foes, especially against Iran and Muslim Brotherhood.

SUB-GROUPING OF QATAR & TURKEY

The point of views regarding the practice of democracy collides between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, despite being a monarchy, supports a version of “so called” Islamic democracy in line with their own interpretation.

Because of such a mindset, Qatar has been backing Muslim Brotherhood across the region. The Qatari policy makers, compared to those of Saudi Arabia, do have a lesser harsh approach towards Iran because of the same.
Turkey’s ruling Justice & Development Party, otherwise known as the AK Party, professes a “so called” Islamic democracy similar to that of the Muslim Brotherhood. Turkey, among all the regional sunni populated countries, has the least harsh approach towards Iran & the likes (developments centring Syria is an exception though).
There have been incidents of withdrawal of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain’s ambassadors from Qatar over its support for the Muslim Brotherhood across the region, including within Egypt. Saudi authority strongly opposes the Muslim Brotherhood and the organization is banned in United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia & Egypt.

At the same time, it is true that while Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain & Egypt have many differences with Qatar & Turkey regarding many aspects of foreign policy, their greater shared and common interests with regard to their rivalry with regional axis of Iran-Iraq-Assad-Hezbollah have been keeping them united.

ALGERIA MOVING AWAY FROM SAUDI ARABIA TOWARDS IRAN

Algeria seems to be moving away from the influence of Saudi Arabia in its attempt to establish regular relations with Iran. Algeria, whose influence is increasing across Africa, has been half-hearted regarding its relations with the Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia. There is a clear difference between Algeria and Saudi Arabia regarding their positions, both political and economic, on the Syrian issue. Algeria continues to recognize Bashar-al-Assad’s regime, while Saudi Arabia recently hosted the Syrian opposition conference. The crisis in Yemen further complicates matters, as Saudi Arabia, alongwith its Arab allies, is fighting the Houthis and forces loyal to deposed President Abdullah Saleh, while Algeria has proposed a diplomatic initiative and announced its willingness to host the Houthis and Abdullah Saleh loyalists.

Algeria not only refused to participate in the Saudi-led coalition’s Operation Decisive Storm in Yemen and establish a joint Arab force, it also refused to participate in the new Islamic Alliance to combat terrorism, led by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia’s alleged support towards Morocco in its dispute with the Algerian-allied Polisario Front in the dispute over the Western Sahara only makes the relationship between Algeria and Saudi Arabia worse.

OBSERVATIONS

Today, Middle East, especially the Western Asia, is the most polarized and conflict plagued region in the world. With the passing of time, the polarization within the region is only getting worse. Furthermore, there remains no doubt that the interferences and interventions of the superpowers have only been serving the regional rivalries to fuel further.

The Middle East is undergoing a massive change in its geopolitics. Shifts in foreign policies of many Middle Eastern countries are clearly noticeable. Massive realignment efforts by above mentioned regional countries have been taking place and more realignment efforts from other countries from the region seem underway.

*Bahauddin Foizee, primarily associated with law practice, is an analyst & columnist on international affairs, and specializes on Middle Eastern, Asia-Pacific & European geopolitics.

Even though Islam has made a comeback in many Circassian regions, Naima Neflyasheva says, it has not generated the kind of radicalization seen elsewhere, largely because along with the revival of Islam has been a revival of the Adyge Khabze, the traditional code of etiquette that has governed Circassian behavior.

In the past, that code was seen as antithetical to the Muslim shariat, the specialist on the North Caucasus at Moscow’s Institute of Africa says; but today, many Muslim leaders in Circassian areas view it as complementary to Islam and as having a positive influence on believers (kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/290090/).

Speaking at a meeting in MGIMO this week, she drew a sharp contrast between Daghestan and Kabardino-Balkaria where radicalization of Muslims is continuing and Karachayevo-Cherkessia and Adygeya where “there are no signs of radicalization” at the present time.

The Moscow scholar suggested that a major reason for that was the revival of Adyge Khabze and the support it enjoys among some Muslim leaders in the region goes a long way to explain why “radicalization has not engulfed the Western Adgys [Circassians] even though it has affected others.

Neflyasheva’s argument is important because, given Moscow’s concerns about the radicalization of Muslim opinion in the North Caucasus, it could provide a justification for the center taking a more positive stance with regard to the Circassians and to Circassian traditions and also for Moscow to promote the revival of similar pre-Islamic value systems elsewhere.

Another speaker at the session, Akhmet Yarlykapov of MGIMO’s Center for Problems of the Caucasus and Regional Security, stressed that “re-Islamization in the eastern regions of the North Caucasus, particularly in Daghestan, has had ‘an explosive character’ since the disintegration of the USSR.”

According to him, “Islam now only has expanded its influence by increasing the number of mosques, medrassahs, and practicing Muslims but deepened it by penetrating all sides of the life of society.” At the same time, however, Yarlykapov insisted that “this must not be the occasion for panic.”

Not only does the Russian government understand the situation better than it did, viewing sufism in Daghestan as a positive phenomenon rather than a negative one as it did in Soviet times, but it also recognizes that some problems are of its own making, including the failure to bring to justice those who kill imams and the spread of corrupt and repressive practices.

These things, like the two Chechen wars, helped radicalize young people in the North Caucasus and have helped ISIS to recruit as many as 5,000 fighters for its wars in the Middle East, an exodus that has “not ended up to now.” But Moscow has succeeded in undermining all radical Islamist “political” projects in the region.

Yarlykapov stressed that it is a mistake to think that radicalism is largely the product of poverty. “At present, many quite well-off people are leaving for ISIS,” he said, some of them because of anger about corruption and repression at home and the way those things have closed off their opportunities for social advancement.

The MGIMO scholar said that those in Moscow who believe that they can use what they call “’traditional Islam’” as a barrier against radicalization are now at a dead end. What such people should be asking is whether an individual or group is “loyal or not,” rather than getting involved in theological doctrine.

Neflyasheva agreed. She said that the Daghestani authorities should “return to the practice of the previous head of the republic under whom was conducted a dialogue of various trends of Islam and adaptation commissions worked.” They should also allow for the creation of a distinctly Daghestani Islamic educational system and the development of Islamic thought.

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to explain whether intelligence agencies have implemented a program to reward employees for accurately classifying sensitive information, in a letter to Director James Clapper.

The Reducing Over-Classification Act of 2010 (ROCA) allows government agencies to pay cash awards to employees who accurately classify government documents consistently and avoid unnecessary over-classification of information that is not a threat to national security. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ODNI said it could not locate any records about the criteria for awarding those incentives.

“Congress included this provision in ROCA to reverse the culture of unnecessary classification, reduce the volume of classified documents, and better protect the secrets whose disclosure would truly threaten national security,” Wyden wrote. “I am concerned that federal agencies with the power to classify and declassify documents may not be taking advantage of these payment awards, and I believe doing so could benefit our national security.”

Wyden asked ODNI whether intelligence agencies have actually provided cash awards for accurately classifying documents, and whether the agencies have established criteria for providing these awards.

By Mariya Cheresheva

The wearing of garments that cover the face will be fined in Bulgaria according to a new bill that MPs adopted on Friday.

Bulgarian MPs on Friday banned the wearing of veils that cover the face – a bill proposed earlier this year by the nationalistic coalition, Patriotic Front. The so-called “burqa ban” was passed on a second reading with overwhelming support.

In a sign of ethnic tension over the issue, MPs from the ethnic-Turkish Movement for Rights and Freedoms, MRF, left the plenary session, calling the bill “anti-democratic” and “islamophobic”. They wanted the vote dropped from the parliamentary agenda.

Under the new law, wearing garments or masks that cover the face in public will be fined with 200 leva, around 100 euros, for a first offence and with 1,500 leva, around 750 euros, for any subsequent violation.

Offenders who are public servants will be fined 500 leva, around 250 euros, for the first violation and 2,000 leva, around 1,000 euros, in case of subsequent ones.

The ban covers Bulgarian citizens and temporary residents and migrants from other countries. They will also not be allowed to wear clothing that hides their face partially or totally on the territory of the country.

The ban will be enforced in all public spaces, including parks, gardens, schools, and on public and private transport.

Exceptions may be made only for medical or professional reasons as well as during sporting and cultural events.

Citizens will be allowed to cover their faces only in their own homes or in places of worship.

The police and the municipal authorities will be in charge of enforcing the ban.

Ceyhan Ibryamov, from the MRF, told MPs before his party left the chamber that the ban would be counter-productive.

“This law hurts security. It gives grounds for revenge-seeking, radical and morbid forces to seek instruction and revenge,” he said.

He added that ban had been passed under the pressure of ultranationalists as part of pre-election bargaining manoeuvres.

But MPs from the main party in government, Prime Minister Boyko Borissov’s GERB, backed the proposal.

“We have made a very good law for the security of our children,” Krasimir Velchev, from GERB, said after the bill was adopted.

The nationwide ban follows series of bans adopted at local level in Bulgaria.

The southern city of Pazardjik, where the Salafist ideology has gained significant influence over the local Muslim community, pioneered the ban in April.

Several others towns and cities have since followed Pazardjik’ example and banned the veil.

The debate on the burqa, niqab and other facial covers gained momentum after Bulgaria’s Prosecutor General, Sotir Tsatsarov, said he favoured a ban on April 1.

“Religious freedoms should not be trodden on but we should not allow religious motives to be used for illegal propaganda, political purposes and radicalization,” Tsatsarov said in Pazardjik.

Intensified terrorist attacks in Europe in 2015 and 2016, as well as the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe, have led to an increase of anti-Muslim rhetoric in Bulgaria.

Rosetta’s mission is over: After the last signal at 13:20, the spacecraft was crash-landed on comet Churyumov-Gerasimenko, with the ROSINA instrument from Bern taking measurements right until the very end. At the University of Bern, hundreds of people watched with interest as they followed the end of one of the most successful missions of the European Space Agency (ESA) live.

Rosetta’s mission took twelve years including notable firsts like the first orbit of a comet (and for 2 years no less) and, for the first time placing a lander on a comet surface. The Rosetta spacecraft has already made history.

The spectacular mission has now come to an end, with Rosetta undergoing a controlled crash on “its” comet. As the comet moves away from the sun, the energy available to the solar-powered spacecraft was decreasing. Consequently, ESA decided to crash-land the spacecraft on the comet. Rosetta therefore followed its landing probe “Philae” and now still circles the sun in its “final resting place”.

The successful conclusion was also celebrated and followed in Bern – with a live broadcast of the “Rosetta Finale” from the ESA Operations Centre in Darmstadt (Germany), with a look back at the highlights of the mission and a competition.

Vice-Rectors Bruno Moretti and Daniel Candinas were present for the occasion, joining those involved in the project – including those from the very first hours – and guests from the government and industry, plus numerous “Rosetta fans”.

The performance of the Bern measuring instrument ROSINA, which provided crucial information about the comet with its two mass spectrometers and pressure sensor, was also celebrated. ROSINA’s objective was to find out whether comets contain the basic elements of life, such as organic molecules and water. The yield was enormous.

“ROSINA has discovered over 60 molecules, 34 of which had never been found before on a comet,” said André Bieler from the Center for Space and Habitability (CSH) of the University of Bern. Back in 2014, ROSINA was already answering key questions by, for instance, establishing that the water on Earth was probably not brought here by comets.

The instrument also brought some surprises to light – for example, that comets contain oxygen and the amino acid glycine, a basic building block of life. Bern researchers, under the supervision of Nicolas Thomas of the CSH, also examined images of the OSIRIS camera system and mapped the surfaces of the comet in detail. They were able to define over 25 distinct regions with different morphologies; these include steep slopes, large depressions, and small cavities from which material seems to flow, and flat-looking areas that display similar features to sand dunes.

During the 14-hour descent, ROSINA sent uninterrupted data, until the last signal was received from Rosetta at 13:20. The ROSINA principal investigator, Kathrin Altwegg, stayed at the official celebration at the European Space Operations Centre in Darmstadt and was connected live to Bern. She had been involved in the project since 1994, so it was a definitive moment for her: “I feel a little melancholic. But it is a colossal end!”

Work is yet to be done for several years

The end of the Rosetta mission does not mean the end of the analysis – far from it.

“So far, only around five per cent of the ROSINA data has been analysed, so there is still a lot to be done”, said Martin Rubin from the Physics Institute, Space Research and Planetology division. The ROSINA team will be busy carrying out analyses for around six years under Martin Rubin, Senior Team member. According to the researchers, many more discoveries are to be expected. The last uninterrupted ROSINA measurements alone, recorded over 20 kilometres up until the impact, will provide an unprecedented plethora of data about the cloud of gas and dust surrounding the comet.

Different genes are involved during the adaptation of a domestic animal to life in the wild than when a wild animal becomes domesticated. This is the conclusion of a study led by a researcher at Linköping University in Sweden and published in the journal Nature Communications. The results increase our understanding of what happens as a species evolves.

“There are large differences between tame chickens and wild ones. Studying the differences in their genetic material can teach us more about how genes influence animal appearance and behaviour. Although a lot is known about how we tame and domesticate animals, very little is known about the reverse, when domestic animals go back to the wild. We have examined this process at the genetic level when tame chickens are released into the wild,” said researcher Dominic Wright, who has led the study.

For many thousands of years, humans have bred dogs, goats, chickens and other animals to make them suitable for use as domestic animals, in a process known as domestication. Humans have selected the individuals that possess desirable traits and bred them with similar individuals, such that the offspring possess the same traits. The genetic material of the animal has partially changed during the development of the species from its wild form to a domesticated one. The opposite process also takes place, when domesticated animals readapt to life in the wild, in a process known as feralisation. By investigating what happens in an animal’s genetic material, we can study whether the effects of domestication by humans are long-term or short-term. Can evolution go backwards?

“We wanted to see whether feralisation is the same process as domestication, but in the other direction. Our results show that this is not the case. It is largely separate genes that are affected when domesticated chickens return to the wild,” said Dominic Wright.

Two tropical storms on the island of Kauai in Hawaii 30 years ago contributed to domesticated chickens being released into the wild. On the island, there was an existing group of wild Red Junglefowl, and the domesticated chickens interbred with these. The chickens now living wild on Kauai have inherited genetic material from both domesticated chickens and wild Red Junglefowl.

Life in freedom brings with it greater threats from predators and disease, but it means that a chicken can choose freely who to mate with. Traits that make an individual attractive, such as an impressive comb, play a role in the selection of partners.

“Sexual selection is important in wild animals, and so it’s logical that genes that control comb size and similar traits are affected when an animal returns to the wild. One interesting observation is that despite domesticated chickens having very large combs, which should make them sexually attractive, combs have become considerably smaller in the chickens that are now living wild on Kauai,” said Dominic Wright.

During feralisation, the chickens’ egg production and brooding behaviour have altered. The researchers determined which regions of the genetic material in the Kauai chickens have been altered during the feralisation. They then studied these regions in more detail in a hybrid chicken population that had been bred in captivity as a cross-breed between domesticated chickens and Red Junglefowl. In this way, the researchers could correlate the chickens’ behaviour and appearance, such as comb size, to the levels of expression of specific genes.

The results suggest that the process of feralisation affects other genes than those important during domestication, and it is not a case of simply reversing the changes that took place when the chickens were domesticated.

“Darwin regarded domestication as a model of evolution, taking place in circumstances that are controlled by humans. By examining the reverse process, in a natural environment and starting from known initial conditions, we can learn more about what happens during the evolution of a species,” said Dominic Wright.

The study has been financed by, among other sources, the Swedish Research Council (VR), the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS), the Carl Trygger Foundation and the National Science Foundation. The study is a collaboration between researchers at Linköping University; University College, London, UK; Michigan University, US, and the University of Victoria, Canada.

Since the landscape of International politics is always changing, where the alliances and partnerships are also shifting with much frequency, a new emerging cooperation between Pakistan and Russia gains a huge attention as well as importance. Not only is this a significant development in itself where these two estranged states, since the Cold War, have now agreed to joined hands in military domain, but the timing of the military exercises is also quite noteworthy. It is the time when India, a long time trusted ally of Russia, is bent upon isolating Pakistan in the international community. Hence Russian tilt towards Pakistan despite India’s motives and concerns, carry immense implications for the states as well as for the regional political and strategic dynamics.

At the same time India has always banked upon Russia’s unconditional support in almost all the regional and global matters vis a vis Pakistan and other states. Hence the prevalent concern in the official circles of New Delhi about losing out on a traditional partner i.e. Russia, is a very genuine concern. There even have been speculations that India has expressed these concerns to Russian counterparts too, demanding the exercises should be aborted. Whether these reports are true or not, one thing is confirmed that India’s long term and trusted traditional partner has opened avenues of cooperation and partnership with India’s arch rival Pakistan.

In these interesting turn of events, the Russian stance is clear yet open to debate. Russia maintains that its partnership with Pakistan is independent of its relations with India. It stresses upon the fact that India never showed concern or even stopped Russia from pursuing independent relations with any other states and that the trust between the two is still very much intact.

These could be seen as true since another supporting argument is that the Pak-Russian relations are still at a burgeoning stage and will take time to evolve “if at all” to reach to the level of equation that has existed and is still present between Russia and India.

Simultaneously one can bring in the case of China in order to get better understanding of the emerging regional dynamics. China has been since long pursuing the equal handed policy vis a vis Pakistan and India, despite being the closest ally of Pakistan. Even though India and China remained alienated for long after 1962 and have divergence of opinion and clash of interest over several political issues, but they have pushed their differences to the back burner for the sake of bigger interests that serves the both positively. This can be seen as diplomatic maturity that is the need of the time. Pakistan hasn’t lost trust in China, while China has openly claimed verbally as well as through concrete actions that its relations with India will never supersede its relations with Pakistan. This has been proven true time and again as is evident from China’s dedicated efforts for the socio-economic uplifting of Pakistan through the CPEC, as well as China’s stern statement regarding Indian hostile ambitions against Pakistan, in case of which China would voluntarily get involved, giving all out support to Pakistan.

Similarly one can expect that Indo-Russia relations to not be effected by the initiation of military exercises between Pakistan and Russia.

However that is just one perspective. Another dimension to this whole scenario requires one to consider some other facts too. One cannot ignore the reality that for past some time there has been an ever increasing propinquity between the US and India. The US has been investing massively in India in lieu of its Asia Pacific policy, in which India is seen as acquiring the pivotal position. Furthermore the recent figures have reportedly revealed that US has taken over the title from Russia of being the biggest arm seller/provider to India. The Logistic Support Agreement is another major development that has further strengthened the strategic cooperation between the US and India.

All of these have not gone unnoticed by Russia. It is true that India and Russia have not lost the trust in each other but equally alarming is the growing coziness between India and the US, which Russia can’t knowingly ignore. Hence it would not be very wrong to speculate that India’s tight embrace of the US has led to Russia’s opening its channels to Pakistan. The world politics is essentially driven by the realist school of thought. The states have been found to realigning their equations and shifting their priorities as per their ever changing national interests. It is an established fact that the states are rational actors that strive for their survivability and growth. The same can be applied to this scenario.

Concurrently Chinese massive investment inside Pakistan through the CPEC, has made Pakistan emerge in a very new light. It is now increasingly being seen as a lucrative investment destination for the international community. Most of the nations are showing their interest in joining and be part of the CPEC project. Russia might too eventually like to seek some long lasting partnership with Pakistan and may become in some way become part of the CPEC. This leads one to visualize another possible realignment of relations and emergence of Russia-Pakistan-China Nexus. Such a possibility may look too good to be true but surely cannot be ruled out.

Chechen strongman Ramzan Kadyrov, an Islamist with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, recently convened some of Islam’s most prominent leaders to determine the theologically and politically explosive question of who is a Sunni Muslim. Professing to be a Sufi, a more mystical interpretation of Islam, Kadyrov lacks the religious credentials beyond his native Chechnya where he was recently re-elected with 98 percent of the vote.

Kadyrov’s ability to bring together an illustrious group of Muslim scholars highlights successful behind-the-scenes manoeuvring by the United Arab Emirates to counter Salafism despite the UAE’s close collaboration with Saudi Arabia as a member of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and in the war in Yemen. It also shines a light on Russian efforts to cultivate Muslim religious leaders.

A Frontal Assault

Participating in the Grozny conference were, among others, the imam of the Al-Azhar Grand Mosque in Cairo, Ahmed El- Tayeb; Egyptian Grand Mufti Shawki Allam; former Egyptian Grand Mufti and Sufi authority Ali Gomaa, a strident supporter of Egyptian general-turned-president Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi; Al Sisi’s religious affairs advisor, Usama al-Azhari; the mufti of Damascus Abdul Fattah al-Bizm, a close confidante of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad; and influential Yemeni cleric Habib Ali Jifri, head of the Abu Dhabi-based Islamic Tabah Foundation who has close ties to UAE Crown Prince Mohammed ibn Zayed al-Nahyan.

In a frontal assault on Saudi-backed ultra-conservative movements such as Wahhabism, Salafism and Deobandism, the conference charged that the label Sunni had been hijacked by heretics whose deviant practices distorted Islam. In defining Sunni Islam, the conference explicitly excluded Wahhabism, the Saudi state’s adopted version of Islam, as well as Salafism and Deobandism from its definition. The assault is all the more significant given that Saudi Arabia has over the last four decades invested tens of billions of dollars into promoting globally ultra-conservative interpretations of Islam.

The conference suggests that the UAE, together with Russia, is succeeding in countering the Saudi effort that has enabled ultra-conservatism to make significant inroads into Muslim communities across the globe. The heavy Egyptian presence suggests further that the UAE, which together with Saudi Arabia is Egypt’s foremost financier, has effectively driven a wedge between the kingdom and the Arab world’s most populous state.

It also serves as evidence that Russian efforts to woo mainstream Muslim as well as Islamist leaders have begun to pay off despite Moscow’s support of the Assad regime in Syria. In a political fete, Russia managed to gather four years ago leaders of a host of Islamist stripes, including Saudi-backed Salafists, Muslim Brothers and Lebanon’s Shiite Hezbollah at one table. Russian officials have stressed that conservative Russian Orthodox values are similar if not identical to puritan Islamic ones.

Deep-seated Aversion

The Grozny conference was co-organised by the Tabah Foundation, the sponsor of the Senior Scholars Council, a group that aims to recapture Islamic discourse that many non-Salafis assert has been hijacked by Saudi largesse. The Council was also created to counter the Doha-based International Union of Muslim Scholars, headed by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, widely viewed as a spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

UAE backing for anti-Salafi initiatives and opposition to the Brotherhood, even though it does not adhere to Salafi ideology, is rooted in Prince Mohammed’s deep-seated aversion to political Islam. The crown prince is credited with having persuaded the late Saudi King Abdullah to ban the Brotherhood as a terrorist organisation.

Prince Mohammed has been troubled by suggestions that King Salman since acceding to the throne may be less strident in his opposition to the Brotherhood. Mohammed also differs with King Salman’s son, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, on the conduct of the war in Yemen and tacit cooperation on the ground in Yemen with groups associated with Al Qaeda.

The participation in Grozny of Egypt’s Sheikh El-Tayeb suggests that substantial Saudi funding of large numbers of Al Azhar’s scholars as well as the kingdom’s multi-billion dollar backing of Al Sisi since his toppling in a military coup in 2013 of Mohammed Morsi, a Muslim Brother and Egypt’s first and only democratically elected leader, has not bought the kingdom the kind of religious and political loyalty it expected.

Our Brothers?

A prominent Islamic legal scholar, who rejected a nomination for Saudi Arabia’s prestigious King Faisal International Prize, recalls El-Tayeb effusively thanking the kingdom during panels in recent years for its numerous donations to Al Azhar. Al Azhar scholars were said to have competed “frantically” for sabbaticals in the kingdom that could last anywhere from one to 20 years, paid substantially better, and raised a scholar’s status.

“Many of my friends and family praise Abdul Wahab in their writing,” the scholar said referring to Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab, the 18th century religious leader whose puritan interpretation of Islam became the basis for the power sharing agreement between the ruling Al Saud family and the country’s religious establishment. “They shrug their shoulders when I ask them privately if they are serious… When I asked El-Tayeb why Al Azhar was not seeing changes and avoidance of dogma, he said: ‘my hands are tied.’

To illustrate Saudi inroads, the scholar recalled being present when several years ago Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, a former grand mufti and predecessor of El-Tayeb as imam of the Al Azhar mosque, was interviewed about Saudi funding. “What’s wrong with that?” the scholar recalls Tantawy as saying. Irritated by the question, he pulled a check for US$100,000 from a drawer and slapped it against his forehead. “Alhamdulillah (Praise be to God), they are our brothers,” the scholar quoted Tantawy as saying.

This article was published at RSIS

In what the US is calling a “misdirected” airstrike, some 22 Somali citizens and soldiers were killed by a US missile fired from a drone intended to take out al-Qaeda affiliated al-Shabab militia members. According to the BBC, the airstrike may have been a ruse by one region in Somalia seeking to settle scores with another courtesy of US military might: “Officials in the semi-autonomous region of Galmudug accused neighboring Puntland of misleading the US into believing they had targeted extremists.”

Both al-Shabab itself and the Somali military affirmed that there were none of the Islamist militants present in the region at the time of the US airstrike.

The battle between the Somali government and al-Shabab has been ongoing for the last decade, with the US engaged as part of its “Operation Enduring Freedom” for the horn of Africa.

Since 2007, the US has killed upwards of 500 people via drone strikes in Somalia.

Ironically, as the US continues to launch drone attacks against al-Qaeda affiliated rebels in Somalia, it protects, arms, and trains al-Qaeda affiliated Nusra Front rebels in Aleppo, Syria, according to the al-Qaeda commander there.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Policy planning requires new assumptions about migration in a densely populated world with conflict and climate change.

By Joseph Chamie*

Immigration has emerged as a key campaign issue in the elections in Great Britain, the United States, Germany, France, Austria and India. International migration, while of little demographic consequence at the global level, can be more visible at the national level, impacting population size, age structure and ethnic composition. Nations like the United States, Australia and Great Britain could expect minimal population growth – and in Canada’s case, decline – without international migration.

International migration accounts for the dominant share of future population growth in many countries, especially those with low fertility rates, over the coming decades. By mid-century, for example, the projected proportions of population growth as a result of immigration are substantial: Australia, 78 percent; the United Kingdom, 78 percent; and the United States, 72 percent. Without international migration, Canadian population is projected be about 3 percent smaller by 2050. In most other developed countries, including Italy, Japan, Germany, Spain and the Russian Federation, immigration reduces the expected declines in their future populations resulting from negative rates of natural increase, with more deaths than births annually. For example, without international migration Germany’s current population is projected to decline by 16 percent by mid-century; with immigration the projected decline is halved to 8 percent.

In contrast, for many of the traditional emigration countries, such as Bangladesh, Haiti, Mexico, Morocco and the Philippines, their future populations would be decidedly larger in the future without the outflow of their many migrants. Haiti’s population, for instance, is expected to increase by 32 percent by 2050, without emigration its population is projected to increase by 47 percent.

Population projections depend on assumptions regarding future levels of fertility, mortality and international migration. Of those three fundamental components of population change, it is widely acknowledged that the most difficult to anticipate is international migration. Despite the challenges, however, explicit assumptions are necessary for good planning as all are critical ingredients of demographic change for many countries.

United Nations population projections generally assume that international migration trends for most countries, excluding the movement of refugees, will be similar to recent levels, if stable, until mid-century and subsequently decline. Such assumptions may be politically palatable as well as statistically defensible for governments of major sending and receiving migration countries.

However, assumptions based on the recent past likely underestimate future migration because they fail to sufficiently capture the powerful demographic, economic and sociopolitical forces increasingly driving international migration flows in the years ahead.

While the older populations of many of the migrant receiving countries are growing slowly with some even declining, the younger populations of the migrant sending countries are growing rapidly. This critical demographic differential is most evident in a comparison of the populations of Europe and Africa. Up until the close of the 20th century Europe’s population exceeded Africa’s. During the 21st century, the demographic relationship is markedly reversed with Africa’s population becoming increasingly larger than Europe’s.

The differences in the economic conditions in migrant sending and receiving countries are substantial. Most workers in developing countries face high unemployment, low wages, few if any benefits and limited opportunities for career development. Housing is often substandard. Educational and training opportunities are limited; health care services, if available, are basic; and most families live at close to subsistence levels. In contrast, living conditions in the wealthier developed countries resemble nirvana, especially to those in poorer distant lands.

Corroborating the financial benefits and advantages of emigration to the wealthy nations are the huge remittances sent home to families in developing countries, $432 billion in 2015 or more than triple the global total of overseas development assistance. Top recipient countries of recorded remittances are India, $69 billion; China, $64 billion; the Philippines, $28 billion; Mexico, $25 billion; and Nigeria, $21 billion. As a share of GDP, however, the top recipient countries are Tajikistan, 42 percent; the Kyrgyz Republic, 30 percent; and Nepal, 29 percent.

Failing or fragile states, troubled by ineffective governance, political instability, violence and armed conflict, are also driving increased international migration flows. Among the top 25 failing states – three out of four located in Africa – are war-torn countries including Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. By the end of 2015, the major sources of refugees under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, accounting for two out of three of refugees, were Syria, 4.9 million; Afghanistan, 2.7 million; Somalia, 1.1 million; South Sudan, 800,000; and Sudan, 600,000.

In addition to international migration’s potent push factors, strong pull factors operate in many migrant-receiving countries. Both the private and public sectors frequently look to migrants to resolve labor shortages and maintain wages. In addition to highly skilled migrants, employers seek unskilled, low-wage migrant workers to perform tasks and provide services that the native populations largely avoid – in the agriculture, fishing, health care and construction industries.

An instructive approach to anticipating future migration levels is to consider people’s intentions, plans and behavior. Based on international surveys, the number of people indicating a desire to immigrate to another country is estimated at about 1.4 billion, far larger than the current 244 million migrants worldwide.

Among those wishing to migrate, an estimated 100 million report planning to migrate in the next year and 40 million are estimated to have taken steps necessary for migration, such as obtaining travel documents, visas, financial resources and more. Again, such estimates of likely migrants in the near term are substantially greater than the world’s current level of nearly 6 million migrants per year.

The leading destination of potential migrants is the United States followed by the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany and Australia. If those taking steps necessary to migrate were to immigrate to desired destinations, the result would expand UN-projected annual numbers for major migrant-receiving Western countries by more than tenfold.

Future migration levels may turn out to be similar to those of the recent past, as assumed by official population projections. However, such assumptions seem doubtful in light of sizeable demographic, economic and governance differences between migrant sending and receiving countries as well as the reported intentions of many to immigrate.

Growing numbers of people – many unauthorized migrants, refugees and asylum seekers – are on the move. Despite considerable risks and shrill opposition in many receiving countries, migrants boarding boats, trains, trucks, and even walk, determined to find another home.

Given those circumstances, it would be prudent and useful to prepare alternative projection scenarios for international migration. Foreign aid and development, as well as ending conflicts, could reduce migrant flows, and assumptions need not be as enormous as estimated by some. Still, larger numbers should be envisioned and seriously considered by governments and international agencies.

Ignoring the likelihood of large-scale international migration flows in years ahead may be politically expedient, especially for those advocating tightened borders and restrictions for migrant admissions. Doing so, however, is shortsighted, misguided and ill advised – and will undermine policy development, responsible planning and program readiness for the international migration exodus in the 21st century.

*Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer and a former director of the United Nations Population Division.

If there is one glaring omission among the daily declarations of both empty suit Donald Trump and hawkish Hillary Clinton, it is the strategy for peace. They’ll tell us they want to do more than President Obama is doing to go after ISIS. They’ll tell us they want a more robust military without calling for reducing the huge waste, fraud and redundancy of the military-industrial complex’s budget (a concern that drew a major warning from President Dwight Eisenhower). But how do they plan to wage peace?

Waging peace? In the current militarist climate of boomeranging perpetual war, expanding the geographic and devastating reach of adversaries, waging peace may sound vague, soft and squishy.

Have we forgotten about past peace treaties that have ended wars, followed by demobilization of the unneeded military might? The U.S.  is still a prominent signatory to the Kellogg-Briand Treaty Pact of 1928, in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve “disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them.”

There are numerous active pro-peace, anti-war citizen groups in the U.S. such as the American Friends Service Committee (a Quaker-initiated group) and Veterans for Peace. They are grossly underfunded and pretty much blacked-out by the mass media. Peace is so unexciting, compared to the visuals and visceral intensity of destroying lives and property.

On the other hand most people, when asked, prefer peace to war and militarism. They are not like the frothy, bloodthirsty, arrogant war-mongers that surrounded the Bush-Cheney war machine invading Iraq (which the 48 Democrats in the Senate had the filibustering votes to stop in 2003).

But being abstractly for peace without the requisite knowledge to focus and drive the urgent moral indignation that leads to collective action by the people tends to promote passivity and powerlessness.

A remarkable graphic novel titled Addicted to War: Why the U.S. Can’t Kick Militarism – an illustrated exposé by Joel Andreas will inform and motivate readers. Since it was published in 2002 and updated in 2015, over 450,000 copies in multiple languages are in print worldwide. Only 74 pages with 164 footnotes at the back, this book is a remarkably accurate and comprehensive narrative. It is heavily endorsed with comments from veterans, scholars and clergy, among other notables.

Written with “humor, erudition and wisdom,” writes David Swanson, author of War is a Lie, “this is a book to buy in bulk and give to everyone you know.” Michael Parenti, author of History as Mystery called it “Political comics at its best. Bitterly amusing, lively, and richly informative… about the link between U.S. militarism, foreign policy corporate greed at home and abroad” (you can obtain a copy for $12 from Oakland, California based AK Press).

The author, Joel Andreas, teaches Sociology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. He divides the graphic novel into seven chapters. They are: “Manifest Destiny,” “The Cold War,” “The New World Order,” “The War on Terrorism,” “The War Profiteers,” “Resisting Militarism” and the final chapter, “Do Something About It!” lists active groups who would welcome your civic energy.

As a serious scholar, Mr. Andreas realized that entry-level education about peace cannot start with 500 page tomes on diplomacy, foreign policy and preventable wars. He presents  documented historical facts from past to present that invite readers to make informed judgments and decide if they want to count among  “the sovereign people” shaping our country’s drive for peace. No one else is going to do it for us. Major redirections and cessations from disasters must start with “We the People”. Get  copies at bulk rates for your friends and neighbors.

The US government’s contract to control the internet’s ‘address book’ has expired after 47 years, transferring management of the Internet’s unique identifiers to the private-sector.

The US Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) had a contract with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to perform the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.

This essentially meant the US government had authority over the internet’s domain name system. The contract formally ended Saturday and ICANN – a multi-stakeholder nonprofit group based in California – is now the sole overseer.

The global multistakeholder community is made up of private-sector representatives, technical experts, academics, civil society, governments and individual Internet end users.

ICANN says this diverse group is aimed at enhancing accountability and “empowering the global internet community to have direct recourse if they disagree with decisions made by ICANN the organization or the Board.”

The transition has been underway since 1998 and is part of a move to ‘privatize’ the internet.

The US government’s role was said to be largely symbolic and internet users will see no change in their experiences online as a result of the handover, according to ICANN.

However not everyone sees the move as insignificant with four US states seeking an injunction in a last ditch effort to stop the transition after Congress failed to block it.

On Wednesday, four attorneys general from Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma and Nevada filed a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the contract expiration.

They argued that the transfer does not protect the .gov and .mil top-level domains. They also contended that the transition needed congressional approval and violated the first amendment.

The federal court in Galveston, Texas, denied their application for an injunction on Friday.

Thus, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the NTIA Lawrence Strickling announced in a statement Saturday that the contract had expired.

President Obama has come under fire from some who have accused him of “giving away the internet” and now fear that other political powers will gain control.