Lying about abortion is a cottage industry, so it was hardly surprising to learn that pro-abortion advocates would label Donald Trump a liar for telling the truth about partial-birth abortion. “You can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day,” he said.

Trump was right: he offered an accurate account of what partial-birth abortion entails.

This did not sit well with the champions of abortion. Dr. Aaron B. Caughey, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University, branded Trump’s comment “absurd.” He said, “I’m unaware of anyone that’s terminating a pregnancy a few days prior to delivery of a normal pregnancy.” Similarly, Erin Gloria Ryan, writing for The Daily Beast, said Trump was peddling a “myth.”

Too bad these apologists didn’t explain why the U.S. Supreme Court felt obliged to ban this barbaric procedure (in most instances) in 2007. If it were a fiction, what were the judges banning?

Their lame denials—have they ever heard of Dr. George Tiller or Dr. Kermit Gosnell—won’t wash. Tiller performed over 60,000 abortions, many of them—he bragged about it—involving babies who were 80 percent born. Gosnell’s “house of horrors” included the remains of babies he cut up just prior to, or after, birth. No wonder Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Ed Koch, both of whom defended Roe v. Wade, labeled partial-birth abortion “infanticide.”

We’ve been down this road before. In 1995, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, went on national television saying he “lied through [his] teeth” when he “just went out there and spouted the party line” about how rare partial-birth abortion is.

Apologists also contest what partial-birth abortion really is. Dr. Jen Gunter, for instance, protests Trump’s comment about “ripping” the baby out of the mother’s womb. She says “we don’t ‘rip’ anything in OB/GYN.” So what do they do? “We use sharp dissection and blunt dissection, but we don’t rip.” How reassuring to know that when a scissors is jammed into the skull of a baby about to be born that nothing is “ripped.”

In 2004, Dr. Carolyn Westhoff testified before a federal panel on this subject. Here is an excerpt from the exchange during cross-examination.

Q: And at that point the fetus’ body is below the cervix and the neck is in the cervix with the head still in the uterus, right?

Westhoff: Yes.

Q: And it’s at that point that you take a scissors and insert it into the woman and place an incision in the base of the fetus’ skull, right?

Westhoff: Yes.

Q: Now the contents of the fetus’ skull, just like the contents of my skull, and your skull, is liquid, right?

Westhoff: That’s right.

Q: And sometimes after you’ve made the incision the fetus’ brain will drain out on its own, right?

Westhoff: That’s right.

Q: Other times you must insert a suction tube to drain the skull, right?

Westhoff: That’s right.

Q: And then the skull will collapse immediately after its liquid contents have been removed and the head will pass easily through the dilated cervix, right?

Westhoff: That’s right.

Another tactic used by the apologists for partial-birth abortion is to take issue with the nomenclature. Dr. Caughey says that doctors like him “wouldn’t use” language like partial-birth abortion. He prefers a more sanitized expression. He calls aborting an unhealthy baby at the end of term an “induction of labor for a nonviable pregnancy.”

No doubt he calls “throwing up” by its medical term, “emesis.” In all honesty, this is enough to make me puke.

By Ivana Nikolic

Prince Mihailo Karadjordjevic, a grandson of King Alexander I, is preparing a Serbian church wedding after he and his wife married in a civil ceremony in London.

The wedding will take place on Sunday, October 23, at St George’s Church in Oplenac, near Topola in central Serbia, where members of the Karadjordjevic dynasty are buried, and which is also the royal family’s home region.

It is the first royal wedding to take place in Serbia since 1922 when King Alexander married Princess Marie of Romania.

The reception will then take place at the White Palace, the residence of Crown Prince Alexander in the Belgrade suburb of Dedinje.

Prince Mihailo, the son of the late Prince Tomislav and Princess Linda, who is of British origin, is married to Ljubica Ljubisavljevic, who holds a BA from Belgrade University’s pharmacy faculty.

Born in London in 1985, Mihailo returned to Serbia in his twenties, explaining that he was always attached to the country of his ancestors. Soon after he moved to Serbia, he “fell in love with this country, our people and the spirit we have”, he told the Serbian newspaper Svet.

His father, Prince Tomislav, was the second son of King Alexander I, who was killed in Marseille, France, in 1934. Tomislav left the then Kingdom of Yugoslavia for studies in Britain, only to return in 1991.

Prince Tomislav spent the last years of his life in Serbia, and was also buried at St George’s Church in Oplenac. Several thousand people attended his funeral on July 16, 2000.

Like all the members of the Karadjordjevic family, his property was confiscated and he was deprived of his citizenship by the post-war Communist authorities. He was rehabilitated in 2013.

Apart from members of the royal family and their friends, there will be plenty of guests both from Serbia and abroad, the White Palace has already announced.

According to media reports, a British royal will attend the event as well. This would be the second British royal visit to Serbia this year after Prince Charles and his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, visited Belgrade on March 16 during their tour of the former Yugoslavia.

The March visit was reminder of the ties that once binded the royal houses of Windsor and Karadjordjevic.

The connection dates back to 1923, when Charles’ grandmother, Elizabeth, then Duchess of York, and her husband, the future George VI, visited Belgrade – the first British royals to do so.

They made the trip for the christening of King Alexander of Yugoslavia’s first child, Peter, and for the marriage of his cousin, Prince Paul, to Olga of Greece. Elizabeth became Peter’s godmother.

Despite the close ties, the two families were set forced apart by the Second World War and, more recently, by opposing views on Kosovo, Serbia’s former province which declared independence in 2008.

Many said that Prince Charles’s visit in March was aimed in part at restoring those damaged relations.

This article was published in BIRN’s bi-weekly newspaper Belgrade Insight. Here is where to find a copy.

The class struggle from below has taken different forms and directions, with greater or lesser intensity, between countries and within countries in different time periods.

In general terms the countries with relative higher levels of urbanization and industrialization, experience the greatest urban centered struggles – as is the case with Argentina, Venezuela and Chile but not Brazil and Mexico.

Among the urban based class struggles, there is a further distinction between factory-based class struggles based on workers’ strikes (Argentina) and mass street action in the form of marches (Venezuela and Chile).

Urban based class struggles rely on coalitions of diverse classes, with distinct segments of the popular classes. For example in Argentina, pensioners, human rights groups and of late small and medium sized businesspeople have joined the class struggle around diverse issues ranging from soaring unemployment, reductions of pensions and wages and astronomical increases of the tariff on utilities.

Chile in contrast, experiences mass struggles including indigenous people, university, technical and high school students and popular community based movements with unionized teachers and medical personnel.

The Venezuelan urban class struggles are largely community based mobilizations in support of the government, and its social welfare program and in opposition to US backed coups.

Brazil is highly urbanized, yet in recent decades, the class struggle has revolved around the land occupation movements led by the rural landless movement (MST). To the extent that urban struggles play a role they revolve around the ‘homeless peoples movements’ and popular protests against public services . The urban industrial workers which played a leading role in the 1980’s and 90’s evolved into ‘corporate relations’ with the urban political elites and the center-left Workers’ Party.

The major class struggles in Paraguay, Peru and Mexico form a distinct cluster; Paraguay’s class struggles are predominantly led by rural-peasant movements linked to the demand for land reform and rely on direct action – land occupations and marches in the provincial and state capitals. The sharing of ethnic-class identity (Guarani speaking peasants in Paraguay) fortifies class solidarity as is the case in Peru among the Quechua and Aymara peasants.

The class struggle in Peru has centered in the provincial and regional areas. The centerpiece has been peasant and provincial communities struggling against dispossession by foreign owned mining conglomerates. In their struggle, mining workers’ trade unions, at best, play an auxiliary or secondary role. The community based struggles are local and multi-sectoral, as mining exploitation pollutes water, air, land, food and undermines local commerce – thus unifying a broad spectrum of otherwise ‘intermediary classes’. The urban working classes have offered symbolic support but have yet to become the protagonists that they were in the 1970’s and 80’s.

Mexico is the country with the greatest variety and volume of class struggles in Latin America, but the country with the least popular impact on the political elite. A key problem with the class strugle in Mexico is its dispersal – it is regional, sectoral and politically fragmented. Mexican authorities and their narco-death squads are notorious for assassinating emergent class based opposition: the most flagrant case is the murder of 43 rural students attending a teachers college. The range of militant groups include mining workers, teachers in Oaxaca, peasants in Guerrero, Indians in Chiapas and the national electrical workers union, which was severely repressed.

In terms of social welfare the class struggle has advanced furthest in Venezuela, largely under the political direction of Hugo Chavez. However, the precarious dependent state of the oil economy and the top down leadership precluded a sustainable social transformation. The most advanced land-reform struggles occurr in Brazil where the MST was able to occupy, transform and produce, settling over 300,000 families in expropriated farming estates in over two decades. Sustainable advances by the MST reflected its cohesive organization and broad social alliances in civil society.

The advance of the class struggle in Paraguay and Peru has linked land, environmental and indigenous movements in concerted and combatative struggles,which apply massive pressure to secure incremental gains, from the formidable ruling class bloc of local oligarchs, foreign multinationals and US military advisers.

Argentina’s formidable trade unions in industry, services and transport have repeatedly demonstrated their capacity to successfully convoke general strikes over wages and employment. Yet their hierarchical structure and bureaucratic leaderships preclude structural changes. Only in times of systemic crises – as in 2001-2003 – when a massive movement of unemployed workers took to the streets and ousted a series of Presidents, was there a serious struggle that demanded structural changes.

A comparable analysis of case studies of seven countries reveals a veritable mosaic of differences and similarities of class struggle in Latin America. The tempo and intensity of class struggle has shifted: in times of crises formidable popular advances occur; in other timeswhen economic reversal occur under center-left electoral regimes the ruling classes have led counter-reform regimes. Given the structural failures of the ruling classes and the legacy of class struggle from below, the reality is that any ‘rightist return’ is tenuous, unsustainable and reversible.

By James Crisp

(Euractiv) — British Prime Minister Theresa May today (21 October) insisted that EU leaders’ response to Moscow’s bombing of Aleppo was a success, as Russian warships passed through the English Channel on their way to Syria.

In another blow to British self-esteem, May was forced to field questions over reports that the European Commission chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier wanted the divorce talks to be held in French.

May didn’t rule out the possibility, telling reporters, “Negotiations will be conducted in a way that will get the right deal for the UK.”

At her debut European Council in Brussels, May had called for a robust and unified European response to Russia.

The UK, France and Germany secured condemning language against Russia, potentially paving the way for future sanctions, in the Council conclusions.

May was asked how seriously those words could be taken, given that today, under the watchful eye of the Royal Navy, the Russian ships were in the Channel.

She said, “I think we had a very good discussion in relation to Russia and its actions in Syria and the impact we are seeing in the indiscriminate bombing of citizens in Aleppo.

“We were very clear about Russia and the need for the EU to be very clear that all options were open.”

Embarrassingly, today is Trafalgar Day in the UK, which has historically prided itself on “ruling the waves”. The day marks the victory of Admiral Horatio Nelson over combined French and Spanish fleets in 1805.

Parlez-vous Français?

It was earlier reported that Barnier, the French former Internal Market Commissioner, was keen that his native tongue be used in meetings and documents.

One seasoned Brussels-watcher opined, “In a duel, you always pick your weapons. Michel Barnier has picked French as his weapon.”

The British are infamous in Europe for their poor foreign language skills. While many British diplomats in Brussels speak French, their counterparts in London may not.

An EU spokeswoman said Barnier’s demand was not an official line. “There is no language regime for the negotiations,” she said.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “If I’m correctly informed, everybody is allowed to speak their own language. Since Mr. Barnier is a French citizen, it’s normal to me that he speaks French, as I speak German.”

May told reporters, “The UK is leaving the EU but we are not leaving Europe and we are not turning our backs on our allies. My aim is to cement Britain as a close partner of the EU once we have left.

“I am sure there will be difficult moments. It will require some give and take.”

May, who succeeded David Cameron after his post-referendum vote resignation, said that a constructive spirit could deliver a Brexit in the best interests of the UK and the EU.

Last night at 1AM, she addressed EU leaders for just five minutes on the question of Brexit.

According to European Council President Donald Tusk, there was no response from the other heads of state and government. This was in line with the policy of no negotiation without the notification of article 50, the legal process taking Britain out of the EU.

May had earlier said that the UK would not rubber-stamp plans made by the other member states meeting as the EU-27.

But the other EU nations will continue to meet as 27, and there was no suggestion they wouldn’t. They meet next in Malta in January.

“I have not been backwards in coming forwards,” May said.

“Of course the 27 will have to have discussions among themselves about how to approach the negotiations,” she added.

Trade issues

May dodged questions over British opposition to the Commission’s push to remove the Lesser Duty Rule, which caps the level of anti-dumping measures that the EU can impose. The tariffs are used to protect European industry.

Although the British steel industry is suffering greatly in the face of cheap Chinese imports, May said it was important to balance the needs of industry and the consumer in trade policy.

That could lead to a frosty meeting with Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. Juncker, whose father was a steelworker, had urged member states to back the tougher trade defence measures.

May met Juncker, who she described as her “lunch date”, immediately after the press conference for a getting-to-know-you session. The pair met just once before, on the margins of the G20.

She also said that the UK would continue to support EU Free Trade Agreements, such as the deadlocked CETA trade deal with Canada, even though it was leaving the bloc.

The Belgian regional government of Wallonia has wielded an effective veto over CETA. UK government sources have, according to reports, suggested that CETA could be a model for the future trading relations between the UK and EU.

“We are not looking to replicate a model that someone else has with the EU,” May said.

A panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Friday a lawsuit against private military contractor CACI Premier Technology, Inc. (CACI) for the corporation’s role in torture and other inhumane treatment at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. A lower court had dismissed the case, ruling that CACI’s responsibility for its established role in the torture was a “political question” to be left to the discretion of the political branches and unreviewable by the courts, and that a “cloud of ambiguity” surrounds the definition of torture. This was the fourth time the case has been before the court of appeals.

“There is no question that torture is unlawful under domestic, military, and international law. The only issue in this case is whether CACI will be held accountable – or treated with impunity – for its role in torture at Abu Ghraib,” said Center for Constitutional Rights Legal Director Baher Azmy. “Today’s decision reaffirms the role of the courts to assess illegality, including torture, and we are optimistic this case will finally move forward and our clients will have their day in court.”

In its ruling, the Court rejected CACI’s argument that its conduct was beyond the reach of the courts. As the concurring judge emphasized, “It is beyond the power of even the President to declare [torture] lawful…. The determination of specific violations of law is constitutionally committed to the courts, even if that law touches military affairs.” The court concluded, “the military cannot lawfully exercise its authority by directing a contractor to engage in unlawful activity.”

CCR lawyers said the lower court’s ruling was essentially a return to the widely discredited Bush-era legal theories of Torture Memo author John Yoo. Constitutional scholars, military officers, and human rights groups submitted briefs in support of reinstating the lawsuit.

Azmy continued, “As with the problems that arise when private corporations run prisons, accountability is particularly important in this case where serious abuses were carried out by a for-profit corporation that made millions of dollars for its work at Abu Ghraib.”

U.S. military investigators concluded that several CACI interrogators conspired with U.S. soldiers, who were later court martialed, to “soften” detainees for interrogations, and that this contributed to “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses.” At Abu Ghraib, CCR’s four clients in the case were subjected to electric shocks, sexual violence, forced nudity, broken bones, and deprivation of oxygen, food, and water.

Salah Hassan, one of the plaintiffs in the long-running case, reacted to the news: “Today, part of justice was achieved and this is something wonderful, not only for me and the other plaintiffs, but for all the just causes in the world. I wish to see in the coming period a ruling in our favor in this case. No doubt the result will be a white light in the process of justice in the world at the time.”

Al Shimari v. Premier Technology was filed in June 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which allows non-citizens to sue for human rights violations committed abroad. In 2014, the Fourth Circuit overturned a lower-court ruling that would have barred the Abu Ghraib survivors from accessing U.S. courts to sue U.S. corporations involved in torture. The Fourth Circuit reversed, determining that the case sufficiently “touch[es] and concern[s]” the United States “with sufficient force” to overcome the “presumption against extraterritorial application” of the ATS recognized by the Supreme Court in 2013.

The Burmese government and army should urgently ensure humanitarian aid can reach ethnic Rohingya and other vulnerable populations in northern Rakhine State, Human Rights Watch said. Government security operations have cut off assistance to tens of thousands of people and forced many to flee their homes.

The United Nations and donor governments should publicly call on the Burmese government to ensure aid organizations can reach those in need.

“Recent violence in northern Rakhine State has led the army to deny access to aid agencies that provide essential health care and food to people at grave risk,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “The Rohingya and others have been especially vulnerable since the ethnic cleansing campaign in 2012, and many rely on humanitarian aid to survive.”

On October 9, 2016, armed men attacked three police outposts in Maungdaw township near the border with Bangladesh, killing nine police officers and seizing weapons. The President’s Office blamed a previously unknown Rohingya group called Aqa Mul Mujahidin for the attacks, though other officials have said it is unclear who was responsible.

Government security forces declared the area an “operation zone” and began sweeps to find the attackers. According to senior members of the government, security forces have killed 30 people, while five members of the security forces have also been killed. However, reporting is heavily reliant on government sources as journalists have been denied access.

Rohingya activists have alleged that government forces have committed serious abuses during the current operations, including summary executions and the burning of villages.

Since October 9, authorities have blocked all aid deliveries to Maungdaw township and aid agencies have not been able to conduct a needs assessment. “We have asked [for access] from township level to Union level,” a World Food Programme (WFP) partnerships officer said. “The official explanation [for being denied access] is that security operations are ongoing.”

Under international law, authorities may restrict freedom of movement for specific security reasons for a limited period of time, but broad and open-ended restrictions are not permissible. Under the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, all authorities “shall grant and facilitate the free passage of humanitarian assistance and grant persons engaged in the provision of such assistance rapid and unimpeded access to the internally displaced.”

A number of UN agencies and nongovernmental organizations have long operated in northern Rakhine State, including the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), WFP, Medecins Sans Frontieres, and Action Contre la Faim, providing food aid and mobile health clinics, among other services. WFP alone assists 152,000 vulnerable people with various services, including nutrition support for pregnant women, nursing mothers, children under 5, and people living with HIV and tuberculosis.

WFP told Human Rights Watch that while the government has recently permitted the resumption of food assistance to 37,000 people in Buthiduang township, 50,000 people remain without food aid in Maungdaw.

The blocking of aid will also severely impact nutritional programs and mobile health clinics that serviced the area, aid workers said. With freedom of movement restricted, ill or wounded people cannot access the main hospital in Maungdaw.

Humanitarian organizations said the violence has displaced some 3,000 ethnic Rakhine people and as many as 15,000 Rohingya, but the lack of access prevents an accurate count.

Rohingya constitute approximately a third of Rakhine State’s population of over three million people. The Muslim minority has long suffered from discrimination and a host of serious human rights violations, including restrictions on the rights to freedom of movement, access to health care, and education. Successive Burmese governments have effectively denied Rohingya citizenship under Burma’s discriminatory 1982 Citizenship Law.

The fighting has also increased tension in the camps for the nearly 120,000 displaced Rohingya near the town of Sittwe in Rakhine State. These people fled their homes after communal violence in 2012, which left large numbers of people dead and entire villages destroyed.

“The Burmese government has a responsibility to search for and arrest those who attacked the border posts,” Adams said. “But it is required to do so in a manner that respects human rights, ensures that the area’s people get the aid they need, and allows journalists and rights monitors into the area.”

When I was a student at Princeton University I learned from my anthropology studies that the concentration of power in the hands of the few is common to all cultures, societies, nations, tribes, cities, towns, and villages. Even where the thirst for self-governance and democracy is strong (as was the case in New England towns before the American Revolution against King George III) wealthy Tories were there too. In Central and Western Massachusetts, the farmers used the term “the River Gods” to describe the rich merchants using the Connecticut River as a profitable trading route. These days, most people protesting for economic justice use the term “the One Percent” to describe the ultra-small group of people who wield enormous influence over our society today.

There is something about the differences in skill, determination, lineage, avarice, and pure luck that stratifies most people from the rulers who dominate them. In the political realm, the few become dominant because they hoard wealth and are driven to exercise power over others. When a small group of people rules a society the political system is considered an oligarchy; when only money and wealth determine how a society is controlled, the political system is a plutocracy.

From the standpoint of a democratic society, both oligarchy and plutocracy are inherently unjust and corrupt.

Of course there are variations in the degrees of authoritarianism and cruelty that each system exercises over the communities it relies upon for workers and wealth. Scholars have resorted to using phrases like “benign dictatorships” or “wise rulers” or “paternalistic hierarchies—” to describe lighter touches by those few who impose their rule over the many. Thomas Paine simply called them tyrannies. People, families, and communities can only take so much abuse before they rise up to resist. The job of the rulers is always to find that line and provide the lowest level of pay, security, housing, consumer protection, healthcare, and political access for society so that they can extract and hoard the greatest amount of wealth, power, and immunity from justice for themselves. In many ways, the majority of Americans live in a democracy of minimums, while the privileged few enjoy a plutocracy of maximums.

In a plutocracy, commercialism dominates far beyond the realm of economics and business; everything is for sale, and money is power. But in an authentic democracy, there must be commercial-free zones where the power of human rights, citizenship, community, equality, and justice are free from the corrupting influence of money. Our elections and our governments should be such commercial-free zones; our environment, air, and water should never fall under the control of corporations or private owners. Children should not be programmed by a huckstering economy where their vulnerable consciousness becomes the target of relentless corporate marketing and advertising.

American history demonstrates that whenever commerce dominates all aspects of national life, a host of ills and atrocities have not just festered and spread, but become normal—enslavement, land grabs, war, ethnic cleansing, serfdom, child labor, abusive working conditions, corrupt political systems, environmental contamination, and immunity from the law for the privileged few. History also shows that whenever there have been periods when enough of the country organizes and resists, we see movements of people and communities breaking through power. Progress is made. Rights are won. Education and literacy increase. Oppression is diminished. It was in this manner that people of conscience abolished the living nightmare imposed by the laws and whips of white enslavers. The nation moved closer to promises of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” expressed in the Declaration of Independence. We won more control over our work, our food, our land, our air, and our water. Women secured the right to vote. Civil rights were elevated and enforced. Public schools, improved environments, workplace collective bargaining, and consumer protections did not spontaneously evolve; they were won by people demanding them and breaking through power.

These moments of great progress are expressed in terms of new legislation, regulations, and judicial decisions that directly benefit the life, liberties, and pursuit of happiness of most Americans. From the abolition of slavery to the introduction of seat belts, great social gains have been achieved when people mobilize, organize, and resist the power of the few. The problem is that these liberating periods of humanitarian and civilizational progress are of shorter duration than the relentless commercial counterforces that discourage and disrupt social movements and their networks of support. Some commentators have used the bizarre term “justice fatigue” to describe the pullback that often occurs when communities of resistance are faced with increased surveillance, infiltration, harassment, and arrest. A more accurate term is repression.

Concentrated power in the hands of the few really should matter to you. It matters to you if you are denied fulltime gainful employment or paid poverty wages and there are no unions to defend your interests. It matters to you if you’re denied affordable health care. It matters to you if you’re gouged by the drug industry and your medication is outrageously expensive. It matters to you if it takes a long time to get to and from work due to lack of good public transit or packed highways. It matters to you if you and your children live in impoverished areas and have to breathe dirtier air and drink polluted water and live in housing that is neglected by your landlord. It matters to you if your children are receiving a substandard education in understaffed schools where they are being taught to obey rather than to question, think and imagine, especially in regards to the nature of power.

If you’re a little better off, it matters to you when your home is unfairly threatened with foreclosure. It matters to you when the nation is economically destabilized due to Wall Street’s crimes, and your retirement account evaporates overnight. It matters to you if you can’t pay off your large student loans, or if you can’t get out from under crushing credit-card debt or enormous medical bills due to being under-insured. It matters to you if you are constantly worried about the security of your job, or the costly care of your children and elderly parents.

“We live in a beautiful country,” writes historian Howard Zinn. “But people who have no respect for human life, freedom, or justice have taken it over. It is now up to all of us to take it back.”  To better assess what it specifically takes to do just that, it is important to understand how the people profiting from plutocratic forces strategically and regularly dominate old and new circumstances with powerful controlling processes.

The above is excerpted from my new book Breaking Through Power: It’s Easier Than We Think. Breaking Through Power: It’s Easier Than We Think is available now from City Lights Booksellers and Publishers. Order a copy here.

Earlier this week individuals appeared before the headquarters of the Russian General Staff carrying posters that clearly indicated they were acting on the basis of religious convictions (sova-center.ru/religion/news/authorities/elections/2016/10/d35654/, portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=122515 http://www.svoboda.org/a/28059348.html and facebook.com/gradustv77/?pnref=story).

Among them were: “What does Christ Teach? Under the guise of tradition and spirituality we are offered war, war and more war.” “Covering himself with Orthodoxy, Putin sows hatred and war.” “Blessed are the Peacemakers.” “If you want peace, prepare for peace.” And “We stand for peace, but we are preparing for war.”

The appearance of these anti-war Christians attracted relatively little attention in Moscow or the West, but that is a mistake, Sergey Filatov of the Moscow Institute of Oriental Studies suggests, because they are part of the spread of genuine and potentially powerful anti-war sentiments among the faithful (sova-center.ru/religion/publications/2016/10/d35675/).

The hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate and the traditions of Russian Orthodoxy more generally are so associated with caesaro-papism and support for authoritarian governments, their force structures and army. But that is now the only trend of opinion within the church especially at the parish level, Filatov says.

Over the last 25 years, he says, “militarist attitudes and support for military victories … is slowly but consistently weakening” within the church, especially at the lower levels but also among some of the hierarchs as well.

“Among the laity, there exists not only a politically liberal pacifist minority, but also anti-war ‘evangelical’ attitudes among believers whom you wouldn’t call liberals with regard to other issues.” What is surprising is not that “Orthodox pacifists have appeared but rather than they have appeared only now.”

Among Christians around the world there has been a slow and sometimes not so slow shift to anti-war positions among many denominations, Filatov says. Roman Catholics have been among the leaders of this in the West as can be seen from the pope’s calls to both sides in the Ukrainian conflict to reach an agreement, calls that have outraged some Ukrainian patriots.

“In Russian Orthodoxy,” the orientalist continues, such “anti-war attitudes are only now being born.” But they have not come out of nowhere or only from abroad. “If one compares the statements of Metropolitan Kirill of 20 years ago and now, then it is possible to see that in his patriotic and statist ideology, the militarist component has weakened.”

“Our society in general did not take note of the most important case when the Russian Orthodox Church did not support the unification of Crimea to Russia and with regard to the conflict in south-east Ukraine consistently has called for reaching an accord” rather than supporting views of patriotic circles it is traditionally been close to.

“This position has many causes, but whatever they were, this position for the Russian Orthodox Church is unique and it represents a most important precedent for the future,” Filatov argues. The church may remain very conservative on many moral issues but on war, it is increasingly going to be against militarism.

That represents a change, and one with enormous consequences for relations between the Kremlin and the Moscow Patriarchate and thus for Russian society and the country’s political system as a whole.

In the days following the death of Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej there has been something of a debate regarding the efficacy of his reign. Sadly, given Thailand’s draconian lese majeste laws and the often febrile atmosphere inside Thailand, the only space where such a discussion is able to take place freely is outside of that country.

At present – and given the period of mourning Thailand is undergoing – we don’t wish to take part in any debates regarding the Thai monarchy.

Nonetheless, we would support, without any equivocation whatsoever, the right of Thais to hold the frankest of debates regarding their monarchy, however challenging such a discussion may be.

It is therefore with some considerable astonishment that the offices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Thailand have released a statement condemning Thai citizens living abroad for commenting on the Thai monarchy. Not only did these Thai citizens flee Thailand due to political persecution after the 2014 military coup, they are clearly exercising their basic rights to freedom of expression as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 19 of that declaration states very clearly that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference”. In addition Article 14 states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

Why therefore did UNCHR draw attention to these persecuted persons in such an unnecessary fashion and why also did they condemn these persons exercising their right to freedom of expression?

Given this we must condemn UNHCR Thailand’s statement and demand it’s immediate retraction. Furthermore we would also expect an apology be issued by UNHCR Thailand to the individuals concerned and that no further harassment take place against them.

It should be pointed out that Amsterdam & Partners has previously won a headline case against the UN for their disgraceful treatment of George Tadonki, the head of the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in Zimbabwe for which we won the prestigious American Lawyer 2013 Global Pro Bono Dispute of the Year award.

With this in mind we believe it is essential that the very highest standards must be expected from any UN officer or office.

The statement by UNHCR Thailand is completely unacceptable even if the lowest standards are applied. We are right to expect far far better of those supposedly committed to protecting the lives of the powerless from the most powerful.

The Nigeria Feminist Forum and its partners totally reject and condemn in strong terms the comments made by Nigeria’s President Mohammad Buhari on Friday 14 October 2016 in response to his wife’s interview on Hausa Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Mrs. Aisha Buhari, during the interview publicly expressed discontent with Mr. President for not living up to expectations. In response to certain statements made by Aisha, President Buhari was quoted by the Associated Press (AP) as saying during a joint press conference with German Chancellor Ms. Angela Merkel, that “his wife should be taking care of his kitchen, living room and the other room” —meaning his bedroom. In his own words, President Buhari said, “I don’t know which party my wife belongs to, but she belongs to my kitchen and my living room and the other room”.

Mr. President’s comment connotes a nostalgic and repugnant invocation of historical patriarchal oppression and subjugation of Nigerian women, which has over the past alienated and denied Nigerian women access and a level playing ground to compete equally with their male counterparts both in public and personal spaces. Need we remind Mr. President about the role and contributions of women in our nation building vis-à-vis the socio-cultural, economic and political development of our beloved Nigeria?

We, Nigerian women, alongside our male counterparts have throughout the history of the development of this country resisted and will continue to resist every attempt made to diminish our contributions to the development of this nation. We will continue to fight against the entrenchment of patriarchal, socio-cultural and religious misogynistic structures that oppress and demean the status of women in our society. This demeaning statement violates right to dignity of every woman, recognised in Section 34 of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution.

It is notable that Mr. President’s condescending comment relegating his wife’s role exclusively to his ’’kitchen and the other room’’ was made during a state visit to Germany, a first world nation with advanced democracy, headed by a woman (Ms. Angela Merkel). Ms. Merkel serves as a clear example that women can attain the highest leadership position anywhere in the world if given the right support and opportunity. Ms. Merkel would not have become the German Chancellor if she as a woman was solely relegated to the kitchen or the other room. Ms. Merkel, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Michelle Bachelet, Thersa May, Doris Leuthard and other women in similar positions demonstrate that women just like men, are capable of making important decisions in the boardrooms and conference rooms.

Mr. President, Sir, we Nigerian women hereby categorically state that we are no less important than our male citizens. We matter equally. It is inexcusable and utterly condemnable to refer to the First Lady of Nigeria and indeed any other woman as belonging to the ’’kitchen’’. It may interest you to know that Nigerian women make up 42.2% of the labour force (World Bank, 2014). Nigerian women contribute close to 70% of agricultural workforce (African Development Bank, 2015).

Millions of Nigerian women are entrepreneurs, doctors, engineers, teachers, lawyers, farmers, traders, among others. Nigerian women, including your wife Aisha, constitute 50% of the country’s population and comments such as yours can never diminish or undermine our status and contribution to national development and growth. Mr President, Sir, your role as a statesman and leader of a polarized country such as ours connotes that you must never been seen either in public or private to support ideas and positions that stifle 50% of the citizens of the country you head.

We equally admonish your follow up comments/confirmation of your earlier position to a journalist that your wife’s sole duty is to ‘take care of you’ is equally unacceptable. We believe that you are not physically disabled or incapacitated to warrant 24 hours personal care and if that is the case, may we suggest you seek qualified paid professional care.

Mr. President, it is needless to remind you that Aisha, your wife, is a highly educated, influential and focused woman, from a family of politicians. We recall her contributions and indeed the contribution of other Nigerian women to the success of the 2015 elections, which ushered in your government. Mrs. Aisha Buhari successfully rallied the support of the mass of Nigerian women who make up approximately 50% of the total number of voters that voted to put your government in power. Need we remind you that women actively participated in political rallies, campaigns, voters’ registration and actual voting exercises? We have not forgotten about the promises you made to women during your election campaign speeches; we are eagerly waiting for you to fulfil them starting from appointing women equally in your cabinet.

The NFF and its partners are saddened and worried to note that the present political dispensation has the lowest representation of women in public office. Women make up roughly 8% of the overall membership of the legislature and only 7% of ministers currently serving in your cabinet are women. This is against the 31% in the immediate past administration.  We wonder if this dismal representation of women in decision-making in your government has a direct link to your personal opinion of women and their role in the society. The dismal role of women in decision-making positions in this present administration is extremely discomforting.  Nigerian women were even further assaulted by the rejection of the Gender and Equal Opportunities Bill (GEOP) by members of Nigeria’s Senate on Tuesday, 15 March 2016.  The GEOP Bill seeks to guarantee the rights of women to access equal opportunities in employment and education. It also seeks to guarantee equal rights to inheritance for both male and female children.

We note that in other progressive democracies in Africa, in countries like Rwanda, women make up 63.8% in the Lower house of Assembly and 38.5% in the Senate. In South Africa women represent 41.9% and 35.2% respectively. In Burundi women represent 36.4% in the Lower Assembly and 41.9% representation in Senate. Even Zimbabwe has 31.5% and 37.5% respectively. In the Nigerian parliament as presently constituted, women represent a dismal 5.6% in the Lower Assembly and 6.5% in the Senate. Very far from the agitated 35%, Affirmative Action provided for, in the National Gender Policy 2006.

The NFF and its partners will like to use this medium to commend the courage, sincerity, and audacity of Mrs. Aisha Buhari to speak up, upon sensing that the government is clearly deviating from delivering the electioneering promises it made to Nigerians. Never in our history as a nation have we had a woman in that position use her power to express an opinion that threatens even her personal comfort.

We hereby use this medium to call on President Mohammad Buhari to immediately:

• Offer an unreserved public apology to his wife and indeed every Nigerian woman and girl for the disparaging and demeaning misogynistic comment made about confining the role of women in the society solely to the domestics.
• Take concrete actions to demonstrate his government’s commitment to actualizing 35% Affirmative Action in all government institutions, structures and decision-making positions.
• Demonstrate a clear roadmap of implementing the Sustainable Development Goal especially Goal 5 on Gender Equality.
• Fulfil every electioneering promise made to Nigerian women and take steps to secure the lives of women and girls especially those in conflict situations.
• Show public support for women’s rights and gender equality.

We also call on the leadership of Nigerian legislature not to relent in its commitment to ensure the immediate passage of the re-introduced Gender and Equal Opportunities bill presently before the Senate.

Signed,

Geraldyn Ezeakile

Nigerian Feminist Forum, Secretariat.

Co-signed by: Women Africa (WA), Women Entrepreneurs Association of Nigera (WEAN), Centre for Mmadu on Human Rights (C4M), Alliances for Africa (AfA), Legal Defence and Assistance Project (LEDAP), Women Crisis Centre (WCC) Lesley Agams, Equity Advocates (EQ) Echoes of Women In Africa (ECHOES), Arise Nigerian Women Foundation (ANWF), Gender and Development Action (GADA), Media Concern Initiative for Women and Children (MCIWC), Women’s Right and Health Project (WRAHP),Vision Spring Initiatives (VSI), Voice of Eve International (VOI).

*The Nigerian Feminist Forum (NFF) is a biennial public policy forum that brings together feminists from the six geo-political zones, government officials, and other strategic partners to deliberate on issues of key concern to the development of and emancipation of women in Nigeria. We can be reached via email at;nigerianfeminist@gmail.com, nff@alliancesforafrica.org and via twitter: @nff2008

Everywhere in the western world, printed newspapers are struggling to stay afloat. The old advertising-based model is no longer sustainable as more people turn to the Internet and alternative sources for their news and analysis. Hungary is no different. But some newspapers are more equal than others, and sometimes when market forces determine that a Washington-favored newspaper overseas goes out of business it becomes a matter of “human rights” and “free expression.” That is the case in Hungary, where the former Communist Party organ’s demise this month has earned strong words of scorn from the US State Department.

The newspaper Nepszabadsag (ironically, “People’s Liberty”) was founded by the Hungarian Communist Party in the midst of the 1956 revolution, a revolt where Hungarians rose up to pull themselves out from behind the iron curtain.  For the next 30 plus years Nepszabadsag was the official mouthpiece of the Communist Party, until shortly after the Berlin Wall fell. It was subsequently acquired by Bertelsmann AG, a German media conglomerate, in the early 1990s. But while there was a “system-change” in Communist Party monopoly rule in Hungary, there was never a “system-change” in Hungary’s former Communist Party mouthpiece.

The Communists renamed themselves “Socialists” and continued to play a leading role in Hungarian political life, winning the second post-communist election in 1994. Their newspaper Nepszabadsag remained at their side, lock-step loyal to the renamed communists and their allies. German businessmen who owned the paper did very little, as loyal former party members kept their subscriptions up and circulation high. What’s not to like if you are a German businessman?

But as elsewhere that all began to change. First off, in 2010 the anti-communist and moderately nationalist Fidesz party won the elections and established itself as a formidable force in Hungarian political life. A 2014 re-election solidified Fidesz as the leading political power in Hungary, led by the populist firebrand Viktor Orban who had in mid-1989 taken the dramatic and dangerous step of publicly demanding that Soviet troops exit the country.

Orban’s recent strident refusal to accept EU diktats (reminiscent of Moscow diktats of old) on how many Middle Eastern refugees fleeing Washington’s wars it should accept and bring into its welfare system further bolstered his popularity in Hungary and throughout the emerging anti-Brussels movements in EU countries (National Front in France, AfD in Germany, etc.). In a nationwide referendum earlier this month on whether to accept Brussels’ demands that Hungary accept thousands more refugees, Hungarians voted “no” by a convincing 98 percent (turnout was just under 50 percent, rendering the vote technically invalid but still indicative of the mood in the country).

As a result of Fidesz’s overwhelming popularity in Hungary, the renamed Communist Party’s poll numbers sunk. According to some polls last month, the Hungarian Socialist Party had support of just ten percent of the population, dwarfed by Fidesz at near 50 percent and the radical populist Jobbik Party at near 20 percent.

As might be expected when a political party implodes, readership and revenue of its mouthpiece also declines. That is why Nepszabadsag racked up more than five billion forints ($170 plus million) in losses recently and its current owner, Mediaworks Hungary Zrt., decided to close the loss-leading publication.

Simple, right? The market decided that Nepszabadsag would not survive and the owner followed the people’s choice, shutting down the paper.

Not so simple. The US government has been strongly opposed to Fidesz and Viktor Orban from his 2010 victory (and earlier). They have been involved since the end of communism in supporting and propping up the renamed communists and opposing Orban and Fidesz.

Did the leader of the free world and free markets chalk Nepszabadsag’s demise up to market forces? No way! It had to have been some nefarious plot by Viktor Orban to silence criticism of his government — even though the paper’s own owners admitted that it was forced to shut the doors due to financial losses!

Yesterday the State Department took time out of its busy schedule condemning the Russians for fighting al-Qaeda in Syria to condemn the Hungarian government for the market failure of a newspaper opposed to it. It is up to the Hungarian government, according to the US State Department, to make sure that opposition newspapers and other publications opposed to it remain in business.

According to the US State Department:

The United States shares the concerns of global press freedom advocates, international organizations, and Hungarian citizens, over the steady decline of media freedom in Hungary.

We are following closely the reported ban of an independent website from the parliament building on October 19 and the sudden closure of Hungary’s largest independent newspaper, Nepszabadsag, on October 8. The loss of this paper – regardless of the reason – is a blow to media pluralism in Hungary.

As a friend and ally, we encourage the Hungarian government to ensure an open media environment that exposes citizens to a diversity of viewpoints and opinions, a key component of our shared democratic values. We urge Hungary to work closely with the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and other experts towards this end.

Yes, the Hungarian government according to Washington has an obligation to make sure private enterprises that happen to oppose it are flush with money and remain in operation.

Should those of us opposed to our own US foreign policy of interventionism and endless hectoring of other government overseas on press freedom now be justified in demanding a few million dollars to keep our own opposition media operations afloat? Or does American exceptionalism mean “do as we say not as we do”?

In two days Hungarians will celebrate the 60th anniversary of their revolution against Soviet rule in which the rebels’ first demand was that Hungary escape the Warsaw Pact and become a neutral country in the East/West conflict, à la Switzerland. Perhaps having escaped diktat by Moscow only to fall prey to diktat from Washington and Brussels, Budapest should revisit that 1956 spirit and at least exit the anachronistic NATO alliance. Maybe then HUexit?

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

By Alireza Rahimi*

Following the beginning of the Iraqi forces’ ongoing operation to liberate the northern city of Mosul from Daesh terrorists, the war of words and diplomacy between the governments of Iraq and Turkey over the presence of Turkish military forces on the Iraqi soil and their part in this operation still goes on. During this dispute, the Iraqi Prime minister Haider al-Abadi has talked about the possibility of the breakout of a regional war as a result of Turkey’s adventurism in Iraq and asked for immediate withdrawal of Turkey’s military forces from northern Iraq. In the meantime, the Iraqi parliament has voiced its strong opposition to continued presence of Turkey’s military forces in the country, demanding rapid expulsion of those forces and summoning of Turkey’s ambassador in Baghdad. At the same time, the Iraqi lawmakers have asked the government to condemn Turkey’s military as a force of occupation and take necessary measures in order to drive them out of the Iraqi territory. In parallel to these developments, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, Iraq’s foreign minister, asked Secretary-General of the Arab League Ahmed Aboul Gheit to take position in support of Iraq’s stance and emphasize his opposition to entry of Turkish forces into the Iraqi territory. Even the nomadic tribes in Iraq’s Anbar province have voiced their opposition to continued presence of Turkey’s military in their country and described it as an aggression against the national sovereignty of Iraq. In a related development, five political parties based in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, that is, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the Movement for Change, the Iraqi Islamic Party, the Unity Alliance of Iraq (which is commonly known as Iraq’s Unity), and the Communist Party of Kurdistan issued a joint statement in which they opposed Turkey’s military presence in Iraq and described it as a violation against the country’s international borders. Despite all these developments, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has made controversial remarks in which he has insisted on the presence of his country’s forces in Iraq and their participation in the operation for the liberation of Mosul. He has even claimed that even if the so-called anti-Daesh coalition opposes participation of Turkish forces in the liberation of Mosul, he would seek alternative ways to do this.

The firm resolve of Turkey’s government, parliament and army for getting involved in the liberation operation for Mosul despite it being in blatant violation of all international treaties, is a telltale sign of the strategic importance of this measure in the eyes of Turkey’s government and some other political forces. A case to the point is recent remarks made by Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of the Republican People’s Party, who had blamed the wrong foreign policy of the ruling Justice and Development Party’s government as the main reason why Turkey is not a partner to the anti-Daesh coalition in Mosul.

The most important strategic goals pursued by the Turkish government through participation in this operation can be summarized as follows:

1. Deployment of Turkey’s military forces in parts of the Iraqi territory around Mosul with the goal of gaining renewed control of the city: During recent days and at the peak of the war of words between the leaders of Iraq and Turkey, Erdogan mentioned historical control of the Ottoman Empire over the city of Mosul as a ground to justify Turkey’s presence in the liberation operation. Such arguments, regardless of totally refutable and paradoxical logic that underlies them, reveals the innermost layers of the current Turkish rulers’ thinking, whose main dream is to revive the lost grandeur of the past. Participation of Turkey in the operation to liberate Mosul will give the honor of freeing parts of Mosul to Turkey’s military forces and it is through this proposition that Turkey dreams about setting up its lasting presence in this city. On the opposite, this dream is just a nightmare for Iraqi statesmen, who consider this proposition as a prelude to long-term war in the region.

2. Creating a strategic fault line along the line of contact between Kurds in Iraq and Syria: The fear that Turkey has about Kurdish regions in northern Syria joining one another and forming an autonomous government along the southern borders of Turkey has made Erdogan take a tactical U-turn in his past positions and improve his country’s relations with Russia, which had been marred after downing of a Russian fighter jet by Turkish warplanes over Syria. In doing this, Erdogan has been actually trying to get the permission for military presence in northern Syria under the excuse of fighting against the Daesh terrorism. Of course, the main objective of this presence was to prevent Kurds from gaining more ground in the face of Daesh and joining Kurdish regions in northern Syria to one another. The fear that Turkey has about coalescence of Kurdish regions is not limited to its border with Syria, because the liberation of Mosul can open a line of contact and communication between Kurdish forces in Iraq and Syria. Therefore, Ankara’s military presence in Mosul is also aimed to draw a wedge between these two Kurdish regions and this is another major goal pursued by Turkey through participation in the liberation operation of Mosul.

3. Military deployment behind the YPG front: Mounting pressure on forces affiliated with the pro-Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) through deployment of Turkey’s military forces behind the front lines of this group would be possible through participation of Turkey in the operation to liberate Mosul and subsequent establishment of a Turkish military base in this city.

4. Preventing presence of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in Mosul: Since forces affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) are planning to take part in the operation to liberate Mosul, preventing their presence in this operation is another major goal pursued by the Turkish army. Participation of the PKK forces in the liberation of the Kurdish town of Sinjar followed by their continued presence in Sinjar despite opposition of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region’s government, and organizing the Sinjar Resistance Units (known as the YBS by its Kurdish name) by the PKK has been a bitter experience for Ankara and Turkey is by no means ready to allow repetition of that experience in Mosul. Bombardment of the PKK positions in Qandil Mountains by Turkish warplanes at the peak of tensions between Ankara and Baghdad and on the eve of the liberation operation for Mosul can be understood along the same lines.

5. To exploit Mosul’s oil resources: Despite its heavy dependence on energy resources, Turkey lacks necessary reserves to meet this need. Let’s not forget that up to a while ago, Turkey was a regular customer of Daesh oil despite many reports that discredited Turkish government in this regard and this shows the high importance of oil for this country. Finding a base in Mosul with the dream of controlling adjacent oil reserves in that region is another factor, which has motivated the government of the Justice and Development Party to take part in the Mosul operation.

6. Creating balance of power with Iran: Another strategic goal pursued by Turkey is to organize and reinvigorate militia forces affiliated with Ankara, which can be achieved through military presence in the Sunni-dominated city of Mosul and training those forces in Iraq. This plan aims to restrict Iran’s clout in Iraq and create some sort of power balance between Tehran and Ankara in the political arena of Iraq.

In general, the goals pursued by Turkey through taking part in the operation for the liberation of Mosul can be divided into short- and long-term categories. Creating a strategic fault line between Kurds in Iraq and Syria, deployment of Turkish troops behind the YPG front, preventing presence of the PKK in the region and its future moves, as well as creating balance of power with Iran are among short-term goals of Turkish government. The most important long-term goal pursued by Ankara through military participation in the Mosul operation is to dominate the city and oil reserves in that region. In view of Turkey’s military and political capabilities, short-term goals are more possible to be achieved, but long-term ones are less probable to be realized because they need permission from transregional powers.

Turkey’s insistence on realizing these goals can have untoward consequences for the country. Intensification of sectarian strife, posing threats to Iraq’s territorial integrity, violation of the country’s sovereignty and escalation of regional tensions can be among those consequences. To prevent the consequences of Turkey’s military operation in Iraq, international bodies must take steps to underline and guarantee rightful demands of the Iraqi government, on the one hand, while on the other hand, the Iraqi government and other regional countries must take steps to prevent Turkey’s government from going on with its destabilizing measures.

* Alireza Rahimi
Researcher on Political Issues

Pew Global Attitudes Survey: Indians, Chinese are content with growing integration of their nations into world economy.

By Bruce Stokes*

In contrast with the developed West, globalization and economic integration remain popular in the world’s two largest developing countries – India and China.

The reasons are easy to guess. The International Monetary Fund expects India’s economy to grow by 7.6 percent this year and China’s by 6.6 percent, both more than double the expected global economic growth of 3.1 percent. It’s little surprise that Indians and Chinese are happy with their economies, the direction of their countries and their growing integration into the world economy, according to the Pew Research Center’s 2016 Global Attitudes Survey. The survey collected responses from more than 2,400 Indian adults and more than 3,100 Chinese.

Indians and Chinese also express pride in their respective nation’s growing stature on the world stage. At the same time, people in China and India are wary of the outside world and prioritize dealing with their own problems rather than helping others. In all, 86 percent of Chinese and roughly two-thirds of Indians are satisfied with the economy and the direction their countries are headed today.

The Chinese have been overwhelmingly satisfied with the direction of their country for a decade, but this has not always been the case. In 2002 just 48 percent were content.

The Indian public’s satisfaction with how things are going has increased 36 percentage points since 2013, the year before Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party, BJP, took power. Current approval of the country’s direction is widely shared by men and women, all age groups and education levels, and by people living in cities and in the countryside. About seven in ten supporters of the BJP and more than half of backers of the Indian National Congress party, INC, are pleased with the country’s direction.

China’s economic growth rate may be slowing, but views about the economy are still widely positive. Most Chinese expect continued economic progress in the coming year: 22 percent say the economy will improve a lot over the next 12 months, while 54 percent think it will improve a little. The public is also optimistic about economic prospects for the next generation: 82 percent suggest that when children in the country today grow up they will be financially better off than their parents.

Indian views on the economy have improved by 23 points since 2013, and 35 percent of Indians today say the economy is very good. Notably, 42 percent of BJP supporters voice the view that the economy is doing very well, while only 26 percent of INC adherents share this view. People also see the economy as foreshadowing prospects for their children: Roughly seven in ten Indians assume that when today’s children grow up they will be better off financially than their parents. This faith in the future is up a bit from 2013, when it stood at 64 percent. People in rural areas are slightly more optimistic for the next generation than those living in urban environments, 68 percent versus 74 percent.

By comparison, a median of 42 percent in a Pew survey of 10 EU nations and 44 percent in the United States say their economy is doing well.

Both Chinese and Indians feel good about their nations’ growing integration into the world economy.

Trade accounted for 41 percent of China’s economy in 2015. This is up 11 percentage points from 1990, but down 24 points from 2006. Despite this rollercoaster ride, six in ten Chinese suggest that China’s involvement in the global economy is good because it provides the country with new markets and opportunities for growth. Just 23 percent think it’s a bad thing because it lowers wages and costs jobs.

Trade accounted for 49 percent of the Indian economy in 2014, and Indians are generally happy with globalization. By approximately two to one, Indians think their involvement in the global economy is a good thing, 52 percent, while only 25 percent say it’s a problem.

By comparison, 56 percent of respondents in Europe suggest that global economic engagement is positive, but only 44 percent of Americans agree.

The Chinese people recognize their country’s growing prominence on the world stage: 75 percent say China is playing a more important role in world affairs than it did 10 years ago, and only 10 percent of suggest that they are a less important player in the global arena.

Indians as wellacknowledge their country’s growing international stature: 68 percent say India plays a more important role in the world today compared with 10 years ago, and only 15 percent suggest that India plays a less important role.

Both the Chinese and Indians are far more likely than Europeans at 23 percent or Americans, 21 percent, to assume that their nation plays a more important role on the world stage today than it did a decade ago.

Yet both Chinese and Indians remain wary of the world around them in different ways.

Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena has given instructions to the officials to hold an impartial and independent inquiry into the incident of death of two Jaffna University students and to submit that report to the courts.

“I deeply saddened on hearing the news of death of two Jaffna University students,” said Sirisena in a statement, adding, “As soon as I heard the news, I have given instructions to the officials to hold an impartial and independent inquiry into the incident as well as to submit the relevant report to the courts.”

Sirisena said that investigations in this regard will be done continuously without any interruption.

Additionally, the Sri Lankan president said that a decision has been taken to provide compensation to the parents of the victims.

Combined Joint Task Force – Inherent Resolve is assessing the potential risk to personnel at Camp Swift and Qayyarah West Airfield, located about 50 miles south of Mosul, as a result of nearby burning oil wells and a sulfur plant fire.

The coalition has taken air samples and analysis is ongoing to determine what, if any, concerns may result from the fires, which officials said were set by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorists.

As a precaution, coalition personnel at sites affected by the smoke have been directed to limit their activity outdoors. Some service members have voluntarily chosen to don protective masks for their own comfort.

The coalition takes the risk of these hazards and associated substances into consideration as part of ongoing force protection measures and are prepared to respond to such a contingency should that need arise.

There has been no change at this time to the mission-oriented protective posture level. Iraq’s government is working to put out the fires and projects it may take approximately two to three days to accomplish this task.

CJTF-OIR provided more than 24,000 protective chemical masks to Iraqi and peshmerga forces during training in preparation for the Mosul offensive.

The use of chemical weapons by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant reinforces why the international coalition is assisting the Iraqi government to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL, which continues to kill indiscriminately and is completely unencumbered by any legal or moral restraint.

“The enemy has used chemical weapons in the past, and we’re going to make sure we are taking every measure to mitigate the risk to our forces,” said Army Maj. Gen. Gary J. Volesky, commander of Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command – Operation Inherent Resolve. “Force protection is my No. 1 priority here.”

CJTF-OIR has five building partner capacity sites, which were instrumental in training Iraqi and peshmerga counterattack brigades for the Mosul offensive.

Part of their training included reacting to chemical attacks by ISIL and effectively using and fighting in their issued gas masks.

“The coalition is trained. We’ve trained the [Iraqis] and peshmerga; they’ve got equipment,” Volesky said. “We’re confident that as the enemy attempt to use a lot of means — not just chemicals — we’re targeting the training with the Iraqis and with the coalition to make sure we’re mitigating any risk of that threat.”

On October 9th, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he plans to support his coalition’s initiative to boycott the Joint List, the third largest party in the Knesset. The move, initiated by Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, is aimed at punishing the party’s decision not to go to former President Shimon Peres’s funeral, which was attended by dignitaries from no less than 70 countries, including US President Barack Obama and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. “Members of the Joint List have proven that there’s no point anymore in discussing anything or even arguing with them,” Lieberman averred, while adding “that we must decide to boycott all their appearances and addresses in the Knesset.”

Speaking on Israeli Channel 2, the head of the Joint Arab List, Ayman Odeh, explained that Peres’s funeral was part of a “national day of mourning in which I have no place; not in the narrative, not in the symbols that exclude me, not in the stories of Peres as a man who built up Israel’s defenses.” He went on to recall scenes in Peres’ long public career: from his role in the military government imposed on Israel’s Palestinian citizens in 1948-1966, through his pivotal role in obtaining Israel’s nuclear arsenal, to the IDF’s 1996 attack on a UN compound in the Lebanese village Qana, where 106 civilians were killed. He even cited Peres’s failure to attend Arafat’s funeral (with whom he had won the Nobel Peace Prize), or, indeed, of any other Israeli-Arab leader.

Perhaps because he did not think the Israeli public could stomach it, Odeh did not mention that Peres was a colonist through and through. In documents recently revealed, Peres is quoted as saying that he does not believe in an “Arafat state” and that Jordan is the only Palestinian state, while bemoaning the existence of Palestinian citizens in the Galilei. “I see how they eat up the Galilei and my heart bleeds,” he told former Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a 1978 meeting between the two. Much more recently, Peres went so far as to maintain that “Israel Defense Force operations enabled economic prosperity in the West Bank, relieved southern Lebanese citizens from the terror of Hezbollah, and have enabled Gazans to have normal lives again.” Indeed, until his death he was the paradigmatic voice of the colonial civilizing mission.

During the same Channel 2 interview, however, Odeh did point out to his Israeli Jewish audience that the following Saturday the Arab-Israeli community would be marking the 16th anniversary of the October 2000 riots in which 13 citizens of the community were killed by police during a series of demonstrations protesting Israel actions against Palestinians at the outset of the Second Intifada. “Will anyone from the government attend?” Odeh pondered; “Can someone understand our pain or does our pain not interest anybody?”

Notwithstanding Odeh’s candid effort to expose Israel’s racist approach toward its Palestinian citizens, Netanyahu’s coalition is determined to boycott the Joint Arab List.

Ironically, this is the same coalition that has been outspoken against the adoption of the boycott strategy as a legitimate non-violent political tool to struggle against Israel’s subjugation of the Palestinian people. Indeed, Netanyahu’s government is currently spending millions and millions of dollars to combat the Palestinian boycott movement, while criminalizing anyone who dare to support it publically. Interior Minister Aryeh Deri and Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan announced the formation of a committee to prevent BDS activists from entering the country, and to deport those already in Israel/Palestine.

Boycotting Israel’s colonial project is anti-Semitic, Netanyahu and his cronies assert, as they boycott the Palestinian leaders who dared not pay final respect to Peres.  They are so captivated by their twisted logic, that the irony is lost on them.

This article first appeared in Al Jazeera

By Huseyn Hasanov

Commissioning of a new oil terminal with a capacity of 540,000 tons near Turkmenistan’s border with Afghanistan, anticipated in the nearest future, will allow Turkmenistan to increase exports of oil products, said the message of Turkmen Oil and Gas Complex.

According to the message, Turkmenistan’s Turkmenneftegazstroy state oil and gas construction concern is finishing the construction of a terminal for acceptance, storage and shipment of oil products in the south-eastern part of Ymamnazar checkpoint of the Atamyrat district in Lebap region in Turkmenistan.

Installation of automated SCADA system, which is designed to monitor the processes of acceptance, storage and shipment of oil products, is being carried out.

In addition, pumping equipment for pumping oil products from railway tanks has been installed. Works on laying the foundation of the railway leading to the terminal are also finished.

The terminal will be located on an area of 276,400 square meters and will consist of four sections: administrative section, sections of adoption and storage of oil products and section of pumping of oil products into tanker trucks on the border area.

Turkmenistan plans to increase its oil refining capacity to up to 20 million tons in 2020, up to 22 million tons in 2025 and up to 30 million tons in 2030.

In 1937, US physicist Isidor Rabi introduced a simple model to describe how atoms emit and absorb particles of light. Until now, this model had still not been completely explained. In a recent paper, physicists have for the first time used an exact numerical technique: the quantum Monte Carlo technique, which was designed to explain the photon absorption and emission phenomenon. These findings were recently published in EPJ D by Dr Flottat from the Nice –Sophia Antipolis Non Linear Institute (INLN) in France and colleagues. They confirm previous results obtained with approximate simulation methods.

According to the Rabi model, when an atom interacts with light in a cavity, and they reach a state of equilibrium, the atom becomes “dressed” with photons. Because this takes place at the quantum scale, the system is, in fact, a superposition of different states—the excited and unexcited atom—with different numbers of photons.

In the study, the team adapted a quantum Monte Carlo algorithm to address this special case. They created a novel version of the existing algorithm, one which accounts for the fluctuating number of photons. This made it possible to study atoms dressed with up to 20 photons each. No other existing exact simulation method—including the exact diagonalisation and density matrix renormalisation group approaches—can factor in these effects.

The authors found that there are dramatic consequences at quantum scale for strongly coupled light-atom systems. They showed that it is essential to take into account the effects resulting from the number of excitations not being conserved, because the atom-photon coupling is substantial enough for these effects to matter. For example, in a conventional light-atom coupling experiment in a macroscopic cavity, the coupling is so small that an atom is, on average, dressed with much less than one photon. With a coupling that is increased by a factor of, say, ten thousands, physicists have observed dressed states with tens of photons per atom.

Archaeologists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) started excavations in September 2016 at Khirbat al-Minya, an early-Islamic caliphate palace on the shore of the Sea of Galilee in Israel.

Led by PD Dr. Hans-Peter Kuhnen of the Department of Ancient Studies at JGU, the team is hoping to find out how the site looked before the palace was built and whether the building was used for different purposes after the catastrophic earthquake of 749 AD. The palace, which was still under construction at the time, suffered major damage during the quake. Findings from the new excavations show that the building lost its palatial function as a result of the earthquake and was subsequently only used by craftsmen, traders, and sugar cane farmers.

Among the small artefacts found is a tiny glass weight just 12 millimeters in diameter that has an Arabic inscription on it. The words solicit “Glory to Allah”, indicating that the Muslim traders operating here in the 9th or 10th century were dealing with particularly valuable goods. Another significant discovery is that of facilities for processing sugar cane, the cultivation of which initially triggered an economic boom in the Middle Ages in the Holy Land but subsequently led to desertification across large swathes of land in the region. For the first time, the Mainz archaeologists were able to uncover layer-by-layer a boiling system used for molasses production, thus gaining new insights into how sugar cane was refined in this period.

During in-depth excavation of the ground beneath the foundations of the caliphate palace, project team members discovered evidence of what could well have been dramatic changes to the landscape before the building was constructed. At least twice in the post-Roman period extreme weather conditions had caused disastrous boulder slides that covered what would later be the building site and thus buried the foundation walls of an older, pre-Islamic settlement.

With the resumption of digging here, Mainz University is continuing a research project that German archaeologists had initiated in the years 1932 to 1939 in order to clarify the history of both the palace structure and the overall settlement built under Caliph Walid I (705-715 AD) and Walid II (743/4 AD). When World War II began in 1939, however, excavations were interrupted, which is why the research work here still needs to be completed. The project is being supported by the Institute of Archaeology of the University of Tel Aviv and the Israel Nature and Parks Authority.

In addition to the excavations, the Mainz archaeologists are also running a conservation project that has been financed since 2015 through the Cultural Preservation Program of the German Federal Foreign Office. The objective is to prevent the further progressive deterioration of the palace ruins that has been occurring since their exposure in 1939. Therefore, Mainz University has commissioned a German-Israeli restoration team to carry out reinforcement work in November 2016 to shore up some of the walls that are at great risk of collapsing. In preparation for the job, the Laboratory for Building Research at the RheinMain University of Applied Sciences in Wiesbaden has begun a new and precise survey of the at-risk walls in order to get a clear idea of their construction technique as well as to ensure optimal planning for the type and scope of the upcoming restoration work.

“By combining the use of exploratory trenches, the architectural survey, and conservation measures we are setting standards in the research, preservation, and investigation of this important early-Islamic site,” said project manager PD Dr. Hans-Peter Kuhnen of the Department of Ancient Studies at JGU, outlining the relevance of the undertaking. “The new excavations and the accompanying architectural survey will provide us for the first time with detailed insights into what happened on the shores of the Sea of Galilee before the palace was built and after it was destroyed by the earthquake of 749 AD. Our results will then contribute to the future development of the site.”

Researchers from the University of Stirling have explored the true impact of heading a football, identifying small but significant changes in brain function immediately after routine heading practice.

The study from Scotland’s University for Sporting Excellence published in EBioMedicine is the first to detect direct changes in the brain after players are exposed to everyday head impacts, as opposed to clinical brain injuries like concussion.

A group of football players headed a ball 20 times, fired from a machine designed to simulate the pace and power of a corner kick. Before and after the heading sessions, scientists tested players’ brain function and memory.

Increased inhibition in the brain was detected after just a single session of heading. Memory test performance was also reduced by between 41 and 67 per cent, with effects normalising within 24 hours.

Whether the changes to the brain remain temporary after repeated exposure to a football and the long-term consequences of heading on brain health, are yet to be investigated.

Played by more than 250 million people worldwide, the ‘beautiful game’ often involves intentional and repeated bursts of heading a ball. In recent years the possible link between brain injury in sport and increased risk of dementia has focussed attention on whether football heading might lead to long term consequences for brain health.

Cognitive neuroscientist Dr Magdalena Ietswaart from Psychology at the University of Stirling, said: “In light of growing concern about the effects of contact sport on brain health, we wanted to see if our brain reacts instantly to heading a football. Using a drill most amateur and professional teams would be familiar with, we found there was infact increased inhibition in the brain immediately after heading and that performance on memory tests was reduced significantly.

“Although the changes were temporary, we believe they are significant to brain health, particularly if they happen over and over again as they do in football heading. With large numbers of people around the world participating in this sport, it is important that they are aware of what is happening inside the brain and the lasting effect this may have.”

Dr Angus Hunter, Reader in Exercise Physiology in the Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, added: “For the first time, sporting bodies and members of the public can see clear evidence of the risks associated with repetitive impact caused by heading a football.

“We hope these findings will open up new approaches for detecting, monitoring and preventing cumulative brain injuries in sport. We need to safeguard the long term health of football players at all levels, as well as individuals involved in other contact sports.”

Dr Ietswaart and Dr Hunter were supported in the research by Stirling neuropsychologist Professor Lindsay Wilson and PhD student Tom Di Virgilio, consulting with leading Glasgow University Medical School Neuropathologist Dr Willie Stewart and a wider multi-disciplinary team.

In the study, scientists measured levels of brain function using a basic neuroscience technique called Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). The findings from this study, funded by the NIHR Brain Injury Healthcare Technology Cooperative (HTC) are the first to show the TMS technique can be used to detect changes to brain function after small, routine impacts.