By Felix K. Chang*

(FPRI) — Under its Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road (commonly known as the “One Belt, One Road” initiative) China has sought to build a network of infrastructure projects across Eurasia to encourage trade.  At first glance, it seems that all those involved should benefit.  Chinese loans would kick start the construction of the infrastructure projects.  Developing countries, in which the projects are built, would profit as transshipment points and from the development of new industries that could plug into international supply chains.  Revenues from the resultant economic growth would then repay the Chinese loans, with interest.

That all sounds rosy.  That is, if the new infrastructure network is used.  The mere existence of roads and ports does not ensure that trade will flourish.  Certainly economic growth at either end of the network would help.  But at the moment the economies of both China and Europe are slowing.  Indeed, global economic activity is slowing.  If there is not enough trade to make the new infrastructure profitable, then the benefits from the “One Belt, One Road” initiative only flows in one direction: China.

The operative word in the “One Belt, One Road” initiative’s financing is “loans.”  Chinese loans may have laxer requirements and carry a lower interest rate than those of commercial banks.  But they are loans.  China expects them to be repaid.  Plus, Chinese loans for infrastructure projects are often made with the understanding that the developing countries award construction contracts to Chinese companies.  In short, China benefits from both the financing and construction of infrastructure projects, while developing countries must bear all of the financial risk.  When trade is booming, that may not matter much.  But when it is not, that should be a concern.

In the past, many developing countries became heavily indebted as a result of infrastructure projects that fizzled.  Lenders ultimately had to forgive many of their debts, recognizing that their borrowers could never repay them.  China has forgiven some of its loans to developing countries too, about $3.9 billion in all.  But that is a small fraction of the total debts that developing countries owe it.  For example, in 2015 China cancelled $40 million in debt from Zimbabwe.  But Zimbabwe still owes China over $1 billion.  Moreover, at the time of China’s modest debt cancellation, Zimbabwe pledged that it would increase its use of the Chinese yuan in its foreign exchange reserves.[1]  To outside observers, it seemed that China had used its debt cancellation to achieve its larger foreign policy goals.

Still, several developing counties have welcomed Chinese financing.  Sri Lanka’s former President Mahinda Rajapaksa happily accepted Chinese loans to build a new port facility and airport at Hambantota.  When completed, the port facility will be the largest of its kind in South Asia.  But with slowing seaborne trade, Sri Lanka’s new government has been left with the burden of servicing the country’s $1.1 billion debt to China.  Despite the new government’s criticism of Rajapaksa’s acceptance of Chinese loans and the shortcomings of Chinese construction work, it had little choice but to finish the port and airport, lest it default on the country’s loans.  Indeed, China may believe that borrowers will be forced to repay their loans, because an outright default would severely curtail any developing country’s future access to credit.

Lately, however, some Asian countries have been playing harder to get with China.  That was the case with Indonesia last year.  When a Chinese-led consortium sought a contract to build a high-speed railway between Jakarta and Bandung, Indonesia leveraged the consortium’s eagerness to beat a Japanese-led rival to win a major concession: the consortium would drop its requirement for the Indonesian government to backstop China’s loans.  The consortium won the contract in the end.  But Indonesia offloaded the project’s financial risk onto China.

Thailand has been cautious too.  For years, China has talked about the construction of a long-distance, high-speed railway between Kunming and Bangkok.  After Thailand’s military coup in 2014, the two countries accelerated their talks over such a railway, as they developed closer ties.  But the terms that China offered disappointed Thai leaders.  They balked at China’s desired interest rate, its proposed ownership structure, and its request for development rights along the railway’s right of way.  So, Thailand shelved the project’s original plan.  Instead, it financed its own construction of a much shorter railway from Bangkok to Nakhon Ratchasima, only 250 km away.  While China would still supply the technology and oversee procurement, Thailand would use Thai construction companies to build the railway, not Chinese ones.

The two railway cases are telling.  China may believe that the thirst for low-interest loans in developing countries should make its “One Belt, One Road” initiative an easy sell.  But the leaders of those countries, at least those among them who are observant, know that China’s domestic economy is slowing and that China is increasingly concerned about keeping its construction companies working.  They also know what happened in places like Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Thailand.  That knowledge gives them leverage to negotiate better terms from China.  If more developing countries do so, China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative will be quite a bit tougher to realize.

About the author:
*Felix K. Chang is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He is also the Chief Strategy Officer of DecisionQ, a predictive analytics company in the national security and healthcare industries. He has worked with a number of digital, consumer services, and renewable energy entrepreneurs for years. He was previously a consultant in Booz Allen Hamilton’s Strategy and Organization practice; among his clients were the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of the Treasury, and other agencies. Earlier, he served as a senior planner and an intelligence officer in the U.S. Department of Defense and a business advisor at Mobil Oil Corporation, where he dealt with strategic planning for upstream and midstream investments throughout Asia and Africa.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

Notes:
[1] “Zimbabwe says China to cancel $40 million debt, increase yuan use,” Reuters, Dec. 21, 2015.

By Andrew Lumsden*

The heinous execution-style murder of 2-year-old Demario Whyte in downtown Kingston on August 23—along with unleashing a wave a fear, anger, and sorrow across the community—has highlighted the urgent need for a solution to Jamaica’s epidemic of rampant gang violence. Authorities believe the child’s murder was part of a gang feud possibly involving his father, who was also shot during the incident but survived.[i] Eighty percent of all illicit activity in Jamaica is connected to criminal gangs, of which nearly 300 exist island-wide.[ii]

Jamaica has struggled with gang violence for decades. Successive governments—including, so far, that of current Prime Minister Andrew Holness—have emphasized the use of punitive measures such as curfews and military deployment to stem the tide of violence. All have had only limited successes. While law enforcement is no doubt a necessary component in the fight against gang violence, Jamaican authorities must place significantly more focus than they have on social development programs in inner-city communities, and on building stronger relationships with the law-abiding majorities in these places who too often feel neglected and mistreated by the state.

Murder in Paradise

As a nation, Jamaica has the world’s sixth-highest intentional homicide rate—double that of Mexico and nearly ten times the U.S. rate.[iii] After an 11-year low of little over one thousand in 2014, its number of murders shot up in 2015, reaching a five-year high of nearly 1,200.[iv] The upward trend has continued, with the murder rate in the first six months of 2016 some 2.4 percent higher than in the first half of last year.[v] In terms of the proportion of the country’s population being killed, Jamaica is suffering the equivalent of a 9/11 terrorist attack every week.[vi]

This summer saw a wave of violence primarily across the western half of the island, a wave which has yet to dissipate. There have been shootouts between police and gang members, including in the major cities of Kingston and Montego Bay, and close to 900 people have been killed so far this year.[vii] The violence resulted in calls for a state of emergency to be declared in Western Jamaica, but authorities decided against this course of action.[viii]

The recent upsurge in murders has been attributed to conflicts between gangs over money and “lead lists.”[ix] They contain names and phone numbers of individuals living abroad, potential targets for lottery scams which have become a financial windfall for criminal gangs. Scam victims are told they have won cash or prizes through a lottery but can only receive their winnings provided they wire certain “taxes” or “fees” upfront. These scams yield their perpetrators an estimated $300 million USD a year.[x]

“Our Response Will Be Tougher”

“Times are tough, the criminals are tough, but our response will be tougher,” said National Security Minister Robert Montague in a speech before Parliament in July.[xi] In order to stem the tide of violence, he said, the government plans to increase police presence in high-crime areas, promote the installation of security cameras in high-crime communities, procure more vehicles for law enforcement, and encourage citizens to record any crimes they witness with their cell phones.[xii] In an interview with the Jamaica Gleaner, Montague announced his intention to revisit the use of curfews in crime-ridden areas—a practice whose use was drastically reduced by his predecessor—as well as a commitment by the current administration to provide law enforcement with whatever crime-fighting tools they request.[xiii]

The administration has also announced plans to reform the criminal justice system. Attorney General Marlene Malahoo Forte told Parliament in July that to effectively fight crime the government planned “radical changes” to the criminal justice system under which some “fundamental rights and freedoms” constitutionally guaranteed to Jamaicans might need to be “abrogated, abridged or infringed.”[xiv] Some proposed reforms include the abolition of juries in murder cases, and a denial of bail to murder suspects.[xv]

The Jamaican Bar Association (JamBar) criticized the proposed measures, calling them “of great concern.” JamBar argues that while it understands the government’s need to address the murder wave, many similarly tough anti-crime measures implemented by previous governments “unjustifiably abrogated the rights of Jamaicans, including accused persons.”[xvi] Malahoo Forte, on the other hand, says evidence has shown the government that the proposed measures are “demonstrably justified.”[xvii] Prime Minister Holness has also countered that the rights of murder victims, their families, and law abiding citizens to safety and justice must also be considered.[xviii]

A Punitive Paradigm

JamBar noted in a statement on the government’s proposed reforms that anti-crime measures focused solely on bolstering law enforcement are “failing to achieve the desired results.” The association insists the government “must pursue a much broader approach to fighting crime by making greater efforts at social intervention.”[xix]

The bar is correct in its assessment of the government’s proposed measures, all of which emphasize the introduction of more punitive policies. While they might stem the current murder wave, they at best will only provide a short-term reprieve, and could cause more problems in the near future. The reason is that the underlying social problems, which have perpetuated gang violence and encumbered tough anti-crime policies in the past, remain largely unaddressed.

“We’s Her Police”

Distrust of the police and somewhat favorable attitudes towards the gangs in the inner-cities are some such underlying social problems. According to a 2014 report by the UK-based Overseas Development Institute (ODI), residents in many inner-city communities see the gangs not as criminals, but as “legitimate providers of security.”[xx] A poll of inner-city residents taken in 2009 found that 43 percent share this point of view, believing that their community’s “don,” or gang leader, “keeps order.”[xxi]

While the gangs sometimes enjoy a high degree of support from the communities in which they operate, authorities cannot always say the same. There is strong sentiment among many in Jamaica’s inner-cities—including among those who do not view the gangs positively—that the police are ineffective at protecting or helping people, and are excessively violent with innocent civilians.[xxii]

Amnesty International and other human rights groups have accused Jamaican police of torturing suspects and witnesses, harassing the families of suspected criminals, arbitrary detentions, and “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” of suspects held in police lock-ups.[xxiii] Instances of police brutality however, have sharply declined since Jamaica established an independent, civilian-run complaints investigation commission in 2010.[xxiv]

Distrust between police and inner-city residents has had serious ramifications in terms of the ability of authorities to engage residents in investigations. Police can make arrests in only 45 percent of murder cases annually, largely as a result of residents’ unwillingness to cooperate with authorities, either out of fear for their safety or distrust of the police.[xxv] In a 2013 interview in the National Geographic documentary series Drugs Inc., one Kingston gang member boasted “[even] the oldest lady in the community, she don’t work with police … we’s her police.”[xxvi] Cooperation between the police and inner-city residents is key in bringing murderers to justice. Unless the relationship between the two sides is improved, any reforms to the penal system can yield only limited benefits.

Punitive to Positive

Jamaica has taken steps towards bettering police-community relations. In 2006, the Community Security and Safety Branch (CSSB) of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) was established. CSSB officers engage with community residents by attending local events such as church services, performing foot patrols as opposed to vehicle patrols, and making regular visits to schools.[xxvii]

However, as the Overseas Development Institute reports, these new policing strategies have had a negligible impact. This has been attributed to the failure of the JCF to accept community policing—which promotes partnerships between law enforcement and communities as the key to fighting crime—as a “force-wide philosophy.” Community policing tactics are utilized almost exclusively by CSSB officers, and neither the behavior nor the “dominant culture” of the police force at large has changed.[xxviii] Inner-city residents largely view CSSB efforts as a disingenuous “community relations spin.”[xxix]

For the community engagement approach to policing in Jamaica to be effective, all levels of law enforcement need to prioritize the construction of strong relationships with the law-abiding majorities in the inner-cities, as much as they do the use of force against criminals.

Community Policing Successes

Many police departments in the United States and elsewhere have employed community policing strategies in problem communities to good effect. They have bettered police-community relations while contributing to significant reductions in crime. Some of these approaches may prove successful in Jamaican communities.

The Jacksonville, Florida police department, also facing strong resentment within the community, tackled the problem first by asking residents to evaluate the quality of police service and reforming its practices based on responses.[xxx] In the Bahamas, police partnered with local churches, residents, businesses, and reformed gang members to create a community task force, which patrolled the streets 24 hours a day. This strategy left criminals with little time or space in which to operate.[xxxi] A similar task force in West Perrine, near Miami, Florida, established a community hotline, conducted interventions for troubled residents, and documented families’ needs. Within a year, violent crime in the neighborhood decreased by one-third.[xxxii]

“We Nah Turn Them Down”

Though effective, community policing is no cure-all to Jamaica’s murder epidemic. Even a democratically elected government must earn the trust and respect of its citizens, and in many of Jamaica’s inner-city communities, the country’s government enjoys neither—but gangs sometimes do. With one in five Jamaicans living in poverty and more than 30 percent of youth unemployed, many on the island are struggling and feel that the government has failed to address their needs.[xxxiii] Some in inner cities turn to the gangs for aid, and, as a Kingston gang member told Drugs Inc., when they do “we nah turn them down.”[xxxiv]

Fifty-four percent of inner-city residents responding to a 2008 poll reported that local “dons” provided social welfare services. These have included the provision of money for school tuition, school supplies for children, food, community festivities, and in some cases even housing.[xxxv]

On the other hand, as the Small Arms Survey (SAS)—a Swiss-based think tank which studies armed violence—reports “the state is often absent” in the inner cities.[xxxvi] Police enter only to conduct operations against the gangs, sanitation services are sporadic, and political representatives intervene only during election campaigns.[xxxvii]

In fact, the same gang member who told Drugs Inc. that gangs do not deny community requests for aid, added that residents often go first to their political representatives for help but receive none.[xxxviii] In many inner-city communities, the gangs have effectively usurped the place of the state.

The Politics of Neglect

Over the past decade, the Jamaican government has introduced programs to increase its presence in the inner cities, reduce crime, and provide for residents in need. The Peace Management Initiative, the Community Security Initiative, and the Jamaica Social Investment Fund have been established and funded through partnerships between the government, the private sector, foreign governments, and international aid organizations.[xxxix] Ultimately, SAS reports, these programs have had little national impact.[xl] Their failures been attributed to a lack of coordination between them, insufficient monitoring, improper evaluation of program results, and some politicians’ unwillingness to participate.[xli]

Politicians who depend on community “dons” to garner votes and local support for them or their party are often reluctant to push the implementation of programs and policies which may endanger this arrangement.[xlii] While outright collusion between the gangs and political figures has much diminished over the past decades as gangs turn to drugs and lottery scams as sources of income, and groups with differing agendas have formed or splintered off from politically-aligned gangs, it remains a problem.

The main problem for social development in the inner city is not a lack of state programs—there are many—but rather a lack of proper commitment and evaluation. Program efficacy should be determined by if and how the lives of inner-city residents have improved, and whether their dependency on the gangs has fallen. Currently, efficacy among development programs is sometimes determined just by how many people attended sponsored workshops.[xliii]

There also needs to be a change in the culture of governance in Jamaica. Decisive legal action must be taken against politicians who collude with organized crime, just as in Bosnia and Italy, for example, which are also dealing with connections between politicians and organized crime.[xliv] Furthermore, political representatives must be consistently attentive to their constituents’ needs, and to the best of their ability provide for those who come to them in need. Community engagement and development programs must be vigorously executed in order to lay the foundations for lasting social and economic development. Only through this kind of diligence can the influence of the gangs be permanently eroded in the inner-cities, as any usefulness of theirs to the law-abiding majority dwindles.

A Preventive War

Another hindrance to the effectiveness of Jamaica’s social intervention programs has been difficulty in engaging young men, the group most at risk for involvement in criminal activity.[xlv]A government study revealed that actual income-generating activities as well as sports and popular music events are the most effective in appealing to young men, but state programs rarely involve these.[xlvi]According to SAS, women receive most of the education and skills training provided by state programs. Meanwhile, gangs appeal quite successfully to young men in the inner-cities. Gang leaders not only engage young men, but sometimes act as a “substitute parent” to them, thus endearing them to gang values and the criminal lifestyle.[xlvii]

Not only must social programs better appeal to young men in the inner city, they also work to stop the cradle-to-gang pipeline at its beginning by engaging as much as possible with at-risk children from their early years. Many of the risk factors for future gang involvement are identifiable in young children. According to the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ), aggression and disruptive behavior, learning impairments, poor self-esteem and victimization, especially in young boys from poor socio-economic backgrounds, can lead to gang involvement in the future.[xlviii]

These problems can be successfully addressed in early childhood. For example, the Montreal Preventive Treatment Program succeeded in reducing delinquency and gang involvement among teenagers in the city by engaging boys from poor families who displayed disruptive behavior in school between ages 7 and 9. The children were taught self-control and proper behavior, while training was offered to parents on how to monitor their children’s conduct, give positive reinforcement for good behavior, use punishment effectively, and properly manage family crises.[xlix]

For older children, the DOJ has identified community-based initiatives such as “manhood development” programs which connect young men with positive adult role models and mentors, the establishment of neighborhood youth recreation centers, and outreach efforts to youth involving former gang members as effective strategies in impeding gang recruitment.[l] These initiatives can be carried out by way of partnerships between law enforcement, local clergy, volunteers, and small business owners.

For pre-teens and teens already displaying tendencies towards criminal behavior, Singapore’s family law may offer a solution. Parents with children under 16 who feel that their children are out of control and may become criminals may petition the court for a “Beyond Parental Control Order.” Before the application is granted, a social worker will be assigned to assess and attempt to resolve the problem without further state intervention. If intervention is deemed necessary, the court will require parents and children to undergo counseling, and children will be supervised by a welfare officer provided by the state or another organization or, in severe instances, sent to reform school.[li] For actual juvenile offenders, emphasis is placed on counseling and rehabilitation, as opposed to incarceration.[lii]

Conclusion

Like weeds in a garden, gangs in Jamaica continue to mar a beautiful and culturally rich nation. The government continues to fight them, with overwhelming emphasis on the use of force. However, they will persist as long their roots remain entangled so deeply within the communities they infest. What is needed in Jamaica is a concerted, multi-faceted, bi-partisan approach, not only to fight the gangs militarily, but to engage and uplift the crime-ridden communities. This can be accomplished by improving police relations through a force-wide shift towards community policing, addressing the needs of struggling inner-city residents, and working to turn young men away from the allure of gang life from their earliest years.

The problem in Jamaica is not that officials do not understand these things or know how to do them, rather that the necessary amount of commitment has not yet been put in. There are communities in Jamaica where it is no exaggeration to say the streets have run with blood. They will again, and more so unless there is a major shift in how Jamaica conducts its war on gangs.

*Andrew Lumsden, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[i] Tanesha Mundle, “2-y-o boy killed ‘execution style’ in downtown Kingston,” Jamaica Observer, August 25, 2016, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/2-y-o-boy-killed–execution_71851.

[ii] Alphea Saunders, “266 criminal gangs creating mayhem across island,” Jamaica Observer, November 13, 2015, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/266-criminal-gangs-creating-mayhem-across-island_19238301.; “Jamaica 2016 Crime & Safety Report,” United States Department of State: Bureau of Diplomatic Security, April 26, 2016, https://www.osac.gov/pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=19562.

[iii]“Jamaica has 6th highest murder rate worldwide – UN report,” Jamaica Observer, April 11, 2014, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/Jamaica-has-6th-highest-homicide-rate-worldwide—UN-report; World Development Indicators: Intentional Homicides (per 100,000 people) ,” The World Bank, http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=VC.IHR.PSRC.P5&country=.

[iv] “Jamaica homicides jump 20 per cent, highest level in 5 years,” Jamaica Observer, January 11, 2016, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/ /Jamaica-homicides-jump-20-per-cent–highest-level-in-5-years_48331.

[v] Karena Bennett, “Murder Only Serious Crime Moving Up,” Jamaica Observer, August 26, 2016, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Murder-only-serious-crime-moving-up_71815.

[vi] “A NEW APPROACH: NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY FOR JAMAICA,” Government of Jamaica, 2014, http://www.japarliament.gov.jm/attachments/1286_2014%20Ministry%20Paper%2063.pdf.

[vii] Adrian Frater, “Gunman Killed In Blazing Montego Bay Shoot-Out – Two Guns Recovered, Another Gunman Hospitalised,” Jamaica Gleaner, April 23, 2016, http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20160423/gunman-killed-blazing-montego-bay-shoot-out-two-guns-recovered-another; “Police Warning: Avoid Spanish Town Road, Sporadic Gunfire In Area,” Jamaica Gleaner, July 15, 2016, http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20160715/police-warning-avoid-spanish-town-road-sporadic-gunfire-area; “Bunting Renews Call For High-Level Crime Summit,” Jamaica Gleaner, September 25, 2016, http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20160925/bunting-renews-call-high-level-crime-summit.

[viii] Janet Silvera, “State Of Emergency Will Not Fix Mobay Crime – Police Commissioner,” Jamaica Gleaner, July 3, 2016, http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20160703/state-emergency-will-not-fix-mobay-crime-police-commissioner.

[ix] “Jamaica homicides jump 20 per cent, highest level in 5 years,” Jamaica Observer.

[x] Camilo Thame, “The High Cost of Crime,” Jamaica Observer, August 29, 2012, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/business/The-high-cost-of-crime_12370259.

[xi] “National Security Minister Outlines Crime Fighting Measures,” Jamaica Gleaner, July 6, 2016, http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20160706/national-security-minister-outlines-crime-fighting-measures.

[xii] Ibid,.

[xiii] “Curfew Orders: Gov’t To Allow Police Whatever Crime-Fighting Tool They Want,” Jamaica Gleaner, July 9, 2016, http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/news/20160709/curfew-orders-govt-allow-police-whatever-crime-fighting-tool-they-want.

[xiv] “AG proposes ‘radical changes’ to curb crime,” Jamaica Gleaner, July 6, 2016, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/AG-proposes–radical-changes–to-curb-crime.

[xv] Ibid,.

[xvi] Livern Barrett, “Tread Cautiously, JamBar Warns Gov’t,” Jamaica Gleaner, July 9, 2016, http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20160709/tread-cautiously-jambar-warns-govt.

[xvii] “AG proposes ‘radical changes’ to curb crime,” Jamaica Gleaner

[xviii] Balford Henry, “Holness: Murder victims have rights too,” Jamaica Observer, June 2, 2016, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Holness–Murder-victims-have-rights-too_62630.

[xix] “AG proposes ‘radical changes’ to curb crime,” Jamaica Gleaner

[xx] Victoria Chambers, “Securing communities and transforming policing cultures: A desk study of community policing in Jamaica” Overseas Development Institute, May 2014, https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8957.pdf.

[xxi] Ibid,.

[xxii] Anthony Harriot, Police and Crime Control in Jamaica: Problems of Reforming Ex-colonial Constabularies (Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press, 2000), 104

[xxiii] ‘Jamaica: Killings and Violence by Police: How Many More Victims?’ Amnesty International, 2001. AMR 38/003/2001.

[xxiv] David McFadden, “Jamaica Has Dramatically Reduced Killings By Police Thanks To More Aggressive Investigations Of Officers” Business Insider, December 7, 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/jamaica-has-dramatically-reduced-killings-by-police-2014-12.

[xxv] “Jamaica 2016 Crime & Safety Report,” United States Department of State: Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

[xxvi] Drugs Inc.. “Jamaican Gangs, Guns and Ganja.” Season 4: Episode 2. Produced by Johnathan Hewes. National Geographic, August 18, 2013.

[xxvii] Chambers, “Securing communities and transforming policing cultures.”

[xxviii] Ibid,.

[xxix] Ibid,.

[xxx] Carols Fields, “Award-Winning Community Policing Strategies,” U.S Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services, September 2007, http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-w0451-pub.pdf.

[xxxi] Ibid,.

[xxxii] “Safer Neighborhoods Through Community Policing: Three Case Studies,” The United States Council of Mayors, April 2000, https://www.usmayors.org/bestpractices/community_policing_0401/safer_neighborhoods_2.pdf.

[xxxiii] “Jamaica Overview,” The World Bank, September 20, 2016, http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/jamaica/overview.

[xxxiv] Drugs Inc.. “Jamaican Gangs, Guns and Ganja.”

[xxxv] Glaister Leslie, “Confronting the Don: The Political Economy of Gang Violence in Jamaica,” Small Arms Survey, September 2010. http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/B-Occasional-papers/SAS-OP26-Jamaica-gangs.pdf.

[xxxvi] Ibid,.

[xxxvii] Ibid,.

[xxxviii] Drugs Inc.. “Jamaican Gangs, Guns and Ganja.”

[xxxix] Leslie, “Confronting the Don.”

[xl] Ibid,.

[xli] Ibid,.

[xlii] Ibid,.

[xliii] Ibid,.

[xliv] “Bosnian police arrest 14 in organized crime case,” The San Diego Union-Tribune, September 10, 2014, http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-bosnian-police-arrest-14-in-organized-crime-case-2014sep10-story.html.; “Politicians among 44 arrested in Italy accused of ties to mob,” The Guardian, June 4, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/04/politicians-among-44-arrested-italy-accused-ties-mob-boss.

[xlv] Leslie, “Confronting the Don.”

[xlvi] Ibid,.

[xlvii] Ibid,.

[xlviii] James C. Howell, “Gang Prevention: An Overview of Research and Programs,” U.S Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, December 2010, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/231116.pdf.

[xlix] James C. Howell, “Youth Gang Programs and Strategies,” U.S Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, August 2000, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/ 171154.pdf.

[l] Ibid,.

[li] “Beyond Parental Control” Family Justice Courts: Singapore, August 2014, https://www.familyjusticecourts.gov.sg/QuickLink/Documents/Beyond%20Parental%20Control.pdf/.

[lii] Ibid,.

By Sanjay Badri-Maharaj

On 20 August 2015, Peru’s Congress passed legislation that would allow its military to shoot down aircraft suspected of narcotics trafficking, thus resuming a policy that was discontinued after 2001 when a tragic mistake led to the killing of a missionary and her daughter.1 With this action, Peru has become the latest in a series of Latin American countries that have opted for this extreme step to curb the endemic problem of aerial narcotics smuggling. Indeed, no fewer than nine countries in the region – Brazil, Chile, Honduras, Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia and Venezuela have adopted this step though not all have made use of this option.2

As might be expected, this development is extremely controversial, with the United States government temporarily halting cooperation with Honduras after that country shot down two suspected narcotics carrying aircraft in 2012, neither of which was ever subsequently confirmed to have been carrying narcotics. To insulate itself from dependence on US radar coverage, Honduras purchased three new radar sets before enacting new legislation in 2014 to resume aggressive interceptions which once again led to a withdrawal of American support.3

Given the risk of drawing the ire of the United States and the even more daunting prospect of shooting down innocent aircraft, the question arises as to why Latin American countries are so intent on pursuing this course of action. The answer to this question can partly be found in the fact that no less than 20% of all cocaine trafficking within the area is undertaken by air.4 However, this, in and of itself, should not warrant such an extreme step.

The fact is that that narcotics traffic from Latin America by air is increasing by the day. as the aerial route has become a preferred method of transport between Latin America and Africa where from it is sent onwards to Europe and Asia. Transport of cocaine between Latin America and Africa was traditionally via sea in container ships or in private yachts. The potential to ship large quantities of cocaine through this method made the maritime route the preferred method of transit.5 However, as interdiction efforts at sea have become more effective, the cocaine smugglers have switched tactics to using second-hand cargo aircraft to deliver cocaine to their West African confederates.6

A wide range of used aircraft, available for as little as US$275,000 for a four-engined DC-8 jet, can be obtained and there is no shortage of pilots willing to undertake these flights.7 As the airspace between Latin America and West Africa is almost completely bereft of radar cover and national radar networks in most of West Africa are patchy at best, it is relatively simple for narco-flights to evade detection. In one publicised incident, for example, a Boeing 727 was set alight and abandoned after it failed to take-off at a makeshift airfield following a delivery of cocaine from Venezuela to Gao in Mali.,8

Of late, Venezuela and Brazil are beginning to emerge as major places of embarkation for narcotics bound for Europe via the West Africa-. The surge began in 2004 with seizures of 46 metric tonnes of cocaine being reported between 2005 and 2008.9 This coincided with a decision of the Venezuelan government in 2005 to suspend cooperation with the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) due to unfortunate political differences between the Chavez administration and the US Government.10

This led to an upsurge in cocaine trafficking out of Venezuela where corrupt law enforcement and military personnel, porous borders with Colombia and apparent government indifference have contributed to this trend. In the case of Brazil, the combination of porous borders with three major cocaine producing countries (Bolivia, Colombia and Peru) and a poorly patrolled coastline are combined with a thriving legitimate trade with West Africa thus facilitating the smuggling of cocaine by subterfuge, corruption or coercion of legal traders.11 South Africa has emerged as one of several preferred transshipment points for cocaine emanating from Brazil, taking its place alongside such nations as Angola, Guinea and Guinea-Bissau.12 It should be noted that South Africa has also become a preferred route for Afghan heroin.13 Almost completely unmonitored airspace renders air transport particularly attractive for smugglers.

Having taken this decision, are the Latin American military establishments in a position o provide the requisite quality of evidence to ensure that unfortunate mistakes do not recur? The answer must be a qualified “no”. While decades of fighting the narcotics trade have created strong local intelligence networks, these are by no means foolproof and radar surveillance remains problematic. Even the advanced SIVAM radar network deployed by Brazil to provide surveillance over the Amazon region, has several exploitable gaps.14 Several air forces in the region are also incapable of conducting even basic intercept operations owing to a lack of suitable aircraft – Paraguay being a prime example. Combined with the inherent defects of the law enforcement and military forces of the region, it is therefore doubtful that any air force in the region could be certain of the mala fide contents of any aircraft.

Shoot-Downs of Suspected Narcotics Trafficking Aircraft 1983-2013

Source: Air Combat Information Group
Nonetheless, despite these shortcomings, there have been multiple downings of suspected narcotics transport aircraft as shown in the table above. Aircraft such as the AT-27 Tucano and the A-37 Dragonfly have seen extensive service in an interceptor role where their excellent low speed performance has enabled them to engage aircraft that could create problems for faster interceptor aircraft. The problem with faster aircraft was graphically demonstrated on 17th September 2015 when a Venezuelan Su-30MKV crashed while trying to engage a slow flying suspected narcotics aircraft near the Colombian border, killing both crewmen.15

It seems, however, that despite the evident shortcomings and limitations of this strategy, Latin American air forces seem to be intent on pursuing this course of action. Whether they actually believe that this interception policy will have a tangible impact on the narcotics trade or this is merely a ploy for domestic political consumption is a matter of debate. Whatever the reason for the decision, one can expect a sharp rise in both interceptions and the potential of more unfortunate accidents.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India. Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/latin-american-air-forces-shooting-down-narco-trafficking-aircraft_sbmaharaj_051016

1.
Peru’s Congress approves shooting down of narcotics planes Reuters (Accessed 2nd October 2016)
2.
H. Taylor, More Latin American Countries Adopting Dangerous Shoot-Down Laws to Combat Drug Trafficking, Talking Drugs (Accessed 2nd October 2016)
3.
J. Bargent, US Halts Honduras Cooperation Over Narco-Plane Shoot Down Law, Insight Crime (Accessed 2nd October 2016)
4.
A. Isacson, Latin America’s Dangerous Shift to Aerial Shootdown Policies in War on Drugs, Wola.org (Accessed 2nd October 2016)
5.
M. Yagoub, “New Report Offers Details on Cocaine Traffic to Europe” Insight Crime (Accessed 2nd October 2016)
6.
“South American Drug Trafficking Organizations Increasingly Looking to Europe” Insight Crime (Accessed 2nd October 2016)
7.
C. Hawley, “South American gangs flying vast quantities of cocaine to Europe” The Guardian (Accessed June22, 2016)
8.
“Boeing transporting cocaine from South America to Africa crashes” The Daily Telegraph ( Accessed 2nd October 2016)
9.
P.L. Maguire, Narcotics Trafficking in West Africa: A Governance Challenge , Pardee Paper No. 9, March 2010, p.3, (Accessed 2nd October 2016)
10.
G. Wilpert, “Venezuela’s Chavez Confirms Suspension of Cooperation with DEA” Venezuela Analysis (Accessed 2nd October 2016)
11.
N. Brune, “The Brazil–Africa Narco Nexus”Americas Quarterly (Accessed 2nd October 2016)
12.
M.Plautt, “Cocaine – the South Africa connection”, New Statesman, (Accessed 2nd October 2016)
13.
J. Wicks, “South Africa has become a ‘key transit hub’ for global heroin, cocaine trade” Timeslive (Accessed 2nd October 2016)
14.
M. Ballve Brazil’s New Eye on the Amazon, Nacla (Accessed 2nd October 2016)
15.
Venezuela’s Maduro Confirms 2 Deaths in Fighter Jet Crash, Carib Flame (Accessed 2nd October 2016)

The Security Council today formally chose the former Prime Minister of Portugal, António Guterres, as its nominee to be the next Secretary-General of the United Nations for a five-year term when incumbent Ban Ki-moon steps down on 31 December.

The recommendation, made in a resolution adopted in a private meeting by acclamation, now goes to the 193-member General Assembly for formal approval.

On an official visit to Italy, Mr. Ban said in Rome this morning that Mr. Guterres is “an excellent choice,” noting that the two had worked closely during Mr. Guterres “long and outstanding tenure” as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

“He showed deep compassion for the millions of people who were forced to leave their homes,” Mr. Ban said, adding: “His past experience as Prime Minister of Portugal, his extensive knowledge of world affairs and his keen intelligence will serve him to lead the United Nations at a crucial period.”

Under procedures for appointing the world body’s new chief, after the recommendation is transmitted from the Council to the Assembly, a draft resolution is issued for the Assembly to take action. After appropriate consultations with Member States, the Assembly President fixes a date for the draft to be taken up.

The last five Secretaries-General were appointed by the Assembly through a resolution adopted by consensus. A vote will take place only if a Member State requests it and a simple majority of those voting would be required for the Assembly to adopt the resolution. But the Assembly could decide that the decision requires a two-thirds majority. If a vote is taken, it will be by secret ballot.

The UN Charter, signed in 1945 as the foundation of the Organization, says relatively little about how a Secretary-General is to be selected, aside from Article 97, which notes that the candidate “shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

At its first session in 1946, the General Assembly was much more active in the selection process. It created resolution A/RES/1/11 determining that the Council take the lead in the selection process, agree on a single name in a private meeting, and pass that name down to the General Assembly for a vote.

Yesterday, Ambassador Vitaly Churkin of Russia, which holds the Security Council presidency for the month, informed the President of the Assembly, Peter Thomson, that after the sixth informal “straw poll” for the position of Secretary-General, Mr. Guterres had emerged as the clear favourite.

In addition to Mr. Guterres, 12 other candidates were in the running to succeed the current UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, who leaves office at the end of the year.

Today’s decision by the Security Council brings the UN closer towards the culmination of an historic process: the selection of a new United Nations Secretary-General, traditionally decided behind closed-doors by a few powerful countries, has for the first time in history, involved public discussions with each candidate campaigning for the world’s top diplomatic post.

These so-called ‘informal briefings’ between the candidates, UN Member States and civil society representatives kicked off on 12 April, when the first three candidates presented their ‘vision statements’ and answered questions on how they would promote sustainable development, improve efforts to create peace, protect human rights, and deal with huge humanitarian catastrophes should they be selected to lead the Organization.

In addition, this past July, the UN held its first-ever globally televised and webcast townhall-style debate in the General Assembly Hall, where the confirmed candidates at the time took questions from diplomats and the public at large.

By Elise Harris

Pope Francis and Anglican Primate Archbishop Welby have signed a joint-declaration emphasizing that while topics such as homosexuality and the ordination of women still constitute points of division, they are committed to working together in their pursuit of full unity.

“The declaration is a forward-looking commitment to doing everything we can together, and continuing to struggle without fear, but with determination for the things that divide us,” Archbishop Welby told CNA Oct. 5.

He said he doesn’t know if Catholics and Anglicans are closer to full unity than they were 50 years ago, but stated simply that “we are where we are.”

One thing that is certain, he said, is that “we serve the God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead, which means we are always full of hope.”

The archbishop and Pope Francis met to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the landmark encounter between Bl. Paul VI and Michael Ramsey, as well as the institution of the Anglican Center of Rome.

In 1966 Bl. Pope Paul VI met with Dr. Michael Ramsey, who was Archbishop of Canterbury at the time, at the Roman Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls.

Until 1960, when St. John XXIII met with Geoffrey Fisher in a private encounter, there had been no meeting between a Pope and an Archbishop of Canterbury since King Henry VIII broke with Rome in 1534.

The meeting between Paul VI and Ramsey, however, was the first public meeting that had taken place.

This meeting and declaration led to the eventual creation of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (Arcic), which was responsible for theological dialogue between the two churches. It also marked the opening of the Anglican Centre in Rome, which serves as not only the headquarters of Rome’s Anglican community, but also as a center committed to advancing dialogue between the two Churches.

The current director of the Anglican Center, Archbishop David Moxon, serves as Welby’s personal Representative to the Holy See.

Pope Francis and Archbishop Welby prayed First Vespers together in the historic Roman church of San Gregorio al Cielo Oct. 5, during which they signed their own joint-declaration and commissioned 19 pairs of Catholic and Anglican bishops, who will symbolically serve together throughout the world.

It was from San Gregorio that Pope Gregory the Great sent the monk Augustine with 40 companions to evangelize Britain in 597. Because of its historic roots, Anglicans widely consider the church to be their “motherhouse.”

In their joint-declaration, Welby and Pope Francis recognized that both Catholics and Anglicans “are heirs of the treasure of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the call to share that treasure with the whole world.”

They noted that since that first public meeting in 1966, “much progress” has been made in terms of overcoming the obstacles that stand in the way of unity.

However, the modern times have led to new hiccups in the process, particularly surrounding the topics of the ordination of women and “more recent questions regarding human sexuality.”

“Behind these differences lies a perennial question about how authority is exercised in the Christian community,” the declaration read, recognizing that these concerns constitute “serious obstacles to our full unity.”

Yet while solutions to these questions remain in question, Francis and Welby said they are “undeterred” in their quest for unity.

These differences “cannot prevent us from recognizing one another as brothers and sisters in Christ by reason of our common baptism,” nor should they “hold us back” from discovering the faith and holiness of each other’s traditions, they said.

Neither should differences get in the way of common prayer, the prelates cautioned, and urged their respective clergy and faithful “not to neglect or undervalue that certain yet imperfect communion that we already share.”

A shared faith and joy in the Gospel are stronger than the differences, they said, stressing that “the world must see us witnessing to this common faith in Jesus by acting together.”

Common points of collaboration mentioned include working together to protect creation and promote “a sustainable and integral development for the good of all, and to uphold the dignity of the human being in all states and stages of life.

Centuries of painful separation have been “partially healed by 50 years of friendship,” they said, adding that “we have become partners and companions on our pilgrim journey.”

As fellow Christians, the Churches are facing the same difficulties, while also strengthening each other “by learning to value the gifts which God has given to the other, and to receive them as our own in humility and gratitude.”

The two prelates made reference to the 19 pairs of Catholic and Anglican bishops commissioned during the Vespers ceremony, praying that their ecumenical mission would be “a witness to all of us.”

“Let the message go out from this holy place, as the Good News was sent out so many centuries ago, that Catholics and Anglicans will work together to give voice to our common faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, to bring relief to the suffering, to bring peace where there is conflict, to bring dignity where it is denied and trampled upon.”

The two exchanged gifts at the close of the ceremony. Pope Francis gifted Archbishop Welby a replica of the hook-like head of the crozier of St. Gregory, while the archbishop in a strong show of unity took his pectoral cross made out of nails from the roof of the Anglican Coventry Cathedral and gave it as a gift to Pope Francis, who kissed it.

Both Pope Francis and Archbishop Welby gave homilies during Vespers, which was prayed in Latin. The prelates both emphasized that while their traditions might be different, a shared baptism and commitment to spreading the Gospel unites them.

Pope Francis in his homily prayed that the encounter would give rise to “a renewed impetus toward communion and mission,” while Welby, for his part, noted that while it might be tempting to look back, the prophets “compel us to look forward…we cannot be bad shepherds.”

In a follow-up to Vespers and the signing of the declaration, two met privately at the Vatican Oct. 6. Archbishop Welby has already met with Pope Francis twice in the Vatican, the first time being June 14, 2013, and the second June 16, 2014. Welby was also a special guest at the World Day of Prayer for Peace held in Assisi Sept. 18-20.

In his brief speech during the meeting, Pope Francis focused on the importance of prayer, witness and mission between the two Churches.

“Let us never grow tired of asking the Lord together and insistently for the gift of unity,” he said, stressing that “ecumenism is never an impoverishment, but a richness.”

“Now is the time in which the Lord challenges us, in a particular way, to go out from ourselves and our own environs, in order to bring his merciful love to a world thirsting for peace,” he said, and encouraged members of both confessions to help one another “to keep at the center the demands of the Gospel and to spend ourselves concretely in this mission.”

In his own speech, Welby thanked the Pope for his “leadership and example” given throughout the world, particularly when it comes to care for the poor, the enslaved, those suffering from human trafficking as well as care for the environment.

However, despite the mutual concern for these and other threats to modern society, the lack of full unity between the Catholic and Anglican Churches “grieves” God and damages “every aspect of our lives in Christ.”

Yet it is Christ who “breaks down divisions,” he said, and noted that despite the things that divide them, the Churches are “publicly determined to press forward where we may, together with all other Christians.”

“Jesus has gone before us. He calls us to be courageous. Let us walk closer together so the world sees new life and energy in the Church’s worship, mission and witness.”

At the beginning of the meeting, Welby jested with the Pope, saying “What’s the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist? You can dialogue with a terrorist,” prompting boisterous laughter from both.

“We believe in what we are doing… If you are pushed, you push back.” — Julian Assange

The mutterings have become furious, and it is clear that the Democratic contender for the White House has again shown how traditional her ploys towards power are going to be. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have again managed to pull the blinds off an episode of some consequence, not least because it casts insight into the inner workings of the already maligned Clinton complex.

For one, it shows that Hillary Clinton will not be averse to muddying the waters of international law she is so happy to proclaim against Russia, China and other contesting bug bears. For another, it does not suggest that a Clinton administration is going to go soft on whistleblowers, or the secrecy complex. The latter is richly ironic given the Secretary’s own slap dash attitude to secrecy protocols when heading the State Department.

The latest WikiLeaks related fuss began a few days ago with the publication on True Pundit that claimed, referring to “State Department Sources” that Clinton had queried the use of a drone to silence the growing nuisance of Assange before the document release that came to be known as Cablegate.[1]

The “early morning November meeting [in 2010] of State’s [the State Department] top brass” has Clinton posing the question: “Can’t we just drone this guy?” This was suggested by True Pundit as being a product of pure frustration, one increased in vain attempts to “cut off Assange’s delivery of the cables” and failing that, forging “a strategy to minimize the administration’s public embarrassment over the contents of the cables.”

Was such a blood thirsty query made in jest, the normalised, crude product of a culture already used to remotely directed extra-judicial assassinations? The report claims otherwise. Initial, dismissive laughter from officials in the room “quickly died off” before the terse manner of the Secretary. “Clinton said that Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, ‘walking around’ freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.”

Such casual talk about eliminating a designated enemy of the United States should be of little surprise. Classified emails (yes, those emails) were of particular interest to the FBI in its own criminal investigation into Secretary Clinton’s butter fingered handling of classified information.

A number touched on the approval process for drone strikes, executed by the Central Intelligence Agency in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan. Only a few of these were ever rejected by Clinton. Even more dire, many, notably those touching on attacks in Pakistan, found their way onto her personal email account.[2]

The retorts to these allegations have been far from convincing, having much the effect of flogging by damp lettuce. (In a campaign featuring such characters as Clinton and Trump, these could never be any other way.) Clinton’s campaign manager, Robbie Mook, began to see allies of Trump coming out of every cyber nook and cranny.

“Donald Trump and his allies are trying to do everything they can to change the debate here right now. Donald Trump failed at the debate, he became increasingly unwound, was tweeting at 3 a.m., making wild accusations of his own against the former Miss Universe and against Hillary Clinton.”[3]

For Mook, Trump’s arsenal, supplemented by assistance from his allies (these are not necessarily elaborated with any distinction), had to “find some way to change this up, and they’re trying to do that by doubling down on conspiracy theories.”

Having drawn a web around his own conspiracy theory of compliance, slotting WikiLeaks, by innuendo and suggestion, into a Trump universe, he had to contend with the direct allegations about the drone strike. The lettuce started looking damper than ever. “I’m reticent to comment on anything that the WikiLeaks people have said. They’ve made a lot of accusations in the past.”

Many of these accusations have had the rather brutal semblance of truth to them, not to mention the previous spectacular of the DNC disclosures. These did not reveal so much a conspiracy of theory, but of solid fact in efforts, ruthlessly contrived, to eliminate Bernie Sanders as a threat to the Clinton campaign.

WikiLeaks has been thrilling, horrifying and agitating its audiences with the top hits of disclosure over the ten years it has been in existence. On Tuesday, the organisation celebrated 10 years of an often heady existence, which comprised the release of over ten million classified documents.

It was fitting that this pearler, featuring such a recurring figure of notoriety as Hillary Clinton, should surface at this moment of commemoration. Clinton’s campaign coven have been less than convincing in denying this point. This stands to reason, given that previous denials have tended to vanish before the onslaught of reality.

Like many previous WikiLeaks revelations, it will be up to voters, opinion makers, and the chattering classes to decide what this means. In the case of Tunisia, these assisted the first disruptions that came to be known as the Arab Spring. In the case of the United States, it may harden pre-existing sentiment, the sort fairly immune to any revelations, however grotesque.

A Trump in the White House sends shivers down the spine and turns the stomach of many a voter; but to have a Clinton there, redux of corruption, calamity and mistake, would also shock the sensible and enrage the conscionable.

Notes:
[1] http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/

[2] http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863

[3] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-manager-reticent-to-comment-on-report-about-droning-assange/article/2603505

A visible image showing powerful Hurricane Matthew and Nicole on Oct. 6 at 1 p.m. EDT was captured by NOAA’s GOES-East satellite. The image shows large Hurricane Matthew’s clouds stretching from eastern Cuba and Hispaniola, over the Bahamas and extending to Florida. Matthew is west of the much smaller Tropical Storm Nicole. The image was created at the NASA/NOAA GOES Project at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

At 11 a.m. EDT (1500 UTC), the eye of Hurricane Matthew was located near 25.1 degrees north latitude and 77.8 degrees west longitude. That’s about 25 miles (40 km) west-northwest of Nassau, Bahamas and 180 miles (290 km) southeast of West Palm Beach, Florida.

NOAA’s National Hurricane Center (NHC) said the “eye is moving toward the northwest near 14 mph (22 kph) between Andros Island and Nassau in the Bahamas. This general motion is expected to continue today with a turn toward the north-northwest tonight or early Friday. On the forecast track, Matthew should cross the northwestern Bahamas later today and move close to or over the east coast of the Florida peninsula through Friday night.

Reports form an Air Force plane indicate that the maximum sustained winds are near 140 mph (220 kph) with higher gusts. Matthew is a category 4 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale. Some additional strengthening is possible, and Matthew should remain a Category 4 hurricane while it approaches the Florida coast.”

Hurricane-force winds extend outward up to 60 miles (95 km) from the center and tropical-storm-force winds extend outward up to 160 miles (260 km). The minimum central pressure estimated by an Air Force plane was 940 millibars.

By Jorge Valero

(EurActiv) — The European Parliament gave some leeway to Spain and Portugal on Thursday (6) before an expected suspension of EU funds takes place, as MEPs decided to continue their assessment by calling their finance ministers.

The Conference of Presidents, the European Parliament’s top political body, concluded that more information is needed before making a proposal to the European Commission on the suspension of the funds.

The Parliament requested entering into a structural dialogue with the executive after the Iberian economies breached the EU’s fiscal rules.

The leaders of the political groups decided, without debate, to ask the European Commission for further clarification of which programmes will be affected when a decision is finally made.

The legislature will also invite the finance ministers of Spain and Portugal to appear before a joint session of the Economic Affairs and Regional Development committees. MEPs will ask them about the national budgetary situation and what measures they plan on implementing to meet the new deficit targets set by the EU.

Sources explained that, ideally, both ministers would speak the same day, although the details of their appearances have yet to be finalized.

A European Parliament official explained that those who supported Commission Vice-President Jyrki Katainen’s hawkish view to immediately freeze the funds had “lost the battle”.

A broad majority of MEPs spoke out against freezing the funds during an exchange with Katainen, and Commissioner for Regional Policy Corina Crețu.

Spain and Portugal were found guilty of breaching the Stability and Growth Pact last July. Although the European Commission did not fine them, freezing structural funds was a “legal obligation”, Katainen told MEPs on 3 October.

The Commissioners insisted that EU money would not be affected if Madrid and Lisbon implement tax hikes and budget cuts, to meet the agreed deficit targets.

The extra time gained is badly needed in both countries. While Spain’s political parties are still struggling to form a new government, Portugal is reluctant to adopt further measures after it revised downwards its growth forecast for 2016.

A European Parliament official told EurActiv that, right now, “the most important thing” is to control the timing to ensure that Spain and Portugal escape from the sanction procedure without any scratch.

Depending on the answers offered by the Commission, the Conference of Presidents left the door open to requesting a new hearing with the Commissioners.

According to executive’s internal documents, the decision on the freezing of EU funds could come by the middle of November. The Council would then adopt it, unless there is a majority against it.

In regards to the final amount of the suspension, Crețu explained that the Commission will “significantly” reduce the figure given the high level of unemployment in both countries.

There is nothing more revealing than passive voice and tortured syntax. One-time left wing icon Angela Davis demonstrated as much when she said she may vote for Hillary Clinton. Her actual words, “I’m not so narcissistic to say that I wouldn’t vote for her,” indicate some embarrassment with a bit of defensiveness thrown in for good measure. If Ms. Davis finds it difficult to be straightforward and say she is voting for Hillary then perhaps she ought to rethink her decision.

Everyone who rejects Hillary Clinton risks being smeared as a narcissist, a nihilist or a Trump loving Putinite. The Democratic party, their friends in the corporate media, and the black misleaders have banded together so well that only those with the strongest convictions will defy the Clinton campaign slogan and announce they are decidedly not “with her.”

It would have been easy for Davis to say that she hadn’t decided yet or that she is ambivalent or to give a reason why she finds Clinton lacking or take the easy way out and use Trump as an excuse. Instead she used a tired argument that ought to be rejected out of hand by a person of her stature. She joined in castigating those who don’t follow the Democrats into an endless loop of betrayal and disappointment. She didn’t use the discredited words lesser evil, but she may as well have.

It is difficult to convey to younger generations what Angela Davis meant to black people and to everyone who fought for liberation. When she was wanted by the FBI and tried for murder in 1972 she was the ultimate hero, one of the last of that era and one of the few to emerge unscathed. The cry, “Free Angela” and her image were ubiquitous as was the demand for her freedom. After her acquittal she did not give an inch. She denounced the United States prison system, then a shell of what it is now, never shrank from calling herself a Marxist and spoke against injustice practiced here and around the world. She twice ran for vice president on the Communist Party USA ticket and could be counted on to fiercely criticize of this nation’s policies.

But Barack Obama seems to have cast the same spell on Davis that he has on the rest of black America. She denounced her own history when she endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and in 2012 she not only supported him again but claimed that he was part of the “black radical tradition.” The lie is so grotesque that it is difficult to know if she was really thinking when she said those words. Nor was that her first foolish remark uttered on behalf of Obama.  Her 2010 statement that “Obama won despite the power of money” was equally bizarre. Barack Obama set fund raising records in his presidential campaign. Ms. Davis aided and abetted his marketing ploy which gave the appearance of a people-based movement when in fact he perfected the art of creating a record breaking campaign war chest.

It is sad that Davis continues to devolve politically before our eyes, it is even worse that she attacks those who are still ready to fight back against neo-liberalism and imperialism. If she is willing to vote for Hillary Clinton she should just say so. But she felt compelled to get in her own dig at independent thinkers with the “narcissist” label. She is no better than Democratic party scoundrels who point at Trump’s low hanging racist fruit while simultaneously cutting deals with ruling elites.

Angela Davis has gone down this slippery slope in part because of the weaknesses of the black left. Many who once proudly proclaimed that identity succumbed to the siren song of the black face in the high place or took the path of least resistance out of expediency and rank cynicism.

Fortunately Davis’s words were roundly criticized. Only those who feel a now undeserved loyalty defended the foolishness. Davis was not given a pass by most commentators and that is a good thing. The millions of people who thought seriously and decided not to vote for Hillary Clinton deserve more than to be dismissed with name calling. Their day has arrived. The illogical words coming from a once venerable figure are proof of desperation.

The so-called narcissists have thrown down the gauntlet to the democratic party. Famous former leftists can’t put the genie back in the bottle. The democratic party can no longer depend on silence and fear to keep their former voters in line. They have seen too much and won’t even be intimidated by the thought of a Trump presidency. Angela Davis’s day has passed. The narcissists aren’t listening any more.

By Mirza Zulfiqur Rahman*

The Fragile States Index (FSI), published annually by the Washington DC based The Fund for Peace has come out with its report for 2016, which covers the conflict events for the year 2015. This article analyzes the indicators provided by the report for Bangladesh, which has seen incidents of spectacular violence in its recent years of political turmoil.

Bangladesh qualifies to be a classic conflict shatter zone (Robert Kaplan), owing to the peculiar conditions attributable to its geographical position, which has resulted in social, economic, political and environmental conflict. The FSI report marks Bangladesh in the Alert category in state fragility for 2016, and in the category of Some Improvement in the decade trends (2007-2016). Its neighbour Myanmar has a similar Alert categorisation in 2016 and Marginal Improvement between 2007-2016, while India has a Elevated Warning ranking in 2016 and Worsening between 2007-2016, according to the FSI Overview Report for the year 2016.

The Sheikh Hasina-led Awami League government assumed office in 2009, which was preceded by a period of intense domestic turmoil (2006-2008) under the military caretaker government in Bangladesh. This period saw extreme political polarisation and violence in the country, and the fractured political conditions sowed the seeds for continued violence during and after the Shahbagh protests of 2013. Therefore, the decadal index of Some Improvement in Bangladesh is quite misleading in the FSI report, and does not co-relate to the Alert sounded for 2016. The past ten years have been marked by increased violence in Bangladesh.

The social indicator index of the FSI report does not accurately depict the intensity of the demographic pressures that Bangladesh is facing (8.0), which when combined with the environmental pressures and population growth, is definitely higher than what has been depicted for India (8.1). Also the intensity of refugees and IDPs depicted for Bangladesh (6.3) needs to be seen in context with the intensity for Myanmar (8.3), as the problems facing both the neighbouring countries are quite similar. The group grievance depicted for Bangladesh (8.9) is also seemingly low given the intense political polarisation, whereas for Myanmar it is high (9.9).

Contextualising the above social indicators, the Bangladesh shatter zone is closely interconnected to the Rakhine region of Myanmar, and the state of Mizoram in Northeast India. Over 60,000 Rohingya migrants are believed to be living in Cox’s Bazaar, in and around the registered camps of Bangladesh and many are accused of illegal activities such as drug-running and other petty crimes. This has led to strong political debate in Bangladesh in the past. The continuing ethnic clashes between Rohingya Muslims and Rakhine Buddhists in the Rakhine state of Myanmar, has led to more Rohingya migrants entering Bangladesh through the porous borders.

The Jamaat-e-Islami, a close ally of the main opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, led by Begum Khaleda Zia, seems to offer tacit support to the Rohingya migrants in Bangladesh. This is owing to commonality in religion, and easy indoctrination to their ideology, as most of these migrants are illiterate and do not have adequate livelihood means. There have been allegations that in attacks and road picketing during political protest rallies by the Jamaat and its youth wing, the Islami Chatra Shibir, the Rohingya migrants are used as the frontline human shield in confrontations with the police, in return for political patronage and money.

Looking at the rise in extremely violent incidents in Bangladesh, in particular the use of swords, sharp blades and machetes, especially during political protests and street confrontations, and the killings of liberal bloggers, LGBTQ+ rights activists, Hindu and Buddhist minorities in various parts of Bangladesh, it seems that group grievance in Bangladesh would be alarmingly high. This in turn is directly translating into political violence and there is a growing trend of normalisation of brutalised violent means in the Bangladeshi political scenario. These conditions have led to human flight and brain drain from the country, and is having severe impacts on the young generation, specifically students.

The state legitimacy index under the political and military indicators of the FSI report is again misleading (8.0), as there is a far more serious decline of political legitimacy and democratic choice in Bangladesh, starting from the 2006-2008 period, and continuing to the parliamentary elections of 2014, which was boycotted by the main opposition parties. The political scenario is of extreme vendetta between the main political parties and the religious organisations, directly co-relating to the factionalised elites index (9.6), which has deepened the political divide. The human rights and rule of law index (7.6) does not fit in with the prevailing ground reality either.

Overall, the FSI report seems to have under-assessed certain indicators and the contradictions are evident within indicators of the same grouping. It will be interesting to note the shifts in the FSI report of 2017, which will have to take into account the protracted and violent events of the current year; 2016. The culmination of the actualities of the brutalisation over the past years has finally shown its ugly head in Bangladesh, with the homegrown terrorism and jihadi ideology. It is in the interests of India to see that the conditions present in Bangladesh and Myanmar do not affect the larger region.

* Mirza Zulfiqur Rahman
Research Scholar, IIT Guwahati, Assam

By Khalil Hanware

Saudi-based economists see a crucial role for the Kingdom and Russia in rebalancing the energy markets as US oil prices rose above $50 a barrel in New York Thursday for the first time since June.

Prices gained strength as Algerian Energy Minister Nouredine Bouterfa said that OPEC could cut production at its late-November meeting in Vienna by another 1 percent more than the amount agreed in Algiers last month if producers reckon it is needed.

OPEC sources ​told Reuters that​ Saudi, Iranian and Iraqi energy ministers will be among key OPEC representatives to meet Russia on the sidelines of an energy conference next week in Istanbul.

“Russia will be instrumental in rebalancing oil markets, especially that it currently pumps more than 11 million barrels per day,” Tamer El Zayat, senior economist at the National Commercial Bank, told Arab News.

Another regional analyst added: “Russia is critical because its volumes are comparable to Saudi Arabia.”

A Saudi university professor earlier told the local media that oil prices would stabilize at $50 per barrel in the last quarter of the current year, then jump to $60 by the first quarter of 2017.

“This could only be achieved if the OPEC member countries commit to their production quotas in addition to cooperation from Russia, which desires to have oil prices increased to get liquidity and, hence, support its economy,” Abdulwahab Al-Qahtani, professor of strategic management and human resources development at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, told Al-Riyadh daily.

Consultancy group PIRA says it believes Saudi Arabia is trying to move prices to $60 a barrel from $50.

OPEC’s decision to embrace production cuts will help move crude prices toward a target of $50 to $60 per barrel, Gary Ross, chairman of consultancy PIRA Energy Group, was quoted as saying in a Reuters report.
Andrew Gilmour, deputy chief economist, Samba Financial Group, also commented to Arab News on Russia’s role in the oil market.

“It would be helpful if Russia were to join OPEC in cutting output, but not essential,” Gilmour told Arab News.

“As long as an agreement can be reached at OPEC’s Nov. 30 meeting on individual quotas that lead to a cut of around 700,000 barrels per day, then this should be sufficient to accelerate the rebalancing of the market,” he said.

Gilmour added: “I would agree with PIRA that Saudi Arabia, along with other OPEC states, is looking to push the Brent oil price up to a $50-$60 range.”

He said: “Two years of weak oil prices have already prompted unprecedented moves to cut spending, raise debt, and introduce reforms, including the pending VAT. This has had an adverse impact on growth and bank liquidity, which would be alleviated somewhat by the boost to government revenues higher oil prices would bring.”

Further commenting on market developments, Tamer El Zayat told Arab News: “I have no doubt that a possible cut will be announced given the fact that Russia was trying to mediate for an OPEC move as well as coordinate oil policy with Saudi Arabia.”

He said: “Indeed, the positive spillover from higher crude prices will trickle on the budget for next year, with expectation of a significantly lower deficit around SR120 billion, yet the government is adamant not to overspend, but rather continue on this path of fiscal consolidation. In my opinion, higher oil revenues will not encourage overspending and I am expecting more subsidy reforms as per National Transformation Program.”

A regional analyst, who wished to remain anonymous, told Arab News: “Russia has been somewhat shielded from the impact of lower prices because of the sharp devaluation of the ruble. However, Russia is a heavily oil-dependent economy with a president keen to protect and boost his popularity. They are very keen to have higher prices, partly because their ability to boost production by much is in serious doubt. A lot of the fields are mature, declining fields which risk being mismanaged if they need to make revenues through volumes rather than prices. So there is alignment of interests. But the Russians do not want to lose face, nor do they wish to see others benefit at their expense.”

Al-Qahtani also told the local media that oil prices would increase if demand grows in China.

He suggested that there should be a strategy to move to the East, including China, South Korea, Japan, India and other Asian “tiger” economies. That will also make a balance in the Kingdom’s economic and political relations, he said.

He added that the non-formal meeting of the OPEC member countries, held in Algiers, succeeded for many reasons. Most member countries showed keen interest in reach a production ceiling deal satisfactory to OPEC and non-OPEC producing and consuming countries because the world economy needs stability, said the professor.

Saudi Arabia played a key role in the success of the meeting, he said.

Iran rejected calls for production cuts but others to slash output, he suggested.

According to Reuters, oil has gained more than $6 a barrel since ​OPEC announced at informal talks in Algeria on Sept. 28 that it hopes to reduce output to 32.5 million-33 million barrels per day. That would remove about 700,000 bpd from a global glut estimated by analysts at 1.0 million-1.5 million bpd.

Brent crude was up 54 cents, or 1 percent, at $52.40 a barrel by 1546 GMT, rising earlier to $52.65, its highest since June 9. It settled at below $46 prior to the announcement​ of another OPEC meeting.​

US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude rose 48 cents to $50.31. WTI settled below $45 seven sessions ago.

Indiana Governor and Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence’s bid to keep Syrian refugees out of his state was blocked by a federal appeals court this week.

The appeals court, made up of a panel of three well-known conservative judges, upheld a lower court’s decision, which said Pence was discriminating against Syrians by blocking them from receiving federal funds to resettle in his state.

One member of the appeals court is on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

In a unanimous decision, the appeals court said that Pence acted illegally by accepting federal funds to resettle refugees from other countries and denying them to Syrian refugees.

In November 2015, Pence suspended state agencies’ involvement in the relocation of Syrian refugees following terrorist attacks that killed more than 120 people in Paris on Nov. 19, 2015.

This week, the federal appeals court said Pence’s security concerns regarding Syrian refugees are “nightmare speculation” based on no evidence. The court also said the state presented no evidence that any Syrian refugee had been involved in a terrorist act in the U.S.

Judge Richard Posner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote for the court that Pence’s refusal to resettle Syrians is still “discrimination on the basis of nationality.” Judges Frank Easterbrook and Diane Sykes joined the decision. Sykes, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, is on Trump’s list of potential Supreme court nominees.

The decision came just one day before the vice presidential debate on Oct. 4, during which Pence said he stood by his policy to block Syrian refugees.

“As governor of the state of Indiana, I have no higher priority than safety and security of people in my state,” he said. “So you bet I suspended that program. And I stand by that decision.”

He also said he would stand by similar policies as vice president, should he be elected.

“Donald Trump and I are committed to suspending the Syrian refugee program and programs and immigration from areas of the world that have been compromised by terrorism,” Pence said.

Pence’s blockade of Syrian refugees almost impeded Catholic Charities and the Archdiocese of Indianapolis from resettling a family in Dec. 2015. Pence identified in 1994 as a “born-again, evangelical Catholic.” He started attending an evangelical megachurch with his family in the 1990s, though it is unclear which church he attends now.

The Indianapolis archdiocese was asked to help settle the family through a public-private partnership program between the federal government, the U.S. bishops’ conference, and the conference’s Migration and Refugee Services office. The family had fled Syria three years prior, and had undergone the two-year refugee screening process and were approved for entry to the United States. The archdiocese regularly participates in the program and the local Catholic Charities agency has resettled refugees for more than 40 years.

Pence met with Archbishop Tobin for an hour to discuss the matter, saying that he respectfully disagreed with the proposal to resettle a Syrian family in Indiana. While Archbishop Tobin said he “prayerfully considered” Pence’s security concerns, he moved ahead with resettling the Syrian family in Indiana.

According to Crux, an aide to Pence said at the time that Pence hoped the people of Indiana would welcome the family, despite his objections. Pence also said on Twitter at the time that Donald Trump’s proposal to block all Muslims refugees from the United States was “offensive.”

Under the 1980 Refugee Act, the president determines how many refugees to admit into the United States each year based on humanitarian or other concerns or needs. In 2016, President Obama set the number at 85,000, including 10,000 Syrians.

In late August of this year, the United States met its goal and admitted the 10,000th Syrian refugee, bringing the total number of Syrian refugees to 12,000 since the country’s civil war began five years ago.

Authorities say that of all refugees, Syrians must undergo the most intense screening process available in order to be approved to enter the United States; a process that typically takes between a year and a half to two years.

The Syrian civil war began in March 2011 with demonstrations against Assad. The war has claimed the lives of more than 280,000 people, and forced 4.8 million to become refugees. Another 8 million Syrians are believed to have been internally displaced by the violence. Approximately half of the displaced are Syrian children.

The already dire situation in Syria has only worsened in recent days and weeks as an attempted ceasefire collapsed and other diplomatic efforts failed.

Catholic leaders in the city, including Archbishop Jean-Clement Jeanbart of Aleppo, have made continual appeals to the international faith community for prayers and humanitarian aid.

A Pakistani man said he had no choice but to kill his teenage sister because she married a Christian man and brought dishonor on their family, reports AP.

Imprisoned in a Lahore jail, Mubeen Rajhu said that his work colleagues bullied him because his sister, Tasleem, was seen with a Christian man who she later secretly married.

“I could not let it go. It was all I could think about. I had to kill her,” Rajhu said. “There was no choice. There was no yelling, no shouting. I just shot her dead.”

Rajhu killed his sister when he shot her in the head with a single bullet in August.

The father of the family has blamed his slain 18-year-old daughter for what occurred.

“My family is destroyed,” Rajhu’s father said. “Everything is destroyed only because of this shameful girl. Even after death I am destroyed because of her.”

The report stated that others in the poor Lahore neighborhood voiced the same opinion and lionized Rajhu.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reported that nearly 1,100 women were killed last year by relatives in the name of family honor.

Besides murders there have been numerous incidents where acid was thrown at girls, and girls and women raped, harassed or beaten to allegedly restore the reputation and honor of families.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte declares he will not bow to foreign pressure over his anti-drug campaign, while Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay declared that the US “has failed us.”

“I do not expect the human rights [groups], I do not expect Obama, I do not expect the EU to understand me,” said Duterte in a speech on Thursday. “Do not understand me. And if you think it’s high time for you guys to withdraw your assistance, go ahead. We will not beg for it.”

Duterte’s remark was made in response to mounting US and EU criticism of his war on drugs, which has led to over 3,600 deaths at the hands of police, drug gangs, and vigilantes, according to the latest figures from the Philippine National Police (PNP). Certain politicians, such as US Senator Patrick Leahy, suggested cutting off aid to the Philippines in September, but Duterte maintains that foreigners simply do not understand the scale of the drug problem in his country.

“You will never understand the pain that we are suffering,” he said. “Go away, bring your money somewhere else. We will survive as a nation. There will always be a day for reckoning.”

These latest comments fit in with the rhetoric Duterte has become famous for since taking office. On Tuesday, he told Barack Obama, whom he has previously called a “son-of-a-b***h,” to “go to hell,” and the Philippines’ president called for a withdrawal of US troops in September.

Meanwhile, Duterte’s foreign secretary, Perfecto Yasay, who has at times tried to downplay his boss’s comments, released a statement on Facebook titled “America has failed us” in which he says that, while there are many “countless things that we will be forever grateful to America for,” the US has never fully respected Philippine independence.

“After proclaiming in July 4, 1946 that the Filipinos had been adequately trained for self-determination and governance, the United States held on to invisible chains that reined us in towards dependency and submission as little brown brothers not capable of true independence and freedom,” the FM said in the statement.

The United States “give us the assurance” that it will come to the Philippines’ defense if its sovereignty is threatened, and that is why Duterte has set about “realigning our independent foreign policy,” the statement added.

However, this does not necessarily mean that Duterte wants to sever ties with the US, as Yasay also said that the Philippines will not pursue a military alliance with any country other than the United States.

“The President in many occasions has said categorically that he will only have one military alliance, and our only ally in that respect is the US,” he said before a Senate committee on Thursday.

There seems to be some differences of opinion within the Duterte administration about how to interpret the president’s remarks. Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana earlier said that he thought Duterte had been “misinformed” about the nature of the US-Philippines alliance, while spokesman Ernesto Abella said that many of the president’s statements are “expressions of frustration” that should not be taken literally, the Philippine Star reported on Thursday.

American officials, for their part, have tried to shrug off Duterte’s outbursts. A State Department official told the LA Times, “we are not going to respond to every little thing said in Tagalog somewhere in the Philippines.”

By Bhaskar Roy*

China announced (Oct 01) that it has extended by another three months the “technical hold” on India’s listing of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) chief, Masood Azhar as an international terrorist in the 1267 Committee of the United Nations.

China had first put a technical hold on this issue in April this year, which was to expire on October 3.The explanation from the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, eng Shuang was that there were still different views on India’s listing of the application, and that the new technical hold would allow more time for the Committee to deliberate on the matter and for relevant parties to have further consultations. No other party in the Committee has openly stated any apprehension over the Indian application.

Even if China was considering lifting the technical hold on Masood Azhar, it cannot do so at this critical moment. Pakistan stands globally exposed on the terrorism issue. India’s political and diplomatic offensive over the Uri attack, which is part of a chain of terror attacks, from the 26/11 Mumbai attack in 2008 onwards, has opened the eyes of the global community, especially those states who have suffered such attacks in recent years. Footprints of such attackers somehow lead to Pakistan. Loud calls are emanating from people in the USA and UK to declare Pakistan a terrorist state. Russia, which has strategic relations with China, has strongly supported the surgical strike by the Indian forces to take out Pak-backed terrorists preparing to cross into India.

The international community has noticed the qualitative shift in the Indian government addressing Pakistan sponsored terrorism. Although similar surgical strikes by the Indian forces have taken place in the past, they were kept within the confines of the army and leaders in relevant ministries. This time, however, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, pressured by the country’s outrage and demand for action, decided to take the ownership and give political legitimacy to the army action.

Although Mr. Modi tried to bring down the temperature in his speech in Kozhikode, appealing to the people of Pakistan to jointly fight poverty and to work for development, the rage among the people in India at the horrific act of 19 of their soldiers at their post being burnt to death, was enormous. They had had enough and were holding the government responsible for not taking effective action.

Pakistan’s terrorist action resulted in the boycott of the SAARC summit in Islamabad, by all members. China, which has an observer status in the SAARC, did not appear to try hard, if at all, to persuade its friends in the SAARC not to take this line against Pakistan. Terrorism is the largest threat to the international community today, as China knows. Though China understands this very well, its diplomatic, security and strategic focus has been only one – what serves China. This is one of the reasons why it has protected rogue states.

Notwithstanding the fact that Pakistan can be considered to be nearing rogue state status, it is China’s only close friend and ally. In recent years Pakistan has become virtually a vassal state of China and proudly so. When interacting with Indian interlocutors on television talk shows, the Pakistani representatives “bring out” and hold up China as their friend and ally, who will stand by them in all eventualities. China is not willing to go that far, as a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman politely said so recently.

But as of now, Beijing cannot let down a desperate “all weather” friend, especially Pakistan’s military and ISI.

China has its own interest and equation with Islamic terrorists. As early as 1992, Chinese Premier Li Peng had told Pak Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto that the Chinese knew that Muslim Uighur separatists were being indoctrinated and trained in Pakistan by Islamic tanzims and the ISI, and they also knew that there was nothing Bhutto could do about it.

Beijing then decided on a new track. They tried and befriended the Pakistani Islamists involved, particularly the Jamaat-e-Islami. A delegation of the Jamaat visited China. The ISI was also worked on and praised. China has to keep these two constituencies assuaged although Chinese workers in Pakistan still get killed.

The fact remains that till last year there were Uighur separatists in Pakistan. This was openly stated by an angry Party Secretary of Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region. The Uighur separatists were supported not only by entities in Pakistan, but by the Taliban and Uzbek terrorists in Pakistan’s hilly regions like Waziristan. However, these activities have decreased as the Pak security forces have cracked down on them; some Uighur leaders were apprehended and deported to China.

The only terrorist /separatist organization that is of great importance to China, is the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM), an Uighur separatist group and internationally designated terrorist organization. The ETIM is maintaining a very low profile, but they have some moral and financial support from Uighurs outside and inside China. A month ago the Chinese Embassy in Kazakhstan was attacked by suspected Uighur separatists. China has been conducting a scorched earth policy in Xinjiang, bringing Muslims and their religious practices under iron-fisted control. In Xinjiang Muslims were prohibited from fasting during the holy month of Ramadan. Muslim religious leaders were forced to dance to discotheque music. Muslim clothes are strongly discouraged as also growing of beards by Muslims. The State and the Party control religion in China. Beijing is aware that its actions against Muslims and Islam is not going unnoticed by Islamic extremist and terrorist groups. They remember Al-Qaeda leader Ayman-al -Zawahiri’s call to strike at Chinese assets overseas. Chinese officials in embassies in some countries have expressed concern about their safety.

The policy to support an Islamic terrorist leader like Masood Azhar serves China well for a short time. (The Chinese had also resisted terrorist listing of Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and Hafiz Saeed). This helps them, apparently, buy peace with these religious extremists. It helps Pakistan. And finally, it keeps India troubled.

*The writer is a New Delhi-based strategic analyst. He can be reached at e-mail grouchohart@yahoo.com

By Rajesh Rajagopalan

The deterrence game between India and Pakistan has changed dramatically with India’s decision to conduct a military strike across the Line of Control (LoC). The Indian action was a clear escalation that demonstrated that India has the upper hand to control escalation and thus possibly deter Pakistan more effectively. This upends the escalation dynamic between India and Pakistan because it was Pakistan that controlled escalation until now.

This change will not go unchallenged by Pakistan. Rawalpindi can be expected to probe and attempt to undermine India’s new assertion of escalation dominance. New Delhi, therefore, needs to be ready to cement this assertion by being prepared to play its much stronger hand, especially in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK).

Why New Delhi allowed a militarily weaker Pakistan to control the escalation dynamic for so long is a mystery. The general consensus on deterrence and escalation in the region that was focused much more on the constraints facing India than that facing Pakistan surely is one reason. This was the consequence of Pakistan’s effective use of the threat of nuclear escalation and the fear, particularly among Indian decision-makers, that Pakistan was an irrational actor whose nuclear threats needed to be taken seriously. This was reinforced by India’s efforts to position itself as the more responsible player in the region, aimed at a global audience, which might also have limited the willingness of Indian leaders to consider use-of-force options.

But while the logic of Pakistan’s nuclear threats is understandable, there is no logic to Pakistan actually carrying out the threat of nuclear escalation unless Pakistan’s very survival is threatened. The constraint Pakistan has in actually carrying out its nuclear threat — which goes to the credibility of the threat — has never been recognised, either by analysts working on this issue or by the Indian government. This constraint is rooted in the very illogic of Pakistan carrying out its nuclear threat.

It is difficult to imagine that any Pakistani military leader will order the use of nuclear weapons, which will mean certain nuclear retaliation of some kind from India, simply because they lose some amount of territory (or some other form of punishment, such as destruction of a part of the Pakistan army). The difference between how much territory India has to take in order to punish Pakistan and how much it has to take to threaten Pakistan’s survival is rather large. This means that India can inflict significant punishment on Pakistan well short of challenging Pakistan’s survival without Pakistan actually seeking nuclear escalation. Pakistan’s escalation threats were even more incredible if India had focused on PoK because the likelihood of Pakistan being able to use nuclear weapons to hold on to disputed territory, and against people it claims to represent, is so much lesser. What this means, in turn, is that Pakistan’s nuclear escalation threat is a bluff that has been sustained only because of Pakistan’s bluster and Indian leadership’s willingness to buy into this bluster.

India’s actions in publicising its cross-LoC strike, as well as declarations that it is open to further escalation and its efforts to question Pakistan’s control over PoK demonstrates that India may no longer buy this bluff and allow Pakistan to dominate the escalation ladder. Of course, India had previously stepped on the escalation ladder: in Kargil, it was India that escalated by using air power. Pakistan then learned that it too had constraints because it was not only not able to escalate further but could not even match India’s escalation, watching helplessly as India decimated Pakistan army infiltrators from the air. But this type of escalation was a one-off because Pakistan subsequently offered India no such opportunities. And India’s reluctance to cross the LoC during the Kargil war simply reinforced Pakistan’s control over escalation after Kargil.

India has also reportedly conducted a number of military raids across the LoC previously, but these were done covertly and it is not clear if these were ordered by New Delhi for deterrence purposes or undertaken by local military commanders on their own as retaliation for particularly brutal actions by Pakistan, such as the beheading of Indian soldiers. India’s most recent strike was fundamentally different because it was publicised to send an explicitly deterrence signal that India was no longer afraid of escalation.

Pakistan has a choice of escalating further and maybe it still will. Indeed, the conventional wisdom is that any Indian escalation will lead to a Pakistani escalation. But so far, Pakistan’s response has not been to escalate but actually to de-escalate by denying that any Indian attack took place at all. It is possible that this is simply a ploy while it prepares its retaliation: only time will tell. But so far, the conventional wisdom about escalation leading inexorably to further escalation has not materialised.

And here’s the kicker: considering that India clearly escalated, the Pakistan army leaders can longer be confident that India will not escalate yet again if Pakistan retaliates to the Indian strike. Indeed, statements by Indian political and military leaders about India’s willingness to escalate further will reinforce the changed deterrence equation between the two sides. Moreover, unlike in the past, when the Indian government did not raise questions about PoK in the hope of converting the LoC into a de jure international border, the Modi government has repeatedly asserted its claim to PoK, putting Pakistan on notice that its control over PoK should not to be taken for granted.

Again, this does not mean that Pakistan will not escalate now. India’s long history of folding when challenged might convince Pakistan that this out-of-character Indian escalation was simply an aberration and that a further escalation by Pakistan might allow them to wrest back the advantage they have had for so long. Unfortunately, some mixed signaling even in this Indian action might reinforce such views. India took great efforts to signal it did not want further escalation by not directly attacking Pakistani forces and by keeping the incursion limited in time and depth. Though this was understandable as this was the first time India was engaging in such an escalation, this caution heightens the risk of misperception by Pakistan’s leaders.

This means that New Delhi should be prepared to go further if Pakistan does decide to test India’s willingness to escalate. India can afford to escalate because India’s superior conventional military capabilities give it greater ability to do so if India overcomes the exaggerated fear of nuclear escalation, which is the main card that Pakistan has. Because the threat of nuclear escalation is even less credible in the PoK region than it is across the International Border (IB), New Delhi should prepare further escalation in PoK if Pakistan decides to test it again. This could take the form of deeper raids into PoK or possibly capturing territory, such as the vital Haji Pir pass. The real difficulty that India may face is not so much nuclear escalation as much as ensuring that its forces are well-armed and prepared, given the mess in India’s defence acquisition process over the last decade.

Pakistan can respond to India’s control of the escalation ladder by moving to lower the levels of violence it supports. India’s control of the escalation ladder would then become ineffective but India would also gain because the levels of sponsored violence would be lower. This will not solve the domestic problem in the Kashmir valley, but it will give the Indian government somewhat greater room to address it.

India’s cross-LoC strike has given it an advantage over Pakistan, albeit a temporary one. New Delhi should now seek to ensure that the advantage it wrested from Pakistan becomes more permanent by being prepared to escalate further, if tested.

The brain’s biological clock stimulates thirst in the hours before sleep, according to a study published in the journal Nature by McGill University researchers.

The finding — along with the discovery of the molecular process behind it — provides the first insight into how the clock regulates a physiological function. And while the research was conducted in mice, “the findings could point the way toward drugs that target receptors implicated in problems that people experience from shift work or jet lag,” said the study’s senior author, Charles Bourque, a professor in McGill’s Department of Neurology and scientist at the Brain Repair and Integrative Neuroscience Program at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre.

Scientists knew that rodents show a surge in water intake during the last two hours before sleep. The study by Bourque’s group revealed that this behavior is not motivated by any physiological reason, such as dehydration. So if they don’t need to drink water, why do they?

The McGill team, which included lead author and Ph.D. student Claire Gizowski, found that restricting the access of mice to water during the surge period resulted in significant dehydration towards the end of the sleep cycle. So the increase in water intake before sleep is a preemptive strike that guards against dehydration and serves to keep the animal healthy and properly hydrated.

Then the researchers looked for the mechanism that sets this thirst response in motion. It’s well established that the brain harbors a hydration sensor with thirst neurons in that sensor organ. So they wondered if the SCN, the brain region that regulates circadian cycles – a.k.a. the biological clock – could be communicating with the thirst neurons.

The team suspected that vasopressin, a neuropeptide produced by the SCN, might play a critical role. To confirm that, they used so-called “sniffer cells” designed to fluoresce in the presence of vasopressin. When they applied these cells to rodent brain tissue and then electrically stimulated the SCN, Bourque said, “We saw a big increase in the output of the sniffer cells, indicating that vasopressin is being released in that area as a result of stimulating the clock.”

To explore if vasopressin was stimulating thirst neurons, the researchers employed optogenetics, a cutting-edge technique that uses laser light to turn neurons on or off. Using genetically engineered mice whose vasopressin neurons contain a light activated molecule, the researchers were able to show that vasopressin does, indeed, turn on thirst neurons.

“Although this study was performed in rodents, it points toward an explanation as to why we often experience thirst and ingest liquids such as water or milk before bedtime,” Bourque said. “More importantly, this advance in our understanding of how the clock executes a circadian rhythm has applications in situations such as jet lag and shift work. All our organs follow a circadian rhythm, which helps optimize how they function. Shift work forces people out of their natural rhythms, which can have repercussions on health. Knowing how the clock works gives us more potential to actually do something about it.”

On average, 40 volcanoes on land erupt into the atmosphere each month, while scores of others on the seafloor erupt into the ocean. A new time-lapse animation uniting volcanoes, earthquakes, and gaseous emissions reveals unforgettably the large, rigid plates that make the outermost shell of Earth and suggests the immense heat and energy beneath them seeking to escape.

With one click, visitors can see the last 50 years of “Eruptions, Earthquakes, and Emissions.” Called E3, the app allows the viewer to select and learn about individual eruptions, emissions, and earthquakes as well as their collective impact. Visualizing these huge global datasets together for the first time, users can speed or slow or stop the passage of time. They can observe flat maps or globes, and watch gas clouds circle the planet. Data from Smithsonian’s Global Volcanism Program and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) feed into the app, and the datasets are available for free download. The app will update continuously, accumulating new events and additional historical information as it becomes available.

“Have you had a ‘eureka!’ moment where you suddenly see order in what appeared chaotic? This app abounds in such moments,” said Elizabeth Cottrell, head of the Global Volcanism Program of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. “As geologic events accumulate over time, Earth’s tectonic plates appear before your eyes. What took geologists more than 200 years to learn, a viewer learns in seconds. We wanted to share the excitement with as big an audience as possible. This is the first time we’re able to present these datasets together for the public.”

She added, “This app is interesting not only for educators and the public, but also will help scientists understand global eruption patterns and linkages between Earth’s inner workings and the air we breathe.”

A team of experts developed the app with support from the Smithsonian Institution and the Deep Carbon Observatory, an international multidisciplinary research program exploring the quantities, movements, forms, and origins of carbon deep inside Earth. Deep Carbon Observatory scientists are studying volcanic emissions as part of this mission, and will more than triple the number of permanent volcano gas monitoring stations from 2012-2019.

Tracking volcanic emissions to avoid disaster

Hundreds of millions of people around the world live on the flanks of active volcanoes, and eruptions can cause massive economic damage even when few people live nearby. In 2010, Eyafjallajökull erupted in Iceland, spewing massive ash clouds, disrupting air travel for millions of people and costing the airline industry nearly USD 2 billion. Better anticipation of eruptions could lower the human and economic toll of these natural phenomena.

Recent discoveries by Deep Carbon Observatory (DCO) scientists in the Deep Earth Carbon Degassing (DECADE) initiative are laying the foundation for improved volcanic eruption forecasts. These hard-won advances required expensive, dangerous expeditions to sniff gas emissions for clues.

“We are deploying automated monitoring stations at volcanoes around the world to measure the gases they emit,” said Tobias Fischer, a volcanologist at the University of New Mexico, USA, and leader of DECADE. “We measure carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and water vapor (steam), the major gases emitted by all volcanoes on the planet. In the hours before an eruption, we see consistent changes in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted relative to sulfur dioxide. Keeping an eye on the ratios globally via satellites and on-site monitoring helps us learn the precursors of volcanic eruptions. Monitoring these volcanic gas variations also helps us come up with a more accurate estimate of total volcanic carbon dioxide emissions on Earth – a major goal of DCO.”

“Our goal of tripling the number of volcanoes monitored around the world by 2019 is no small task,” added Fischer. “Installing instruments on top of volcanoes is dangerous work in extremely hard-to-reach places.”

“Sometimes our monitoring stations become victims of eruptions they are trying to measure, as happened recently on Villarrica volcano in Chile. At least our instruments recorded gas composition changes right up until the eruption destroyed them,” Fischer noted.

By 2019, DECADE scientists hope to have gas monitoring stations on 15 of the world’s 150 most active volcanoes. This will add to the eight stations currently operated by other entities such as the USGS and the University of Palermo (Italy). Data collected at these monitoring stations are feeding a new database of volcanic carbon emissions, making potentially life-saving information available to many more scientists around the world.

Advancing knowledge and forecasting potential from land

DCO volcanologists are also advancing basic knowledge about how different volcanoes work, which is further advancing eruption forecasting.

Maarten de Moor and his team at the National University in Costa Rica, for example, using DECADE monitoring stations, have measured gas emissions at Póas and Turrialba volcanoes in Costa Rica over several years. De Moor and colleagues have observed remarkable changes in gas compositions before eruptions at these volcanoes, both of which have a huge impact on local society. Turrialba, for example, deposited ash on the capital city of San José over the last few weeks, affecting about 3 million people and closing the international airport.

“We’re getting more and more confident that changes in the carbon to sulfur ratio precede eruptions,” said de Moor. “Potentially, we can now see an eruption coming just by looking at gas emissions. What is truly fascinating is how dynamic these volcanoes are in their degassing and eruptive behavior. To understand the big picture of Earth degassing, we also need to understand the processes driving temporal variations in volcanic emissions.”

Historically, volcanologists have measured emissions of smelly sulfur dioxide much more easily than colorless, odorless carbon dioxide emissions. But DCO scientists at Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and Université de Lorraine in France are designing new geochemical tools to detect and monitor large-scale emissions of volcanic carbon dioxide. Tools include a new high-precision method for measuring excess airborne amounts of a rare form of helium found in magma, high-temperature fluids from below Earth’s crust that come out of volcanoes in the form of lava and gases.

“Our helium data suggest that even when they are not erupting, volcanoes constantly release carbon dioxide and other gases through the crust, from magma chambers deep underground,” said Bernard Marty, leader of the CNRS group. “We see low level release of carbon dioxide over large areas surrounding Mt. Etna volcano in Sicily and Erta Ale volcano in Afar, Ethiopia, which tells us this might be happening at sites around the world.”

Eyes in space add to the toolkit

To assess volcanic activity and gas release on a global scale, DCO researchers at the University of Cambridge, UK, are taking yet another approach; measuring volcanic gases from space using satellites.

“While water vapor and carbon dioxide are much more abundant volcanic gases, sulfur dioxide is easier to measure because Earth’s atmosphere contains very little sulfur dioxide,” said Marie Edmonds, co-Chair of DCO’s Reservoirs and Fluxes Science Community. “With satellites, we have been able to measure sulfur dioxide emissions for years and the technology keeps getting better. An exciting new aspect of DCO’s research combines the satellite data with ground-based measurements of carbon to sulfur ratios provided by DECADE. This powerful combination allows us to better define global volcanic emissions, or degassing, of carbon dioxide.”

“DECADE’s volcano-based instruments make it possible for us to ground-truth our satellite observations and obtain much more frequent measurements” added Edmonds. “Eventually we hope we’ll get as accurate measurements from space as we do from the ground. When this happens, we can monitor volcanoes in remote parts of the world for a fraction of the cost and without risking scientists’ lives.” As the data accumulate, they too will stream into and through the E3 app.

Just a day after Google revealed its premium Pixel phone and Google Home featuring Assistant AI baked in, Samsung is making a splash by buying up some AI power of its own, Engadget reports.

Viv Labs was founded by some of the same people behind Apple’s Siri technology, who have referred to their new platform as an assistant that’s capable of anything. Co-founder and CEO Dag Kittlaus writes in a blog post that “Samsung will drastically accelerate our vision.” Samsung says the team will continue to operate independently, but it clearly has an eye towards integrating natural language understanding into its phones, TVs, appliances, VR and everything else.

Kittlaus has described Viv as a computer science breakthrough, capable of creating its own programming. By his gauge, other assistants responses are hardcoded, while Viv seeks to understand its user, and then figure out how to respond. He demonstrated the technology at TechCrunch Disrupt in May, and told the site that Samsung’s scale (shipping 500 million devices a year) creates the ubiquity necessary for Viv to thrive. There’s no word on how much Samsung spent to bring the tech into its fold, but now the real question is how quickly can the company deliver it to customers — its Mobile CTO Injong Rhee says to expect Viv on phones in the second half of 2017.

Lake Victoria in East Africa will become a hotspot for hazardous thunderstorms due to climate change. This is shown by an international study led by KU Leuven (University of Leuven, Belgium). The findings were published in Nature Communications.

Lake Victoria is divided among Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania. With a surface close to 70,000 km2, it is the biggest lake in Africa. The lake is also a notoriously dangerous place for the 200,000 people who go fishing there at night. The International Red Cross estimates that between 3,000 and 5,000 fishermen per year lose their lives in violent storms on the lake.

That Lake Victoria can be so stormy at night is related to the circulation in the atmosphere above the enormous water surface, explains climate scientist Wim Thiery, who is affiliated with both KU Leuven and ETH Zürich.

“During the day, a breeze develops that flows from the cool water towards the warm land. At night, we see the opposite: the land breeze flows away from the cooling land towards the warmer lake. As the lake is shaped like a circle, these land breezes from all directions converge above the lake. Add evaporation to this cocktail and you get a lot of storms, rain, wind, and waves.”

Thiery was able to provide scientific evidence for this pattern in collaboration with American space agency NASA: “Thanks to new NASA satellite products we were able to map the number of hazardous thunderstorms and their locations in East Africa – every 15 minutes for a period ranging from 2005 to 2013. During the day, most storms rage over the surrounding land, especially the typical afternoon thunderstorms that are caused by local upsurges of warm air. At night, these storms concentrate above Lake Victoria.”

To predict the impact of climate change on this process, Thiery also ran climate simulations using an advanced computer model: “If we start from a business-as-usual scenario, whereby the emission of greenhouse gases continues to increase, the extreme amounts of rainfall over Lake Victoria will increase by twice as much as the rainfall over the surrounding land. As a result, the lake will become a hotspot for night-time storms. Superstorms that occur only once every 15 years today will occur almost every year by the end of the century.”

The scientists plan to do further research to optimize existing warning systems for local fishermen: “Our results make it possible to better predict extreme storms over the lake and to reduce the vulnerability of the local fishermen. In the meantime, we have already developed a prototype of a new warning system.”