Burgeoning cities, growing economies and changing dietary preferences, have resulted in both undernourishment and overnutrition plaguing populations of Southeast Asia. Can ‘printed’ food address this double threat?

By Tamara Nair*

Southeast Asian countries are plagued by malnutrition resulting from both the quality and quantity of food being consumed. Limited access to food and overconsumption of the wrong types of foods has resulted in various health issues that affect populations.

A possible solution might be to turn to the third wave of technology to address these concerns. One possibility is 3D printing. We may even be able to print ‘acceptable’ foods. In a region prone to natural disasters, 3D printing may well be the way to tackle food and nutrition insecurity in disaster-hit areas.
Undernourishment and Overnutrition in Southeast Asia

Beyond a doubt Southeast Asian countries has done exceedingly well in reducing numbers of hungry in the region. In the 2015 State of Food Insecurity in the World, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) states that hunger or undernourishment in Southeast Asia was reduced from 30.6% (prevalence of undernourishment or PoU) in 1990-92 to 9.6% PoU in the 2014-16 time frame.

However, according to the World Food Programme’s (WFP), 2015 Hunger Report, five Southeast Asian countries – Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, the Philippines and Indonesia – still have serious cases of hunger or undernourishment, and one country – Timor Leste, struggles with ‘alarming’ rates. WFP has outlined factors such as low female literacy rates, gender inequality, and even frequent occurrences of natural disasters, as reasons for chronic and sustained malnutrition.

At the same time, given rapid economic growth, urbanisation and an ever-expanding middle class with its ensuing changes in lifestyle and dietary preferences, the urban centres of Southeast Asia have also seen an unprecedented increase in non-communicable diseases (NCD), associated with the way people live their lives.

These include heart disease, stroke, obesity and type II diabetes. Unfortunately, it has been determined that the occurrence of these types of illnesses increases with greater industrialisation and longer lifespans of individuals.

Both these scenarios have given rise to issues of health and wellness of the labour force that powers the region. Scientific and technological innovations such as that of 3D printing allow us to address both issues with similar technology where outputs are designed to fit the very specific needs in each case.

Technology and Nutrition Security

3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, refers to processes where a three-dimensional object is synthesised through successful layering of materials under precisely programmed commands stored on a storage medium. We are a few years away from a ‘printed economy’ but 3D printing is certainly impacting the way we think of everyday things – from health to retail to even food.

As a matter of fact, printing food is already in the pipeline for the US military – creating appropriate and timely rations, potable for easy mobility in the field, and personalising diets to deliver sufficient nutrients – all while keeping costs low.

Employing similar logic, I see the usefulness of 3D printing in addressing nutritional crises in the region. 3D printing allows for customisation of output. When employed in producing food there are a number of benefits to this.

Firstly, the technology can help to realign nutrient-deficit diets by customising food that match individual or age/gender specific dietary requirements. By printing only necessary amounts, almost instantaneously, it not only does away with preparing large amounts but also reduces costs and wastage. Printers are significantly more portable than actual food stocks making it easy to bring into areas that may become inaccessible due to disruptions in transport networks. All these come to play when we think about crises-induced malnutrition.

Tackling Food Insecurity: Printing ‘Acceptable’ Foods

Natural disasters are a regular occurrence in the region. Food and nutrition insecurity are a mainstay in disaster-hit areas, especially extended periods of food insecurity, and chronic malnutrition. With minimised logistical concerns and reduced costs, it is not hard to see how see how 3D printing, where output is specifically designed to address the need, can be utilised effectively.

It can be something as simple as creating micronutrient tablets or cubes (similar to sugar cubes) to be mixed in with locally consumed carbohydrate sources such as rice; a staple commodity stockpiled especially in readiness for the onslaught of natural disasters. And because we expect transport networks to be disrupted, 3D printing of emergency food or nutrient sources becomes more attractive considering that there is less to transport and printing can be done on-site.

One of the most attractive qualities of this technology lies in how it can convert easily available and highly nutritious, but not necessarily the most palatable, ingredients to ‘acceptable’ foods. Both algae and certain insects are excellent sources of protein. They are already, though not widely, consumed in the region.

They are inexpensive and abundant and can be converted to more acceptable forms using 3D printing. An example would be to print ‘chocolate bars’ with these ingredients as a core component that might be distributed to children as part of schools’ feeding programmes.

Yet another advantage is how 3D printing might be a positive step towards addressing resource constraints, especially in the light of climate change. It can be healthy for the environment with its reduced ecological ‘footprint’.

Addressing Malnutrition Through Technology

With more women (and men) joining the urban labour force and the popularity of ‘food-on-the-go’, it is easy to see the lure of such food by making sustenance tasty, readily available and cheap. Highly processed foods also find their way into diets in poorer communities as well because they are easily available, they store better, and often such foods (especially canned varieties) are donated to organisations that distribute them to poorer communities. Poor levels of awareness can also result in high consumption of unhealthy foods.

One solution to overcome hunger and malnutrition lies in the tripartite action between the state, businesses and communities. 3D printing could also be the link between public and private action in addressing food and nutrition insecurity in the region.

A vibrant and healthy labour force is necessary for dynamic and growing economic region. They go together. Those interested in attempting to reduce nutritional deficits should look into all ways and means, including exploring new technologies to provide some of the answers. We should not wait for a ‘trickle down’ effect of these technologies to reach us but embrace them at present as potential solutions.

*Tamara Nair is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Non-traditional Security (NTS) Studies in the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

In International Politics (IP), the Game Theory is a model of a zero sum game which describes a conflict scenario in which a protagonist’s total loss is his enemy’s total gain. The sum total of the loss and gain is zero. In IP as Zawodny opines some international conflicts today can be resolved only by situations in which the warring factions don’t lose and in which both may sometimes win.

So is the Game Theory shifting the fulcrum of conflict between Pakistan and India towards settlement via international and regional agencies? The security dilemma or better still the Prisoners’ Dilemma plays a crucial role here. A nation like Pakistan faces dilemma without knowing about India’s intentions and vice versa. Both the nations want to resolve matters but with the K question being a permanent bone of contention it is very unlikely that something constructive will come up in the near future.

After the Uri attacks by Pakistan backed terrorists and retaliatory surgical strikes by India on Pakistani terror camps, tensions escalated between India and Pakistan; so much so that a well known Indian producer was stopped from releasing his movie for casting an actor from Pakistan. Nationalistic fervour (read tempers) stands at an all time high, with irresponsible media on both sides gleefully cashing in on the state of affairs as they are. In this game of proxy wars and actual wars is it possible to settle matters amicably? Earlier this year, following the killing of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen operative Burhan Wani in the Kashmir valley the media was barred from covering the massive protests in the valley against the Indian Army. Though this was done ostensibly to avoid further escalation of violence, yet amidst all the brouhaha, tensions continued to escalate. The war of words on primetime television kept getting louder and none of the parties was willing to confess. The prisoners’ dilemma was evident.

The cancellation of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit and the boycott of Pakistan by the members of SAARC was a gigantic move, a statement in itself of the growing clamour for intolerance of any act of terror anywhere in the world. Pakistan stood exposed and the generals had nothing much to offer to the erudite discourses on national television about the cancellation of the SAARC summit. Some journalists from Pakistan termed it as a propaganda war set in motion by India, which was nothing less than a national joke. Prime Minister Sharif and the Army Chief, General Sharif both have no political or diplomatic face left to show especially after they have been exposed.

Unidentified people have set fire to dozens of schools in Kashmir. The violence has not stopped. “This is very unfortunate and the responsibility is on the separatists, including Mr Geelani and other people are encouraging such elements to burn the schools. Ultimately, the future of the children of Kashmir is in the dark,” said Deputy Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Nirmal Singh. The K question is a serious bone of contention between India and Pakistan and the Valley is still burning. In the end the sum total of the game between India and Pakistan will be zero with maximum casualties at both ends. Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti seems to have maintained a tough stand on acts of violence but nowhere in the near future does the issue appear to be heading towards a resolution. Boycott and isolation of Pakistan is the need of the hour but in a liberal world order isolation may not be possible. Former Chief Minister and National Conference chief Omar Abdullah opined that the attacks on schools was an “abhorrent ploy to destroy the future of the children” and blamed both the state government and separatists, calling the attackers “enemies of our children and the enemies of enlightenment.”

From purely a strategic point of view India needs to draw the attention of international community towards state sponsored terrorism in Pakistan. Theoretical understanding of the new world order through the lenses of functionalism and neo-functionalism needs to be redefined. The Indian Army has taken charge of the situation but several actions by the forces have received severe criticism by the mainstream media. The valley is burning and so is India. Dialogue may not be the way out. All this violence calls for serious mediation by the international community. With the US increasing its economic and military ties with India as a counterweight to China in South Asia, this may well be sooner than later.

By Leman Zeynalova

Oil prices can drop from the current level, if OPEC fails to reach an agreement, director of Downstream Consulting at IHS Markit, Spencer Welch told Trend Nov.3.

“We think the bottom of the market was in January 2016 when oil was below $30 per barrel,” he said. “Current prices are nearer $50 per barrel, and they could drop from this point, particularly if the OPEC meeting on Nov.30 fails to deliver it’s promised production cap of 32.5-33.0 million bbl/day of production (from OPEC).”

However, the expert said the IHS Markit does not think prices will go below $30 per barrel.

“Fundamentally, prices need to slowly rise to meet the cost of supply,” added Welch.

Touching upon the possibility of price peak, he pointed out that prices could go above $100 per barrel again, but IHS Markit does not expect this to happen before 2020.

IHS Markit believes that prices need to rise to cover the cost of finding and developing sufficient oil to meet global demand, added Welch.

“Short term, pre-2020, $100/bbl is possible, but it would need a significant unexpected loss of supply onto the market,” he said.

In September, OPEC producers agreed during the informal meeting to cut down the oil output to 32.5 million barrels per day (bpd) from current production of 33.24 million bpd.

How much each country will produce is to be decided at the next formal meeting of OPEC in November.

For the second time the dynamic Moroccan American Network led by its energetic President Mohamed El Hajjam will organize in April 2017 a CEO summit that will gather Moroccan American business leaders in Washington DC to debate and share ideas about adequate ways and venues to identify the best American and Moroccan companies as well as high-potential managers and leaders who are seeking joint ventures and business partnerships.

Speakers will include prominent members of the Washington and Moroccan American business communities, academics, experts, U.S. and Moroccan government officials, Entrepreneurs, Small Businesses, Women Entrepreneurs and others to explore small business opportunities in Morocco and the U.S.

“It is important to bring businesses and government together,” said Mohamed El Hajjam, the President of the Moroccan American Network. “The CEO Summit provides a platform for creating small business opportunities and highlighting the resources available to help small businesses become successful, such as through the Small Business Administration, and also with respect to U.S. government contracts.“

Because those with the right talent and experience are more likely to deliver results, businesses should begin their succession planning efforts by identifying and selecting leaders with a scientifically validated leadership talent assessment.

No amount of experience will turn an average leader into a great one. It’s equally important for businesses both in Morocco and the United States to prepare high-potential leaders with experiences that will develop this potential. When it comes to preparing emerging leaders for executive roles, very specific kinds of experiences benefit high-potential leaders most.

This is exactly what the upcoming CEO Summit is aiming to achieve. This summit will boast a large group of Moroccan-American successful business leaders who have gained a lot of experience and who now feel that this is the right time for them to share and make others in the US and Morocco benefit from their business expertise.

We all hope that this initiative will be followed by other similar ones to accompany the current of economic development in Morocco but more importantly, to stimulate joint ventures that will put into practice the agreements elaborated in the Free-Trade Agreement (FTA) signed by The United States and Morocco on March 2, 2004.

The agreement entered into force on January 1, 2006. The United States-Morocco FTA is a comprehensive agreement that supports the significant economic and political reforms that are underway in Morocco and provides for improved commercial opportunities for U.S. exports to Morocco by reducing and eliminating trade barriers.

This summit will provide a platform for exploring business opportunities, networking, B2B encounters, workshops, and exchanges of views, opinions, and best practices. It will certainly provide unparalleled opportunities for small business to engage into active dialogue with other business organizations, Government Officials, Entrepreneurs and other high profile leaders to discover smooth running of business opportunities both in Morocco and in the United States.

As it is known, Kashmir is the chief cause of tensions between heavily armed and nuclearized South Asian nations India and Pakistan, joint occupiers, along with veto power China, of Jammu Kashmir. China has taken a part of Azad Kashmir from Pakistani possession most probably on payment basis and does not ask for more lands from India which is eager to mend ways with Asian superpower so that Pakistan stands isolated internationally without any big supporter to question Indian action against Pakistan.

Since the world powers and UNSC have refused to end genocides in Kashmir perpetrated by Indian forces that enjoy special military powers gifted by the fanatic regime, Kashmir Muslim continue to die, falling victim to modern colonialism religiously promoted by India with blessing form USA and Russia. That is indeed Himalayan shame.

It looks like the South Asian nuclear giants are bent upon showcasing their prowess by engaging themselves in regular mutual clashes in order only to terrorize the Kashmiris besieged between them and find vital space in international media and forums. They have been successful.

Interestingly, both sides typically refute the other’s version of events. New Delhi protested against the alleged mutilation of the body of an Indian soldier by an attacker who escaped across the Line of Control after “committing this heinous crime”. The press wing of the Pakistani military said India had committed 178 cease-fire violations this year, killing 19 civilians and injuring 80 more.

India and Pakistan have been at loggerheads since a group of gunmen killed 19 Indian soldiers in September at an army camp in Kashmir, an attack India blamed on Pakistan-based militants. India said it had sent special commandos into Pakistan-controlled Kashmir to kill militants in a retaliatory operation that sharply soured relations between the neighbors. Pakistan says the operation never happened and accuses India of inventing it to distract attention from its crackdown on protests in the part of Kashmir it controls.

Cross fires, meant to make Kashmiris feel vulnerable, followed by cease-fire violations have been dominating the bilateral relations for years now with very little cross border trade taking place between them.

The countries’ heavily militarized frontier has been tense since, as their armed forces have frequently exchanged cross-border fire. Artillery duels and skirmishing along the disputed frontier that runs through Kashmir have escalated in recent days, leading India to summon the Pakistani deputy high commissioner to express its “grave concern and strong protest”. In a statement, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs accused Pakistan of violations of a 2003 ceasefire that have caused several fatalities and injuries among its civilians and security forces.

After initial overtures between the two prime ministers, Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan and Narendra Modi of India, relations continued to sour as ceasefire violations along the Kashmir border increased. But the two nuclear-armed neighbours have a long history of diplomatic spats but rarely have they publicly disclosed the identity of each other’s mission officials in the past.

India called off normalization talks with Pakistan in August 2014 just because the Pakistani high commissioner in Delhi feted pro-Pakistan freedom leaders from India occupied Jammu Kashmir. A year later, Pakistan called off a meeting of the two national security advisers in Delhi as war of words broke out between them. Soon afterwards, Pakistan replaced its civilian national security adviser with a retired army officer.

Diplomatic and military relations between India and Pakistan have deteriorated for weeks after a militant attack on an Indian army base in September that New Delhi blamed on Islamabad. In response to last month’s assault on an army base, in which 19 Indian soldiers were killed, the Indian army launched what it called surgical strikes on militants in territory controlled by Pakistan. Islamabad rejected India’s claims, saying Indian troops didn’t cross over to its side. India said it had carried out “surgical strikes” inside Pakistan as retribution, but Islamabad denied they even took place and accused New Delhi of fabrication to distract attention from its crackdown on the protests in the part of Kashmir it controls.

Diplomatic personnel and ambassadors have immunity to do whatever they want in foreign countries as their “right and privilege” but occasionally when one country wants to showcase its “specialty” to the world, it expels some diplomats on the famous espionage charges as if they are not supposed to do them.

Occasionally mutual expulsion of diplomats characterizes the level of their anger at a given point. Recently India and Pakistan announced they would each expel one of the other’s diplomats amid growing tension between the nuclear-armed arch-foes over the disputed region of Kashmir.

India expelled a Pakistani diplomat based in New Delhi who allegedly ran a spy ring that collected sensitive information about Indian security operations along its border. Soon Pakistan’s foreign ministry said it had declared an Indian diplomat, Surjeet Singh, persona non grata and given him 48 hours to leave the country. That is in response to Indian action insulting its Pakistani “guests”. Police in New Delhi said the Pakistani diplomat was detained on Wednesday outside the gates to Delhi Zoo, where he had met two Indian associates whom police believe he had recruited to spy for him. That is well written usual story. Police accused the Pakistani official, Mahmood Akhtar, of illegally collecting information about India’s security operations on the countries’ tense border.

India accused a Pakistani diplomat of spying and ordered him to leave the country, prompting Islamabad to expel an Indian official in retaliation, as relations between the nuclear-armed neighbors continued to sour. Police in New Delhi accused the Pakistani official, Mahmood Akhtar, of illegally collecting information about India’s security operations on the countries’ tense border. He was declared persona non grata for alleged “espionage activities,” India’s Foreign Ministry spokesman said Akhtar must leave India by next day, authorities said. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said the allegations were “false and unsubstantiated” and condemned what it called “the detention and manhandling” of the official.

Later as expected, Pakistan’s foreign ministry announced it had declared Singh persona non grata and informed the Indian High Commission he had until Saturday to leave the country. The statement said Singh was accused of activities “that were in violation of the Vienna Convention and the established diplomatic norms” but did not elaborate.

An aide to India’s prime minister in New Delhi said the government was looking into the matter. India’s external affairs ministry spokesman was not immediately available for comment. Pakistan’s High Commission in New Delhi rejected the allegations, saying in a statement it “never engages in any activity that is incompatible with its diplomatic status”. Its Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Surjeet Singh was involved in activities that violated diplomatic norms, but didn’t provide any further details of his alleged missteps.

In an apparent tit-for-tat move, Pakistan announced the expulsion of an official at the Indian High Commission in Islamabad. Its Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Surjeet Singh was involved in activities that violated diplomatic norms, but didn’t provide any further details of his alleged missteps. Indian police said that Akhtar, who worked as an assistant to Pakistan’s trade counselor in the embassy in New Delhi, had been recruiting Indian informants for 18 months and obtained from them details about the deployment of security forces on the border, including maps and staffing lists.

As planned, Akhtar was detained on October 26 at a New Delhi zoo where he was collecting sensitive documents pertaining to national security from two of his Indian associates, said India’s Foreign Ministry. Akhtar—a former Pakistani soldier who reported to the country’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, police said—was taken to a police station for questioning and later released after he invoked diplomatic immunity. Police said they arrested the two Indian men, who they claimed were part of Akhtar’s network. One is a teacher in the border state of Rajasthan and the other is a businessman, said a senior Indian police official, who declined to provide details on how these men allegedly obtained sensitive documents and information.

The latest diplomatic incident has further strained ties that have grown increasingly fraught over national-security issues. India accuses Pakistan of providing training and logistical support to militants who cross the border into India to carry out attacks. Islamabad denies the allegations.

When Pakistan decided to expel two alleged Indian RAW agents from the Indian High Commission in Islamabad, in the guise of diplomats are running a terror unit in Pakistan. They include Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri and Baleer Singh. They are working as Commercial Counselor and Press Information Secretary respectively. The diplomats have been found to be involved in activities to destabilize Pakistan by facilitating and funding terrorism,” sources revealed to the media outlet. According to sources, Indian diplomatic official Surjeet Singh who was recently expelled by Pakistan was also part of the network.

In response to last month’s assault on an army base in Uri in occupied Kashmir, in which 19 Indian soldiers were killed, the Indian army launched what it called surgical strikes on militants in Kashmir territory controlled by Pakistan. Islamabad rejected India’s claims, saying Indian troops didn’t cross over to its side. The countries’ heavily militarized frontier has been tense since, as their armed forces have frequently exchanged cross-border fire.

Akhtar—a former Pakistani soldier who reported to the country’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, police said—was taken to a police station for questioning and later released after he invoked diplomatic immunity. Indian police said that Akhtar, who worked as an assistant to Pakistan’s trade counselor in the embassy in New Delhi, had been recruiting Indian informants for 18 months and obtained from them details about the deployment of security forces on the border, including maps and staffing lists.

Police said they arrested the two Indians, who they claimed were part of Akhtar’s network. One is a teacher in a mosque in the border state of Rajasthan and the other is a struggling businessman, said a senior Indian police official, who declined to provide details on how these men allegedly obtained sensitive documents and information.

The expulsion of Akhtar takes place as New Delhi seeks consular access to an Indian man, Kulbhushan Yadav, whom Pakistan arrested seven months ago, claiming he is an Indian naval officer and a spy trying to destabilize parts of the country. New Delhi has denied that Yadav was working for the Indian government. India’s Foreign Ministry said he had retired from the Navy and ran a business in Iran, from where he may have been abducted. Pakistan has denied Indian requests for consular access to Yadav, who hasn’t been charged.

Without questioning the logic of allowing special immunity guarantees to foreign embassy personnel, India just accused a Pakistani diplomat of spying and ordered him to leave the country, prompting Islamabad to expel an Indian official in retaliation, as relations between the nuclear-armed neighbors continued to sour.

Also without criticizing the rule of immunity harming national interests, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said the allegations were “false and unsubstantiated” and condemned what it called “the detention and manhandling” of the official. In an apparent tit-for-tat move, Pakistan announced the expulsion of an official at the Indian High Commission in Islamabad.

India accuses Pakistan of providing training and logistical support to militants who cross the border into India to carry out attacks. Islamabad denies the allegations. India says that there was high probability that the information passed on by these “anti-national elements” to PIO (Pakistan intelligence operative) is being used against the national interests and could be highly detrimental for national security, adding they had been trying to break the spy ring for six months.

Observation

One is not sure Indian action followed refusal by the Pakistani official to give visa to any ant–Pakistani persons. That action would have offended New Delhi had its agents were denied Pakistani visa. The Pakistani diplomat, who reportedly worked in Pakistan High Commission’s visa section, and his alleged Indian accomplices were found with forged documents, defense-related maps, deployment charts and lists of officers working along India’s border with Pakistan, Indian police said in a statement.

One is not sure Indian action followed refusal by the Pakistani official to give visa to any ant–Pakistani persons. That action would have offended New Delhi had its agents were denied Pakistani visa. The Pakistani diplomat, who reportedly worked in Pakistan High Commission’s visa section, and his alleged Indian accomplices were found with forged documents, defense-related maps, deployment charts and lists of officers working along India’s border with Pakistan, Indian police said in a statement.

In response to last month’s assault on an army base, in which 19 Indian soldiers were killed, the Indian army launched what it called surgical strikes on militants in territory controlled by Pakistan. Islamabad rejected India’s claims, saying Indian troops didn’t cross over to its side. The countries’ heavily militarized frontier has been tense since, as their armed forces have frequently exchanged cross-border fire.

The diplomatic spat over suspicion of espionage comes after months of sharply deteriorating relations that began with civil unrest in Indian-controlled Kashmir and Pakistan’s global lobbying against New Delhi’s crackdown on the Kashmiri activists.

Indian and Pakistani troops face off against each other along the de facto border in divided Kashmir – a region they both claim in full but control in part – and have exchanged fire several times this week in cross-border shelling. Vikas Swarup, spokesman of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, said six Pakistani diplomats have already left the Indian capital but said they had not been expelled. Pakistan declined to comment on the matter ahead of a planned news conference, while India said the identity of eight of its diplomats had been revealed by Pakistani media. Pakistan has expelled six Indian diplomats for espionage and has revealed their names, local media said on Wednesday, a move sure to exacerbate a rift between the nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours that has been widening for months.

As a usual profitable strategy, India accuses Pakistan of providing training and logistical support to militants who cross the border into India to carry out attacks. Islamabad denies the allegations. India accused a Pakistani diplomat of spying and ordered him to leave the country, prompting Islamabad to expel an Indian official in retaliation, as relations between the nuclear-armed neighbors continued to sour. The latest diplomatic incident has further strained ties that have grown increasingly fraught over national-security issues.

Obviously, the special privileges like immunity have been exploited by countries through their respective embassies to conduct espionage and divisive operations against the host country. Though such activities re immoral and illegal, the immunity the personnel possess enable them to undertake such heinous acts of treason. Counties like USA, UK and Russia do this more than the rest but their veto on UN saves them from any punitive measures by the affected nations that are helpless and vulnerable. Therefore, if countries wish to have genuine diplomatic work in other countries must seek to do away with immunity right and push for ending the veto status for some countries against the weak one.

Otherwise there is no point in complaining and expelling diplomatic personnel for doing what they are expected by their governments to do abroad, expecting retaliatory explosion from the affected ones. India and Pakistan also must join hands to do away with immunity and veto system on UN.

It is a fact, that Pakistani sad preachment has been caused directly by its neighbor India wanting a free say in controlling Jammu Kashmir, committing genocides as freely as jungle beasts. In fact, Pakistan got panic when India manufactured nukes with Russian help and would certainly bullied Islamabad posing itself as the boss of the region, even if would not have used them against Pakistan. As Pakistani regime spent most of its resources for military apparatus in order to defend itself from any possible Indian attacks it has little resources left for spending on poor and sports. That is exactly what Indian stalwarts wanted so that India could advance it interest, both legal and illegal, to make itself strong. It has achieved that while Pakistan has become an empty nation, bullied by every third rate nation – eventually getting nuclear facility to equate Indian threat. Indian fanatics keep pushing the government to attack Pakistani and force it to sub-serve Indian interests. Anti-Islamic forces, led by USA and India, conspired to destabilize Pakistan in order to promote Indian interests.

Now Pakistan must forget about paper tiger called India and begin planning for the overall development of the nation as a truly Islamic country to make the youth strong to face th challenges of the modern world in all domains, including sports- forget about the bogus sport known as cricket which does not let Pakistan focus n real sports and economy.

By Rajeesh Kumar

The recent United Nations Security Council meeting on cooperation between the UN and regional organizations in preserving international peace and security underlined the urgency of a collective response through regional and global partnerships. At the meeting, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that the UN is working to strengthen collaboration with regional organizations in line with Charter provisions relating to regional arrangements. He also observed that ‘in that way, we can make the most of our respective strengths.’ Though no one questions the promise of such partnerships, there are many impediments in practically achieving it as is evident from past partnership missions of the UN.

The UN Charter preserves the rights of Member States to form regional arrangements for dealing with peace and security issues, and the primary role of such agencies is stated in Chapter VIII of the Charter. The Charter asks members of the UN to make efforts to achieve the pacific settlement of local disputes through regional arrangements before referring them to the Security Council. This confirms the fact that the UN does not have a monopoly on the issues of peace and security. Nonetheless, the Charter prohibits enforcement actions by regional organizations without prior authorization from the Security Council. Though the provisions that recognize the responsibility of regional organizations are present in the Charter, throughout the Cold War period the UN showed limited interest in making use of these regional arrangements to maintain international peace and security. The Cold War power politics and consequent stalemate in the Security Council were the major challenges in this period.

After the end of the Cold War, it was the unwillingness of Western member states and the failure of the UN to respond promptly to humanitarian emergencies that led to a rethink about regional organizations playing a role in preventing conflicts and maintaining peace and security. Rwanda, Somalia, and Sudan stand as examples in this regard. These failures and reluctance also fetched many criticisms over the irresponsible approach of the UN towards the many instances of genocide and crimes against humanity in Africa. Together, these factors compelled the international community to search for a more realistic way to address conflicts and restore international peace and stability.

Further, at the regional level as well, the environment became more conducive to develop regional partnerships. The possibility of the contagious effect of regional conflicts and consequently lesser reluctance among regional countries to play a role as well as their greater knowledge about these conflicts increased the potentials and promises of regional partnerships. For many post-colonial states, national security was also linked to regional security. Finally, the functionalist logic of seeing regional integration as an engine to promote peace also contributed to this development.

Africa was the first test ground for this regional partnership for peace. The cry for ‘African solutions to African problems’ was the primary stimulus. It was the UN’s realization of its incapability in finding durable solutions to conflicts in Africa which resulted in many resolutions and agreements related to regional partnerships. The agreement with the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1965, and the General Assembly and Security Council resolutions such as 43/12(1988), 48/25(1993), 50/158 (1995), S/RES/2167 and S/RES/2033 are some of the documents that later became the source of the UN’s regional partnership in Africa.1 Subsequently, the United Nations signed similar agreements with many other regional and sub-regional organizations, such as the European Union (EU), Organization of African States (OAS), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), etc. In practice, however, the record of collaboration between the UN and regional organizations has not measured up to the promises originally framed in these documents. Failure of coordination in the field, the interests of dominant regional powers, lack of top level political contacts, and institutional differences among regional partners have been some of the significant challenges in this regard.

The United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) is a good example of in terms of highlighting the problems associated with regional partnerships in peace. UNAMID was the first ever hybrid peacekeeping mission and the most expensive endeavour ever undertaken by the UN. The mission was authorized by Security Council resolution 1769 in 2007, and it proposed political, financial, logistical and military burden sharing between the UN and AU. Currently, with 20,616 peacekeepers and an annual budget of USD 1.39 billion, UNAMID is the largest peacekeeping mission in the world. The core mandate of the mission is the protection of civilians.

As the above facts show, the expectation was rather high when UNAMID was established. However, the discrepancies between the mandate of UNAMID and its operational abilities ensured that the regional partnership became a failure. The alleged mass rape of 221 women by the Sudanese Army in 2014 and the lukewarm response from UNAMID exposed the inability of the mission to perform its primary mandate of protecting civilians. Despite the presence of peacekeepers, more than 3,000 villages in Darfur were burnt by the Sudanese Armed Forces in 2014 alone. However, no concrete action was taken by UNAMID in protecting civilians at the time of these incidents. The mission also failed to provide security for the Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs).

It is the structural weakness that has been the primary reason for the failure of UNAMID in performing its core mandate, which is that of protecting civilians. The mission was an outcome of a compromise between the United Nations and the African Union. The UN Security Council viewed the partnership as a tool for securing access to the conflict zones in Darfur and as a way to get troops from African countries for the mission. Lack of sufficient funds and logistics were the two major factors that enfeebled almost all peacekeeping missions of the AU in the region. Therefore, the AU’s interest in the partnership stemmed from the huge resources at the disposal of the UN. This resulted in an asymmetric and overlapping mission in Darfur which eventually could never act promptly and appropriately.

Like UNAMID, many other regional partnership missions of the UN can also be characterised as failures. Certainly, regional and sub-regional organizations with greater local knowledge and local personnel can contribute much towards resolving conflicts and making peace. But the regional partnership for peace idea could never get translated into praxis. To bring this vision into practice, some critical issues with existing partnerships need to be fixed. Firstly, there should be a change in the mind-set of both the international and regional communities in viewing each other as partners only because there are ‘no other options.’ Most of the regional partnerships of the UN were the outcomes of compulsion, and the actors themselves were suspicious about the competence of the partnership. Secondly, it is necessary to rectify the inferior/superior attitudes among the partner institutions. Regional organizations are definitely diverse and they vary much in their capacities, and, therefore, the partners must respect each other. More innovative and flexible partnership agreements that draw on the strengths of the respective organizations and an overt definition of ‘comparative advantages’ of the organizations involved could be helpful in addressing these two issues. The third issue is regarding the lack of coordination at the operational level. This can be resolved by establishing institutional incentives and coordination objectives. Finally and most importantly, it is necessary to analyse and understand the political interest of regional powers before forging a regional partnership. In the final analysis, these are highly complex issues and not easily resolvable. Consequently, regional partnerships are likely to have limited utility in promoting peace and stability.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India. Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/idsacomments/can-stronger-regional-partnerships-un-promote-global-stability_rkumar_041116

1. The issue of cooperation between the UN and AU was first considered in the twentieth session of the General Assembly in September 1965. Then, OAU signed a cooperation agreement with the UN on 15 November 1965. The GA and SC resolutions 43/12(1988), 48/25(1993), 50/158 (1995), S/RES/2167 and S/RES/2033 emphasized the need of cooperation between the UN and regional and sub-regional organizations in Africa.

By Michael Hart

Since the early 1990s, China’s remarkable economic growth has led to a dramatic increase in its domestic energy needs, prompting its state-owned national oil companies (NOCs) to embark upon a worldwide search for oil and gas reserves. This strategy has been successful in diversifying import sources and satisfying the demands of a growing economy, yet at the same time has increased dependence on politically-unstable suppliers in Africa and the Middle East. Within the last decade this has raised concerns in Beijing, leading the Chinese government to focus on locating reserves and improving energy infrastructure closer to home in Southeast Asia, placing neighboring Myanmar at the heart of its ambitious strategy to ensure energy security for generations to come.

China has been the dominant external actor in Myanmar’s fast-growing energy sector since the mid-2000s, tempted by the opportunity to build and finance projects on its doorstep in a previously military-led authoritarian country where many Western governments refused to operate. Despite the introduction of reforms in Myanmar since 2011, the partnership between the two countries appears to have grown stronger, with stable bilateral relations based on trade, investment, and energy co-operation. However, since pro-democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi was elected Myanmar’s de-facto leader in the historic election of November 2015, many have highlighted the country’s sensitivity towards China’s growing influence in the region. At present, it can be questioned whether China will retain its leading role in Myanmar’s lucrative energy sector, amidst uncertainty over Chinese-financed projects and growing competition from India and the West.

In terms of China’s energy security, Myanmar is of vital geostrategic significance given its access to the Indian Ocean and Andaman Sea. China sought to take advantage of Myanmar’s potential as an overland transportation route through launching the China-Myanmar Oil and Gas Pipeline project, which began construction in 2009. The initial agreement was signed in 2008 between China’s National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and Myanmar’s Ministry of Energy; it sought to build a US$2.3bn crude oil pipeline and a US$2bn natural gas pipeline spanning the length of the country, running from ports on the west coast to mainland China. With both projects now completed, the natural gas pipeline extends for 793km to Yunnan province, transporting gas from the Shwe natural gas fields off the Arakan Coast. China was awarded exclusive purchasing rights back in 2008, as part of an agreement to export 6.5tn cubic feet of natural gas from the Shwe fields to China over the next 30 years. The oil pipeline is also now operational, running parallel to the gas pipeline and covering a distance of 771km, transporting oil from the Middle East and Africa to Southwest China.

The completion of the work in 2013 can be viewed as a crucial step in China’s broader energy diversification strategy, enabling China to overcome the vulnerability associated with having to ship vital energy resources through the narrow Malacca Strait and the contested waters of the South China Sea. Instead, the pipelines provide an alternative land route for China’s valuable oil and gas imports. The Myanmar oil pipeline alone transfers 22 million tons of crude oil annually, accounting for more than 10% of China’s total oil imports. The gas pipeline supplies 10 billion cubic metres of natural gas to China per year, whilst Chinese investment in Myanmar’s production facilities will increase total natural gas production in the country to 24 billion cubic meters by 2020.

The project has been described as ‘win-win’ by politicians and oil industry executives in both countries, through deepening regional integration and providing further economic opportunities. A road and railway is expected to be built along the length of the pipelines, enhancing connectivity and economic interaction between Myanmar and China’s southern provinces. In particular, the project will bring development opportunities to China’s landlocked provinces of Yunnan and Sichuan, helping to alleviate energy shortages and reduce the cost of petroleum. The pipelines have also brought mutual benefits in terms of bi-lateral trade. According to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, bi-lateral trade increased from US$29.1bn to US$44.4bn in the year after construction on the two pipelines began, with 40% of the total being between Myanmar and Yunnan province. The new infrastructure will also help Myanmar reduce its dependence on Thailand as a resource export market and as a source of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), with China providing a huge challenge to Thailand’s long-term position as Myanmar’s most important trading partner. Myanmar’s own energy security is also set to be enhanced, as under the terms of the agreement Myanmar is entitled to use two million tons of the transported crude oil per year for its own domestic consumption.

Whilst the project has undoubtedly been a huge success for both China and Myanmar, it is important to also consider the development of Myanmar’s energy sector as part of a larger picture, involving competition between Asia’s two economic giants: China and India. India has a similarly strong geostrategic interest in Myanmar, which is rapidly emerging as the center point in a battle between the continent’s two economic powerhouses to secure energy resources for their burgeoning populations. India and Myanmar share a land border more than 1,600km in length, whilst both of their coastlines outline the Bay of Bengal. Myanmar’s location is vital to the realization of India’s ‘Look East’ policy, through which it is seeking to reorient its foreign policy towards East Asia in an attempt to counter-balance China’s growing influence, whilst achieving a greater level of energy security. In the same way that China aims to use the pipelines to unlock its southwestern provinces, India sees the potential to develop its isolated northeastern region by improving links with neighboring Myanmar.

Myanmar’s energy sector has now emerged as a clear marker of the growing rivalry between China and India, with both countries anxious to secure new hydrocarbon reserves and take advantage of overland transportation routes to the Indian Ocean. It is China however which has emerged the victor so far. Prior to the construction of the pipelines, an intense bidding war between the two nations had developed over gaining exclusive rights to the lucrative A1 and A3 blocks in the Shwe gas fields, which were eventually awarded to China in 2008. China was able to outmaneuver India through its sheer financial clout and greater experience in the global energy industry, establishing an early advantage over its rival and gaining a decisive foothold in Myanmar’s energy sector.

Aside from competition over Myanmar’s resources with other states, China is also facing mounting difficulties in relation to some of its ongoing projects within Myanmar. The pipeline project itself had considerable challenges which needed to be overcome, not to mention the high cost of the project at more than US$5 billion. Additionally, the pipelines had to travel across diverse terrain and through areas of persistent ethnic conflict, whilst always being at risk of causing public discontent due to a lack of direct benefits or job opportunities for local people.

Away from the oil and gas sector, the Myitsone Dam hydroelectric project has been far more controversial. The project on the Irrawaddy River was due to generate up to 6000 megawatts of electricity for Yunnan province and was scheduled for completion in 2017, yet was dramatically cancelled by former president Thein Sein in 2011, after intense pressure from various interest groups. Opponents criticized the project over concerns of irreversible environmental damage, whilst also raising concerns over the livelihoods of the thousands of people who would have been permanently displaced. The project remains suspended amidst allegations of corruption and a lack of transparency, typifying the wider concerns of the Myanmar people over Chinese-sponsored projects across the country. Their argument is often reinforced by the fact that power shortages are still common in Myanmar, whilst 90% of the electricity generated by hydroelectric projects is exported to China and neighboring Thailand.

The 2012 closure of the Letpadaung copper mine in Myanmar’s northwest further raised public alarm over Chinese involvement in the country’s energy industry. The mine was shut down following concerns over environmental damage, yet was allowed to re-open in March 2013 after a parliamentary commission led by then-opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi carried out an investigation into its operations. Critics cited the commission’s report – which gave the go-ahead for the mine to re-open – as a clear example of the government’s refusal to stand-up to Chinese firms.

Despite the continuation of widespread Chinese involvement in the mining, hydrocarbon and hydroelectric power sectors, an increasing number of Chinese-backed projects across Myanmar are in a state of political uncertainty. The introduction of reforms in recent years has ushered in a period of increased transparency requirements, exposing the often corrupt nature of previous arrangements and creating an environment in which the public is more willing to criticize and protest against Chinese-funded projects.

Now that the National League for Democracy (NLD) – led by veteran pro-democracy campaigner Aung San Suu Kyi – has assumed power, the involvement of China in Myanmar’s energy sector has come under even greater scrutiny. The eyes of policymakers and analysts around the world are focused on whether the new Myanmar will seek to either distance itself from its giant northern neighbor, or alternatively decide to spark an era of enhanced co-operation with Beijing.

Whilst Myanmar’s new NLD-led government was only formed in March, so far it has appeared willing to cautiously embrace renewed engagement with China. In August, Aung San Suu Kyi made an official five-day visit to Beijing – her first visit to a major capital outside of ASEAN since becoming Myanmar’s leader. During the visit, the two countries signed an agreement to enhance co-operation between energy departments, whilst Myanmar’s government announced that it had set up a 20-member parliamentary commission to review the Myitsone Dam suspension, and also to investigate other on-going and proposed hydroelectric projects across the country. The announcement is a signal that Myanmar is now more flexible with regard to its position on the US$3.6 billion Myitsone Dam project, and is open to the potential of either re-starting the project in the future or accepting a series of smaller scale projects as an alternative.

During the visit, Aung San Suu Kyi – who is officially Myanmar’s foreign minister owing to a controversial constitutional clause that prevents her from being named president – met with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. Both leaders talked of ‘mutual respect’ between the two countries and spoke in favor of ‘pragmatic co-operation’ to achieve win-win results. Whilst Ms. Suu Kyi has advocated a ‘neutral’ foreign policy approach, she labelled ties with China as ‘highly valued’ and said that Myanmar would ’promote further energy co-operation’ between the two nations. Myanmar’s new political era may only be in its initial stages, yet it appears that despite being wary of getting too close to Beijing, the country’s leaders recognize the economic necessity of working together and the opportunities that may arise from Chinese investment – especially when it comes to energy.

Overall, despite the challenges posed in recent years, China retains significant leverage and influence in Myanmar’s energy sector. In contrast to a decade ago, Chinese companies are operating in an environment characterized by heightened competition, greater transparency, and a higher degree of public scrutiny; yet Chinese-sponsored projects in Myanmar’s energy sector look set to continue. Due to the two countries’ relative geographical size, population, and economic capabilities, the relationship between China and Myanmar is inevitably going to remain asymmetrical, yet it must be recognized that China is providing Myanmar with much-needed hard infrastructure, creating a mutually-beneficial economic relationship and integrated energy partnership that will drive development across Myanmar and in China’s southwestern provinces.

The Oil and Gas Pipeline Project in particular has significantly strengthened bi-lateral relations, based on the need for greater mutual energy security and sustained by a deliberate strategy of long-term energy diplomacy on the part of China. However, the project can also be viewed as a key component in a wider vision: that of regional economic integration and energy inter-dependence in Asia. ASEAN has proposed the construction of a trans-ASEAN gas pipeline network by 2020, whilst India has ambitions to invest in energy infrastructure across the sub-continent. In this context, the China-Myanmar pipeline project could eventually constitute a vital part of a future regional energy complex, based on a large-scale integrated pipeline network which may be essential for meeting the future energy needs of China, India, and the surrounding region. Whilst the exact nature of the future regional energy landscape remains uncertain, it is clear that Myanmar – as a resource-rich and geo-strategically important state nestled between Asia’s two largest economies – will continue to occupy a central position in regional energy diplomacy for decades to come.

This article was published at Geopolitical Monitor.com

Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, couldn’t catch a break in America, even before the U.S. intelligence community concluded that the Russian government had hacked the Democratic National Committee’s e-mails and had given them to Wikileaks for public release. After Putin’s annexation of Crimea and meddling in the Ukrainian and Syrian Civil Wars, the U.S. government and media long soured on the macho man.

Yes, Putin is an autocrat who snuffed out democracy in Russia and wants to regain some of Russia’s status in the world long after the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. Yet the U.S. government, the world champion of unneeded military interventions around the globe since World War II and currently running simultaneous wars in at least seven countries, has little room to talk. In fact, one doesn’t have to like Dictator Putin to make a reasonable argument that the U.S. expansion of a hostile military alliance—NATO—eastward right to the borders of the defeated and downtrodden Russia after the Cold War ended, led to the rise of the nationalist Putin in the first place and compelled him to salvage what he could of his traditional sphere of influence in Ukraine, Crimea, Moldova, and Georgia. As for Putin’s intervention in Syria, he is trying to rescue the even more despotic Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Russia’s only ally in the Middle East and a country not strategic to the United States.

However, generally, Russia is much weaker than its “resurgent” depiction by the American media, which is always willing to find a cartoonishly diabolical villain with which the United States can joust for global supremacy. The Russia has been severely affected by low oil prices—a mainstay of the Russian economy—and Western economic sanctions imposed because of Russian meddling in Ukraine and Crimea. For the first time in Putin’s long tenure as the Russian strongman, the country’s incomes are declining. Much of Putin’s increased bluster overseas might be explained as a distraction from Russia’s ills at home.

The long economic recession will lead to the substantial reduction of Russia’s defense spending by six percent annually for the next three years, at a time when U.S defense spending is beginning to needlessly increase again. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States already spends more than six times what Russia does on defense and more than what the next seven highest spending countries combined expend on their militaries—including China and Russia. Also, this vast advantage in American military spending has been cumulative ever since the end of the Cold War, leading to a widening advantage of the U.S. military over other militaries, including Russia’s.

Thus, although Putin has recently exhibited military bluster, it hides military and domestic weakness. For example, with much fanfare, Russia recently sent its single obsolete aircraft carrier (the United States has 10 powerful modern carriers)—the Admiral Kuznetsov—to the Syrian coast to help Assad in his civil war. Yet what was supposed to be an impressive show of force to show that Kremlin is back as a maritime power turned out to be a bit of an embarrassment, because the decrepit carrier, prone to breakdowns, had to be accompanied by an oceangoing tugboat in case of mechanical trouble. The New York Times lampooned the carrier as a “lumbering tub fit for the scrap heap,” “something of a lemon from the start,” and “known more as a threat to its crew than anything else.”

In the long term, Russia faces potential economic decline because of a demographic crisis—as its population ages rapidly. And all the grandiose talk about costly new Russian military bases in Egypt, Vietnam, and Cuba is likely to be a ghost ship that will crash on the shoals Russia’s money problems and the lukewarm response of host countries.

However, despite Russia’s weakness and the general exaggeration of that country’s threat to American security, the U.S. intelligence community believes that to attempt to influence the U.S. presidential election, Putin’s Russia was behind the audacious hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s e-mails and their subsequent distribution to Wikileaks. While Hillary Clinton had previously drawn Putin’s ire for criticizing a Russian election, and the United States has a history of meddling in other countries’ elections (which should stop), any foreign meddling in U.S. elections—critical to America’s system of government—needs to be quickly stanched. Fully defending the vast and decentralized American election system from attack is difficult, but such hacking can be deterred in the future by retaliating in kind on Russia’s computer systems with superior U.S. cyber attacking capabilities. For example, after the U.S. election is safely over, perhaps Moscow’s lights need to be turned off for a couple of days.

An aggressive U.S. posture toward Russia is unneeded—especially in areas not strategic to the United States, such as Crimea, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and Syria—and, to counter a rising China, general U.S.-Russian relations should be improved, but U.S. elections are too important to the republic to allow Russia or any other country to feel that they can try to manipulate them without retaliation.

This article was published at Huffington Post and is reprinted with permission.

By Sam Husseini*

I regularly have breakfast with two other Arab American journalists at the Press Club in Washington, D.C. One is planning on voting for Hillary Clinton because of Donald Trump’s xenophobia and misogyny.

The other journalist plans to vote for Trump because he believes Clinton’s foreign policy will escalate the U.S. wars in Syria and elsewhere, which will lead to even more human devastation.

Polls conducted by Arab American organizations, including ArabAmerica.com, indicate that their views are not isolated. The Arab American community is split about which of the two candidates are, in fact, the worse of two evils.

Rather than voting for either disappointing candidate, I propose the following solution: Arab Americans should unite using VotePact.org and pair up. Instead of voting for candidates they don’t like to try to stop candidates they hate, people can strategically vote for candidates they actually want. What they would have to do is join together and both agree to vote for third parties of their choice: Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka of the Green Party, or Gary Johnson and Bill Weld of the Libertarian Party, or whoever you most want.

My two friends can do this. Perhaps you can do this. Perhaps many people you know can do this.

Many Arab Americans and others rightly spoke up against Trump and Clinton when they both told Muslims that they had so “report” what they see – as if what fuels terrorism is the complicity of Arab and Muslim Americans.

But in another sense, it’s true that Arab Americans do have a special responsibility to report what they see: Two campaigns that offer either bigotry on the one hand, or warmongering on the other. Since the Arab American community is significantly split as to which is worse, the opportunity is open for the community to substantially get behind their true preferences: Candidates that reject both the corruption and perpetual war that Clinton personifies, as well as the demagoguery and degradation of women and minorities that Trump represents.

*Sam Husseini is founder of the website VotePac.org. This article was first published in Arab Americans. It is republished with permission from the author PalestineChronicle.com.

Whatever happens patronage, not notional civic politics, will remain the bedrock structure of political, economic, and social organization in the Balkans—and not just the Balkans. Successors to Djukanovic, Dodik, and Abdic will prosper (as will their patronal clients) if they learn from their predecessors’ examples, while treating the playbooks forced on them by Western viceroys and NGOs only as formal theater.

By David B. Kanin*

Recent election results in the Balkans have reinforced what by now should be an obvious point: in the Balkans — and not just the Balkans — when given a free choice voters will support notables with a track record for taking care of them rather than politicians or rhetorical principles imposed from outside their communities. Patronage involves opacity, intimidation and—sometimes—violence. It also nourishes and protects its clients, whether it operates in the context of democratic, oligarchic, or autocratic forms. Patrons, functionaries, and clients adapt to prevailing political contexts as easily as they change clothes. The political theories and processes we study, teach, and discuss provide playing fields for inter-patronal competition but otherwise are empty vessels.

Therefore, there is little analytic value to any notion that recent elections and other developments in the Balkans mark some sort of democratic backsliding. There has been no tangible progress toward democracy to backslide from. However political power is taken, assigned, shared, or transferred, the patronal engines currently amassing and distributing resources work pretty much the way similar set-ups did in the time of Osman Pasvanoglu, Ali Pasha, Nikola Pasic, Ahmed Zogu, Alexander Rankovic, Branko Mikulic, or Slobodan Milosevic.

Invoking these figures provides a recognizable segue to consideration of Milo Djukanovic. It does not matter what job title he has—or if he has one at all—or the conditions under which elections are held and monitored. Djukanovic continues to dominate Montenegro much as he has for the past two decades. Electoral results, however cobbled together, have reflected the country’s balance between those who consider themselves Montenegrin and those who believe they are part of a larger Serbian universe (a little more work was perhaps necessary in 2006 to ensure the results met Western demands regarding size of turnout and of the majority voting in favor of independence).

The recent election in Montenegro was interesting in that it was the first in which the Russians directly took on Djukanovic. Western desires regarding Podgorica’s behavior were less interesting—having gone in for pennies, the West is in for the full pound regarding the Montenegrin strongman. Djukanovic had undertaken overlapping efforts to raise cash by selling real estate to the Russians and citizenship to Westerners. As Moscow discovered, ownership of beachfronts and other material goods would not derail Djukanovic’s decision to join NATO.

The Russians put together something called the Democratic Front to blunt his domination at the polls. This class A competition between election engineers left Djukanovic without a majority but the Opposition with a less than strong chance of preventing him from forming the next government. Whether or not reports of plots against Djukanovic’s position and/or life are true,[1] he appears once again to have emerged relatively unscathed from competition with internal and external adversaries.

It is not entirely clear whether Djukanovic can prevent his opponents from forcing a referendum on NATO membership, but his public statements suggest he believes he can do so. In any case, it is not clear that his latest resignation is any more serious than its predecessors. At the same time, the fact of his “resignation” raises a real problem raced by all patronage bosses—when they decide they really do want to retire or relinquish power, how can they do so without being arrested or killed?

MIlorad Dodik not only will face that issue one day, but the “Republika Srpska” (RS) he dominates is a more fragile than Djukanovic’s Montenegrin state. It exists as part of an arrangement made in two stages. It should not be forgotten that the Bosniak-Croat Federation was created in the Washington Agreement, forced down Bosniak and Croat throats almost two years before being folded into the current Bosnia at Dayton. The unitary RS works better than the still mutually unwanted Federation, but sits uneasily among the notional Bosnia, a Serbia that keeps it Dodik and his internal rivals at arms length, a Croatia on which it depends economically but which has little interest in its welfare (including that of Zagreb’s Croat constituency south of the Sava), and Great Powers more concerned with their great competition than with anything going on locally.

Dodik has used his constituents’ proven aversion to Bosnia to survive a more serious than usual internal challenge. To do so, he massaged his tried and true tactic of manipulating threats of referenda to remind his patronage network and associates of his skills and to elicit the usual international bluster that serves him so well. Previously, he had used the word “secession” liberally while carefully keeping it out of any actual questions he placed before his voters. This time he carried out a referendum that included what he said it would, but watered it down after the fact to defuse tensions with the Western overseers.

Dodik’s longer-term problem is that his interests really are not served in any other formal set-up than the current dysfunctional Bosnia he professes to hate so much. An effective federal system would bring him to heel. Actual separation from the Dayton arrangement would leave the RS either part of a Serbia in which Dodik would become a small player, or on its own without resources and dependent on a Russian regime to which he is an even smaller player. His situation is more Humpty-Dumpty than Goldilocks, but so far this seems to work for him.

Fikret Abdic has held together his patronal system longer and under more trying circumstances than either Djukanovic or Dodik. He survived federal Yugoslav scrutiny of his Communist-era Agrokomerc enterprise, crafted successful working arrangements with many participants in the wars of Yugoslav Dissolution, was thrown in jail by Croatian interests who believed they could get along without him, and was branded a war criminal by the ever-self-righteous West. Through it all he has retained the loyalty of tens of thousand of patronal clients in Velika Kladusa because they know he will take care of him and no one else will. Abdic—who is more “multi-cultural” in his behavior than any of Bosnia’s mainstream politicians—demonstrated how effective patronage politics work by being elected Mayor of Velika Kladusa in local elections on October 2. At 77, it is not clear how long he has left as an active patronage boss and local politician, and the time he already has spent incarcerated demonstrates he is not immune from the retirement/succession uncertainties affecting his counterparts in Podgorica and Banja Luka. Still, he continues to have a remarkably good run.

Whatever happens patronage, not notional civic politics, will remain the bedrock structure of political, economic, and social organization in the Balkans—and not just the Balkans. Successors to Djukanovic, Dodik, and Abdic will prosper (as will their patronal clients) if they learn from their predecessors’ examples, while treating the playbooks forced on them by Western viceroys and NGOs only as formal theater.

*David B. Kanin is an adjunct professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University and a former senior intelligence analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of TransConflict.

Footnotes

1. “Djukanovic was Monitored, Money and Uniforms Seized,” B-92 (Belgrade), October 25, 2016.

By Kalinga Seneviratne

Philippines’ outspoken President Rodrigo Duterte while unplugging U.S. President’s much-publicized “Pivot to Asia”, has also challenged the United States to help promote cooperation in the region not confrontation.

Duterte provoked alarm in diplomatic circles last month (October) by announcing his country’s “separation” from the United States and realignment with China while on a visit to Beijing.

Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak has also signaled a similar realignment of foreign policy during a visit to Beijing. In a commentary published in the China Daily he said that former colonial powers should not be lecturing to countries they once exploited on running their internal affairs.

In wooing China, both Asian leaders are expressing their displeasure at U.S.’s double standards in lecturing on human rights and corruption to Asian leaders while they fail to address their own violations of these principles both at home and abroad.

During his three-day visit to the neighbouring Asian powerhouse, Duterte was given red carpet treatment by Chinese President Xi Jinping, had several meetings with Chinese companies and gave a keynote address to a business forum attended by Filipino and Chinese businessmen. Several Cabinet secretaries and 300 Filipino business leaders also accompanied him on the trip.

Barely a week later, Razak arrived in Beijing with warm words for the hosts and calling himself a “true friend” of China while expressing his determination to take the relationship between the two neighbours to “new heights”, thus echoing a similar sentiment expressed by his fellow ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) leader Duterte.

During Duterte’s visit, watched by the two presidents at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, Cabinet secretaries of the two countries signed investment and aid agreements worth some US$ 24 billion. Later during a meeting between Xi and Duterte, which lasted longer than scheduled, the two leaders are believed to have discussed the contentious issue of fishing rights in the Scarborough Shoal area of South China Sea whose sovereignty is contested by both countries.

These discussions perhaps dealt the heaviest blow to Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” because the U.S. was using this issue to trigger a conflict between the two Asian neighbours and sell arms to the Philippines as well as station U.S. Marines on the Philippines territory. U.S. has also been wooing Malaysia and Vietnam for the same purpose.

China effectively took control of Scarborough in 2012 after its ships had a tense standoff with Philippine vessels. Since then, Chinese coast guard ships have guarded the shoal, blocking and driving away Filipino fishermen,

U.S. was instrumental in persuading Duterte’s predecessor President Benigno Aquino to take the ownership rights issue to International arbitration in 2013 and won a landmark decision in July this year in Philippines’ favour. China ignored the ruling by the tribunal and continued shooing Filipinos away from the shoal. But, upon his return from Beijing, Duterte told Filipino fishermen that they “may” be able to return to the Chinese-held Scarborough Shoal in a few days”.

He also told them that while both sides did not budge on their claims to sovereignty of the sea, Duterte cited the Chinese as saying: “We can resolve this case peacefully, no fighting, no blood and it will take time.” Duterte said he responded by saying, “It’s OK … we’ll discuss the award that we got someday and we won’t get out of this document … we won in the ownership.”

Meanwhile, Filipino fishermen have been able to fish unmolested at Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea while Chinese government vessels have patrolled nearby. The Philippines’ national security adviser Hermogenes Esperon has told the media in Manila that “the coastguard of China is there, but their navy is gone. And now, our fishermen are no longer being accosted, no longer being forced out, so we can say things are now friendly.”

Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying has also acknowledged that the relationship has changed. “Relations between China and the Philippines have comprehensively improved, and under such a situation, China has already made some proper arrangements with regards to issues of concern to President Duterte,” she said in a statement to the media from Beijing.

Duterte has been incensed by U.S. criticism of his war on drugs and told the U.S. and UN Human Rights Council to “go to hell” when they raised human rights concerns. China by contrast is giving the Philippines financial aid to enable Duterte to carry out his ambitious anti-drug campaign.

The two nations signed an agreement in Beijing under which China will give the Duterte administration US$15million for “implementing projects to strengthen its war on illegal drugs and in law enforcement security cooperation between these two countries”.

Just a week before Duterte’s visit to China end of October, the Philippines announced plans to open in November what it called a “mega” drug rehabilitation facility, funded by a Chinese philanthropist and real estate developer Huang Rulun, to treat up to 10,000 patients as part of Duterte’s war on drugs.

The center is to be located in a military camp north of the capital Manila, which is believed to have been earmarked by Duterte’s predecessor Aquino to station U.S. Marines.

While Duterte’s comments in Beijing about a “separation from U.S.” was interpreted by the international media as a sort of a diplomatic rift between the two former strong allies, Duterte explained upon his return to his hometown of Davoa that what he meant to say was that he will not follow a foreign policy that is influenced by the U.S. So far the Philippines has been taking cue from the U.S. in framing its foreign policies, but “I will not follow” them, he added.

Meanwhile, during the Malaysian leader Razak’s visit to Beijing 14 government-to-government cooperation agreements have been signed that includes cooperation in railway upgrading and oil and gas projects in East Malaysia. But, the biggest deal was the Malaysian government’s “landmark” decision to enter into a two-year defence deal with China to buy and build four littoral mission ships to help them patrol the neighbouring seas.

China’s Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Liu Zhenmin told reporters accompanying the Malaysian Prime Minister that this naval defense cooperation deal “will help to bring stability to the South China Sea (and it) shows there is a high level of trust between the two countries”. Liu also revealed that both sides had agreed to settle maritime disputes over the South China Sea via dialogue.

Malaysia’s nearly US$ 100 billion worth of bilateral trade is expected to rise further with China’s agreement to buy more palm oil from Malaysia, allow imports of Malaysian birds nest and more flights for Malaysian Airlines and Air Asia. In return, Malaysia has agreed to grant a banking license for China Construction Bank to operate in the country.

Ties between Malaysia and the U.S. have taken a dip since the Department of Justice filed a civil suit to recover more than US$1 billion in assets said to be embezzled from state fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). Malaysian government has also been incensed by suspected U.S. funding for civil society groups to destabilise the Razak government.

Echoing the Philipines’ president’s sentiments, Malaysian deputy prime minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi told journalists at a regional security conference in Singapore on November 1 that his country wants to have good ties with both the United States and China, downplaying suggestions that Kuala Lumpur is leaning towards Beijing.

“I think it is very subjective for anyone to regard (it as a) warm or cold relationship,” he told reporters after attending the Asia-Europe Counter Terrorism Dialogue. “We would like to have a balanced and good relationship with both countries.”

Founded in 2004 with the support of the Russian government, the Valdai Discussion Club bills itself as a forum that “aims to promote dialogue of Russian and international intellectual elites.” But the club’s 13th annual gathering, held in Sochi in late October, at times felt more like a shouting match than a measured debate.

The widening divide between Russian and Western values was on full display at the meeting. Some of the sharpest exchanges focused on the past, including contentious claims about the consequences of the Soviet Union’s collapse.

Throughout the conference, Russian speakers criticized the United States and its Western allies for missing an opportunity to create a stable geopolitical framework for the 21st century by failing to embrace Russia after the Soviet collapse in 1991. In the view of many Russian participants, a stable new pan-European democratic order could have been created, based on principles of mutual respect, equal security, and non-interference in internal affairs.

Hearing the views of Russian officials, it was clear old wounds have not healed, and there is a deep desire in Moscow to rectify perceived historical wrongs. Top Russian officials who spoke at the conference shrouded past slights in aggrieved rhetoric. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, for example, condemned NATO’s membership expansion, claiming that it spoiled any chance for the “establishment of the united and indivisible world.”

Russia, in the Kremlin’s view, bears no responsibility for the current, frosty state of relations. President Vladimir Putin, who has spoken to the participants of every gathering since the club’s inception, offered a laundry list of the West’s diplomatic blunders that brought on the chill, including NATO’s campaign against Serbia, the allied invasion of Iraq, the intervention in Libya, and the development of US missile defenses.

“We expected equal dialogue, that our interests would be respected, that we would … meet each other halfway,” Putin said. But the West “offered only unilateral solutions and pursued its objectives at all costs.”

When it came to contemporary dilemmas, it was much the same story: Russia is blameless and the West is acting in an arrogant manner.

Syria repeatedly was cited as the litmus test for the state of Russian-Western relations. Lavrov alleged that while Russian diplomats have made many efforts to work directly with Washington regarding Syria, the United States had proven unable, or unwilling, to fulfill pledges to Moscow to separate “moderate” terrorists from more extremist ones.

Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov claimed that the Middle East was in a “systematic, multi-level crisis” due to Western efforts to promote forceful regime change. He also accused the West of advocating the adoption of democratization models unsuited to prevailing “historical, cultural or religious” conditions.

Some American participants pushed back against the Russian version of events. Clifford Kupchan, the chairman of the New York-based risk consultancy Eurasia Group, asserted that since early September, Russia had seemingly abandoned a joint approach on Syria in favor of “extreme violence” that included the bombing of hospitals and other civilian targets.

Kupchan argued that “Central Asia also presents a real challenge and a necessity for joint action,” due to the threat of foreign fighters returning from Syria. He called on Moscow and Washington to work together to “help regional governments to combat terror” while encouraging them “to avoid infringing excessively on human rights.”

A participant from Central Asia, former Kyrgyz foreign minister Muratbek Imanaliev, disputed Kupchan’s analysis, maintaining that Central Asia faces less transnational terrorism, religious extremism, and geopolitical conflict than the Middle East or Europe. He insisted that, despite limited defense capabilities and souring economies, Central Asian states “can definitely promote political, interregional, and interfaith dialogue to find solutions to our common problems.”

While Russian speakers denounced perceived Western-sponsored efforts to promote regime change, many Western participants complained about Moscow’s embrace of so-called hybrid warfare – tactics that are most visible in the Kremlin’s dealings with Ukraine. Several also expressed alarm about Russian meddling in US politics, notably the Kremlin’s alleged support for Donald Trump’s presidential bid.

Putin denied that Russia had the ability to influence the US political process and pledged to work with the winner of the November 8 election. Nonetheless, he praised Trump for being a man of the people and accused Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s team of inventing stories about Moscow’s supporting the developer-turned-politician.

Putin also mockingly voiced a wistful desire “to possess such a propaganda machine here in Russia” that could sway events.

In recent years, Russia has made progress in “deconstructing the US-imposed world order” by joining with China to work on Eurasian-focused political and economic projects, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization, said Russian international relations expert Sergei Karaganov.

Not all the Russian participants fully backed the Kremlin line. Ex-finance minister Alexei Kudrin, for example, alluding to Moscow’s deepening economic difficulties, noted that Russians could no longer rely on “old methods and old prescriptions” to deal with the “extraordinary” challenges facing the country.

This article appeared as Eurasianet.org

Malaysia’s perceptible tilt towards China especially in economic relations reflects Malaysia’s foreign policy of hedging major power influence in the region and globally. While it seeks closer ties with China, it does not imply that Malaysia is shifting away from the US.

By Johan Saravanamuttu and David Han Guo Xiong*

Since Najib Razak assumed the premiership of Malaysia in 2009 China has featured significantly in his foreign policy. It was Najib’s father Tun Abdul Razak, Malaysia’s second prime minister, who was the first leader in Southeast Asia to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic in 1974.

That said, Malaysia’s foreign policy has been one of hedging against major powers in the region and globally. While Malaysia has shown great awareness of China’s rise and importance in the Asia Pacific region, it remains highly cognisant of the political and economic role of the United States in the region.

Malaysia’s Perceptible Tilt Towards China

Thus, Malaysia is among the 12 countries that have signed the US-sponsored Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement in Auckland, New Zealand, on 5 February 2016. The TPP is interpreted by some observers to be a crucial pillar of US rebalancing in the Asia Pacific to check China’s rising political and economic influence.

However, it is uncertain whether the US would commit to the TPP after the Obama administration. Thus, seemingly as a hedge to the signing of the TPP, the Malaysian parliament approved on 20 October participation in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) — thought to be China’s brainchild — just prior to the Malaysian premier’s seventh state visit to China this week.

Recent developments in Malaysia demonstrate a perceptible tilt towards China, particularly in economic relations. When President Xi Jinping unveiled China’s 21st Century Maritime Silk Road or “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) strategy some three years ago, Malaysia welcomed the initiative and has remained very enthusiastic about it.

On 3 September 2016, the Malaysian Minister of Transport, Liow Tiong Lai (concurrently president of the political party Malaysian Chinese Association, MCA) extolled the virtues of OBOR in a Malaysia-China Business Dialogue event in Kuala Lumpur. Liow suggested that Malaysia could be “China’s gateway to ASEAN” and a crucial link to the 65 OBOR countries across Asia, Europe and Africa.

Impact of New Posture

This new Malaysian posture has come together with concrete developments in Malaysia-China relations. Malaysia is currently China’s largest trading partner in ASEAN with total trade of some US$100 billion expecting to reach $160 billion by 2017. China has also recently become the largest direct foreign investor in Malaysia, overtaking Singapore, Japan, Netherlands and the US, through buying assets in Malaysia’s troubled 1MDB.

These multi-billion assets bought from the Malaysian national fund include Edra Global Energy sold to China General Nuclear Power Corp for $2.3billion and a 60 percent stake in Bandar Malaysia, 1MDB’s flagship 197-hectare property site in Kuala Lumpur, at a price tag of $1.7 billion to China Railway Construction Corp. The China railway corporation is also thought to be in pole position to undertake the Kuala Lumpur-Singapore high-speed railway worth some $16.6 billion.

More interestingly, in keeping with its OBOR policy, China has been deeply involved in the rebuilding and refurbishing of sea ports in Malaysia. According to Transport Minister Liow, Malaysia’s has signed a “port alliance” with China linking six of Malaysia’s ports to 11 of China’s. Currently, China is helping Malaysia to rebuild and expand port services at Klang, Malacca and Carey Island in the Straits of Malacca and Kuantan on the South China Sea. Some 70 to 80 percent of the ships passing through the Straits of Malacca are said to originate from China.

Kuantan on the east coast of the Malay Peninsula would be of great importance to Chinese maritime trade as well. Liow said his ministry is therefore encouraging China to participate in port construction across 120 kilometers of the Malacca Straits. According to Liow, the port alliance with China would help develop shipping, logistics and other related industries to augment the $1 trillion worth of OBOR trade.

Ramifications for Malaysia

There are three ramifications of Malaysia’s embrace of OBOR. Firstly, OBOR, which is partly funded by the AIIB, would help China to further expand its prominence in Southeast Asia. It is expected that through the OBOR, Malaysia would be a key node for China to access the ASEAN market. China’s increased economic prominence through OBOR and the AIIB could improve China’s image among ASEAN countries as a major player in boosting the economies of Southeast Asia.

The strengthening of economic ties between ASEAN and China would obviate potential conflict, and enhance the benefit for ASEAN and China to work closely together economically.

Secondly, Malaysia’s perceptible tilt towards China in the OBOR venture could be a nudge to the US to maintain its current commitment to Southeast Asia. If the US, under its new President, reneges on its commitment to TPP, this would be a setback for Malaysia as the TPP has the potential to enhance Malaysia-US economic ties.

Thus, Malaysia’s favourable tilt towards China and OBOR could help to cushion some of the negative fallout of such a scenario. It could also be a signal to the next US President that America risks losing the support of its friends to China if the US does not continue its economic rebalancing role in Asia.

Thirdly, domestically, strengthening economic growth would be advantageous to Najib’s administration. Due to domestic political challenges having a strong economic performance would enhance the legitimacy of Najib’s government. The economic benefits of OBOR would play a vital role in buttressing Najib’s regime.

Najib’s visit to China this week will improve bilateral ties significantly with OBOR featuring prominently in this development. This does not however imply that Malaysia is coming under China’s sway while shifting away from the US.

Drawing closer towards China economically is a pragmatic move by the Malaysian government to expand its economic space and boost economic growth. Provided the US continues its commitments to Southeast Asia Malaysia will also seek to build up ties with the US for regional peace and development.

*Johan Saravanamuttu, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, was previously professor of political science at Science University of Malaysia (USM). David Han is a Research Analyst with the Malaysia Programme at RSIS.

The Defense Department is working with Jordanian authorities to investigate an attack that killed three U.S. service members, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said today in a statement.

“We are saddened to report that three U.S. service members were killed today in a shooting incident at a Jordanian military base,” Cook said. “The three service members were in Jordan on a training mission, and the initial report is that they came under fire as they were entering the facility in vehicles.”

Cook added, “We are working closely with the government of Jordan to determine exactly what happened. Our thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones of these service members. We will provide more information as appropriate.”

By Ibrahim Nafee

Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) recently thwarted schemes by international gangs to carry out thefts onboard
its aircraft.

The schemes involved rummaging passengers’ bags and stealing their money and belongings while they were asleep or in toilets.

Mansour Al-Bader, media and public relations director at Saudia, confirmed that Saudi Arabian Airlines crew successfully thwarted three robbery attempts during the month of October, which were attempted at different points during the trip by a group of Chinese nationals. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) had previously informed airlines around the world, including Saudi Arabian Airlines, about efforts of internationally organized gangs to carry out thefts during flights.

He said that individuals from gangs who board flights in groups of three or four, wear shirts of the same color, sit separately and keep their baggage in the overhead compartment. This gives them an excuse to open overhead lockers without arousing suspicion.

Saudia had passed the information received by IATA to its crew to look out for suspicious movements of passengers of different nationalities during flights.

Recently, after passengers boarded Flight 567 from Dubai to Jeddah, a Chinese passenger aroused suspicion when he moved around the cabin and went to the toilet repeatedly. He later changed his seat.

As the plane prepared for landing, a flight attended noticed the Chinese passenger trying to pull the bag of another passenger in front of him from under her seat. The attendant immediately warned the passenger to keep an eye on her bag and sat down next to her. The pilot was informed of the incident, and he notified the tower to ensure that security was available on the plane’s arrival at the gate. Police took him into custody at the airport.

A similar incident took place on Flight 576 from Jeddah to Abu Dhabi, where a thief was caught stealing $2,000 from a young Sudanese passenger last month.

The incident took place on Oct. 16, when a Chinese passenger boarded the flight alone dressed in a black T-shirt. The passenger had arrived from Istanbul and was on his way to Abu Dhabi via Jeddah, and appeared to be a member of the international gang. He began to move around frequently and head to the bathroom, and on his way “would take a quick look at passengers in their seats.”

In row 41, a young Sudanese man had just finished his meal and reclined his seat back to rest, eventually falling asleep with his bag under the seat in front of him.

Noticing the passenger had fallen asleep, and without being aware of being monitored by the cabin crew, the Chinese passenger pretended to fall asleep too. Five minutes later, a flight attendant noticed he had moved to another vacant seat. At this point the crew realized informed the flight supervisor and captain of the incident, who approached the Sudanese passenger and discreetly asked him to check if something was missing from his bag. The passenger checked and discovered he was missing $2,000. While the plane was descending for landing at Abu Dhabi, the captain informed the airport tower of the theft.

When the crew took extra time to open the aircraft door, the Chinese passenger went to the toilet. Upon searching the toilet after he left, the crew found an envelope with $2,000 in the toilet trashcan.
Police arrested the thief. The Sudanese passenger offered a cash bonus to the flight attendant for her help in identifying the thief, but she declined.

Software robots masquerading as humans are influencing the political discourse on social media as never before and could threaten the very integrity of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, said Emilio Ferrara, a computer scientist and research leader at the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI), and USC Viterbi School of Engineering research assistant professor.

By leveraging state-of-the art bot detection algorithms, Ferrara and co-author Alessandro Bessi, a visiting research assistant at USC’s ISI, have made a startling discovery: a surprisingly high percentage of the political discussion taking place on Twitter was created by pro-Donald Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton software robots, or social bots, with the express purpose of distorting the online discussion regarding the elections.

The researchers analyzed 20 million election-related tweets created between Sept. 16 and Oct. 21. They found that robots, rather than people, produced 3.8 million tweets, or 19 percent. Social bots also accounted for 400,000 of the 2.8 million individual users, or nearly 15 percent of the population under study.

“The presence of these bots can affect the dynamics of the political discussion in three tangible ways,” writes in a recently released paper titled, “Social Bots Distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Online Discussion,” appearing the journal First Monday.

“First, influence can be redistributed across suspicious accounts that may be operated with malicious purposes. Second, the political conversation can become further polarized. Third, spreading of misinformation and unverified information can be enhanced.”

“As a result, the integrity of the 2016 U.S. presidential election could be possibly endangered.”

Interestingly, Trump’s robot-produced tweets were almost uniformly positive, boosting the candidate popularity. By contrast only half of Clinton’s were, with the other half criticizing the nominee, according to the research paper. South Carolina produced the most fake campaign-related tweets, the study reports.

Because of social bots’ sophistication, it’s often impossible to determine who creates them, although political parties, local, national and foreign governments and “even single individuals with adequate resources could obtain the operational capabilities and technical tools to deploy armies of social bots and affect the directions of online political conversation,” the report says.

The “master puppeteers” behind influence bots, Ferrara added, often create fake Twitter and Facebook profiles. They do so by stealing online pictures, giving them fictitious names, and cloning biographical information from existing accounts. These bots have become so sophisticated that they can tweet, retweet, share content, comment on posts, “like” candidates, grow their social influence by following legitimate human accounts and even engage in human-like conversations.

Astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have discovered a tsunami of stars and gas that is crashing midway through the disk of a spiral galaxy known as IC 2163. This colossal wave of material – which was triggered when IC 2163 recently sideswiped another spiral galaxy dubbed NGC 2207 – produced dazzling arcs of intense star formation that resemble a pair of eyelids.

“Although galaxy collisions of this type are not uncommon, only a few galaxies with eye-like, or ocular, structures are known to exist,” said Michele Kaufman, an astronomer formerly with The Ohio State University in Columbus and lead author on a paper published today in the Astrophysical Journal.

Kaufman and her colleagues note that the paucity of similar features in the observable universe is likely due to their ephemeral nature. “Galactic eyelids last only a few tens of millions of years, which is incredibly brief in the lifespan of a galaxy. Finding one in such a newly formed state gives us an exceptional opportunity to study what happens when one galaxy grazes another,” said Kaufman.

The interacting pair of galaxies resides approximately 114 million light-years from Earth in the direction of the constellation Canis Major. These galaxies brushed past each other – scraping the edges of their outer spiral arms – in what is likely the first encounter of an eventual merger.

Using ALMA’s remarkable sensitivity and resolution, the astronomers made the most detailed measurements ever of the motion of carbon monoxide gas in the galaxy’s narrow eyelid features. Carbon monoxide is a tracer of molecular gas, which is the fuel for star formation.

The data reveal that the gas in the outer portion of IC 2163’s eyelids is racing inward at speeds in excess of 100 kilometers a second. This gas, however, quickly decelerates and its motion becomes more chaotic, eventually changing trajectory and aligning itself with the rotation of the galaxy rather than continuing its pell-mell rush toward the center.

“What we observe in this galaxy is very much like a massive ocean wave barreling toward shore until it interacts with the shallows, causing it to lose momentum and dump all of its water and sand on the beach,” said Bruce Elmegreen, a scientist with IBM’s T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, and co-author on the paper.

“Not only do we find a rapid deceleration of the gas as it moves from the outer to the inner edge of the eyelids, but we also measure that the more rapidly it decelerates, the denser the molecular gas becomes,” said Kaufman. “This direct measurement of compression shows how the encounter between the two galaxies drives gas to pile up, spawn new star clusters and form these dazzling eyelid features.”

Computer models predict that such eyelid-like features could evolve if galaxies interacted in a very specific manner. “This evidence for a strong shock in the eyelids is terrific. It’s all very well to have a theory and simulations suggesting it should be true, but real observational evidence is great,” said Curtis Struck, a professor of astrophysics at Iowa State University in Ames and co-author on the paper.

“ALMA showed us that the velocities of the molecular gas in the eyelids are on the right track with the predictions we get from computer models,” said Kaufman. “This critical test of encounter simulations was not possible before.”

Astronomers believe that such collisions between galaxies were common in the early universe when galaxies were closer together. At that time, however, galactic disks were generally clumpy and irregular, so other processes likely overwhelmed the formation of similar eyelid features.

The authors continue to study this galaxy pair and currently are comparing the properties (e.g., locations, ages, and masses) of the star clusters previously observed with NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope with the properties of the molecular clouds observed with ALMA. They hope to better understand the differences between molecular clouds and star clusters in the eyelids and those elsewhere in the galaxy pair.

By Kevin Jones

A group that has been tied to the idea of a “Catholic Spring” revolution in leaked emails may have tried to intimidate pastors at Catholic Churches in Florida during the last presidential election.

Ahead of the 2012 elections, the group Catholics United sent a letter to Florida pastors saying it was monitoring for reputed illegal political activity in Catholic churches – which state Catholic leaders saw as an effort to silence the Church.

An internal message to Catholic pastors from the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops said the letter was inaccurate and appeared to be “an attempt to silence pastors on issues that are of concern to the Church this election season.”

James Salt, then-executive director of the group Catholics United, had sent the Oct. 22, 2012 letter to priests in Florida, claiming to have recruited “a network of local volunteers to monitor parishes and document the nature of all partisan activity taking place there.”

Catholics United is back in the news with the publication of a February 2012 email exchange involving John Podesta, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s present campaign manager.

Podesta indicated that the groups Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good had been created for moments of controversy involving Catholic bishops, like the religious freedom controversy over federally mandated contraceptive coverage in health plans. He said the two groups lacked leadership for such a role.

Using a phrase of his interlocutor, progressive leader Sandy Newman, Podesta suggested a “Catholic Spring” could be organized within the Church. The phrase invokes the imagery of the so-called Arab Spring uprisings.

Salt’s letter later that year claimed there had been “numerous IRS violations” in Florida Catholic parishes such as partisan references during homilies, political endorsements printed in church bulletins, and the distribution of partisan literature in church parking lots. He told pastors that Catholics United had retained a law firm to help protect them and their parish community from losing tax exempt status.

Catholics United had previously tussled with the group Priests for Life in the 2008 elections, claiming the group was partisan and had trained thousands of activists to place political literature on churchgoing Catholics’ cars.

Salt invoked the U.S. bishops, telling pastors, “As you know, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has a very clear prohibition against any sort of partisan activity taking place within Catholic parishes.”

The Florida Catholic bishops’ conference, however, responded that activities to “raise awareness of issues and promote political responsibility” do not jeopardize tax exempt status. It referred to the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Election and Political Activities Guide for guidance.

Chris Hale, who became executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good in December 2013, told CNA he respected his predecessors’ work, but he suggested his group’s perspective has changed.

“I think that the previous leadership of Catholics United was looking to the signs of the time and figuring out how to best protect parishioners in the pews and make sure they heard a message that was consistent with the social teaching of the Church,” he said Nov. 2.

“That being said, I don’t think that message that was taken in 2012 should be crafted in 2016,” he added. “I’m of the opinion that pastors should speak freely, priests should speak freely from the pulpit about the issues pertaining to Catholics in this election.”

Hale voiced hope priests would do so “in a way that would represent the totality of the Church’s social teaching,” adding “no pastor should feel threatened in any capacity that their First Amendment rights should be infringed.”

According to Hale, Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United effectively merged in 2015.

James Salt is currently a board member of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. He previously served in faith outreach for the Kansas Democratic Party, did messaging work under then-Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, and served on the 2012 Democratic Party Platform Committee.

Salt’s 2012 letter asked Florida pastors to “protect your parish from losing its tax-exempt status” by taking a pledge, titled “Keep Politics Out of Our Pulpits.” He said this would demonstrate pastors’ commitment and help ensure their parish is free from “any illegal political activity.”

The reputed pledge solicited the pastor’s name and house of worship. It asked that pledges be sent to the Catholics United Education Fund in Washington, D.C. The education fund, whose Pennsylvania affiliate Keystone Catholics is now an arm of Catholics in Alliance, was the 501c3 arm of Catholics United.

For its part, the Florida Catholic bishops’ conference recommended that pastors not sign the pledge.

The response to the Catholics United letter and pledge was written by Michele M. Taylor, who at the time was the state Catholic conference’s associate director for communications. The internal response was published on the website of the Diocese of Orlando without the knowledge of the Catholic conference.

Taylor recounted the situation to CNA in October 2012.

“Our pastors had received faxes from Catholics United telling them that their activities would jeopardize 501c3 status,” Taylor said. “We disagree with that. As long as their activities are within the guidelines that we put out from this office, they’re fine.”

In an Oct. 30, 2012 press release, Catholics United misidentified the source of the Catholic response, wrongly claiming it came from the Diocese of Orlando. The group portrayed the diocese as refusing “to keep partisan politics out of its pulpits.”

“In this election year, and especially in a swing state like Florida, lay Catholics have been inundated with nasty political attacks,” Salt said, claiming that the Orlando diocese was encouraging “political games.”

“This request was apparently out of line for the diocese. It’s a shame Orlando Catholics have to endure this type of politicking in their churches,” he added.

The issue of Catholic messaging was on the mind of politico John Podesta, according to other emails posted to WikiLeaks and attributed to his email account.

In a Nov. 4, 2012 email, one Jon Schnur wrote Podesta that he was concerned about many Catholic churches that “may be giving highly problematic messages to parishioners/voters today.” In the email, written the Sunday before Election Day, Schnur said he was especially concerned about churches in the states of Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado and Pennsylvania.

Schnur, whose wife is Catholic, said he thought the parish he attended in New Orleans that weekend was “over the top.” He worried this messaging could be well-organized in the Catholic Church, “even if they would argue somehow doesn’t cross political lines.”

He asked Podesta whether there was any sense of this in the Obama campaign.

“Anything can be done about it? In terms of respected Catholic validators, microtargeting, etc. in key heavily Catholic areas in swing communities?”

Podesta replied Nov. 5, 2012:

“I think the campaign is dealing with it as best they can. Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good have also done a bunch of work in relevant places. For the people who I sit with in the pews, it kind of goes in one ear and out the other.”

Schnur was not identified, though a man of the same name is a past education adviser to president Obama and now heads an education policy consultancy. CNA contacted him for comment but did not receive a response by deadline.

Hale told CNA he thought letters like Salt’s were particular to Florida. He suggested that the Podesta email referred to work like the Catholics in Alliance 2012 voting guide. The group did some organizing in Ohio and worked to ensure Catholic voting access.

After the 2012 elections, on Nov. 21, Salt again criticized the bishops.

“It’s a shame that rather than being pastors to their flock, many bishops have decided to engage in divisive political games,” he said. “Hopefully, this election is a wake-up call for the bishops, and a strong reminder to cut their partisan ties and get back to serving the Gospel mandate of helping the poorest and most vulnerable.”

According to Hale, skeptics of Catholics in Alliance’s past should look at its current work.

“I would say that time and again we’ve shown ourselves to be solid practitioners of the gospel in public life and we do it in a way that challenges everyone without exception,” he said. “I can tell you since I’ve been in charge in December 2013 that we’ve promoted the social mission of the Church, without exception.”

Hale’s group has drawn criticism for its avoidance of criticizing Hillary Clinton by name. However, he maintained, “We get criticism all the time from the left and the right for not falling in line.” He pointed to the group’s support of the Hyde Amendment when it was opposed by the Democratic Party platform.

Last year, the group also criticized Planned Parenthood in the wake of undercover videos appearing to show its staff and leaders engaged in the illegal sale of aborted babies’ body parts and tissues. Its actions drew a critical response from Catholics for Choice, a pro-abortion rights front group.

Though Catholics United no longer exists in name, its influence is still remembered in 2016.

After the Podesta emails became public, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia recounted his 2008 encounter with two unnamed leaders in Catholics United.

“Both men were obvious flacks for the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party – creatures of a political machine, not men of the Church; less concerned with Catholic teaching than with its influence,” he said Oct. 13. “They hoped my brother bishops and I would resist identifying the Church with single-issue and partisan (read: abortion) politics.”

“Thanks to their work, and activists like them, American Catholics helped to elect an administration that has been the most stubbornly unfriendly to religious believers, institutions, concerns and liberty in generations,” the archbishop said.

By Array*

Tweaking contextually and semantically what Ronald Reagan said about Russia during the Cold War – “Trust, but verify” – Hillary Clinton proclaimed her strategy apropos the nuclear deal with Iran in September 2015 at the Brookings Institution in Washington DC as “Distrust and verify.” Since then, the Iran nuclear deal that was signed on 14 July 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 has created a lot of controversy. The timing of the secretly organised airlift of US$400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the release of four US citizens detained in Iran has put the Obama administration and his party in a bind, besides drawing sharp, theatrical criticism from the Republicans. The Iran deal continues to bedevil conjectures about US’ Iran policy under the next president and remains one of the primary bones of contention in the US presidential run-off.

Hillary Clinton evinced a strong posture towards Iran through her choice of words and promised potential action, referring to Iran as a “ruthless, brutal regime.” As part of her agenda to play the rhetorical hardball with Iran, she has premised her Iran strategy on three likely future scenarios: first, Iran violates the tenets of the deal; second, Iran prolongs its adherence to the deal until there is a regional or global distraction for the US, to eventually enrich; and third, Iran seeks to flex its muscles in the region. All the three possibilities appear to be coming from the reductionist assumption that Iran will try to violate the deal.

However, quite in contradiction, Iran has recently alleged non-compliance by the US vis-à-vis the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In July earlier this year, six months after the Iran nuclear deal began taking effect, Iran raised the non-compliance issue in sanctions relief from the US in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The complaint essentially underscored that Iran was yet to fully benefit from the lifting of multilateral and national sanctions, especially in relation to the US’ Visa Waiver Programme (VWP) that lists new eligibility requirements for Iranians travelling to the US. This situation not only upends Ms Clinton’s presumptions on Iran’s behaviour but also creates scope for possible Iranian non-compliance, especially through the recalcitrance that has quintessentially characterised Iranian strategy towards the US post the 1970s strategy. In fact, signs of Iran’s retaliatory posture have already started emerging with Iran launching war drills amidst accusations that the US is violating the nuclear deal.

Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate, representing the party that was instrumental in getting the Iran deal through, which gives her high political mileage to chest-thump on stopping Iran from going nuclear, for now. The moral high ground for the Democrats for having struck the deal and the subsequent euphoria might not be so well deserved after all. For one, the US is already delaying some of the sanctions relief to Iran and second, the lifting of more important sanctions like those on conventional arms and missiles have been delayed by as much by eight years. Essentially, the lifting of some sanctions could well see the Clinton administration through, if she assumes office. This gives Hillary Clinton a timeline-cushion for rhetorical play against Iran without much accountability. Moreover, the deal only limits Iran’s capability to research, develop and enrich uranium for fifteen years.

US-Israel Dynamics

The Obama administration has been widely perceived to be behind the recent waning of US-Israel ties. An initial bilateral dip that saw no visit by President Obama in his first term to Israel, further plummeted with the Iran deal. Israel’s Defence Minister Avigdor Liberman compared the Iran nuclear deal to the Munich Agreement of 1938 and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he would rather sign with the next president a package offered by the Obama Administration.

With ebbed bilateral ties, the onus for restoring warmth in US-Israel ties will be high on Hillary Clinton if she assumes the presidency. Hillary has promised to continue defence sales to Israel, signalling that she is ready to embrace Israel back. She has also announced that she would invite the Israeli Prime Minster to the White House in her very first month as president. However, her road to such efforts are land-mined with the Iran deal. Furthermore, an eventual bump in the US-Israel relationship could surface if and when Israel demands the coveted Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) from the US. Designed to penetrate through 200 feet of earth and 60 feet of concrete before detonating, the MOP is one of the largest non-nuclear weapons in the world today, making it an ideal weapon again Iran’s underground and highly secure nuclear sites like Fordow.

Historical Fixation

Iran has been at the heart of the US’ Middle East policy since the Cold War, and the Shia majority country has come a long way from being an ally to becoming an avowed enemy of the US. Most US presidents since Nixon have tethered their Asia policy around the Persian Gulf area with Iran as the pivot. The Carter Doctrine stands out in marking the US’ fixation with the Persian Gulf area in history. This obsession with Iran is likely to continue in the event of a likely Hillary Clinton win, albeit in a different manner.

* Array
Assistant Professor in International Relations For Asia, Netaji Institute For Asian Studies, Kolkata

If people continue using and changing the land over the next century in the same way they currently do, soils will have limited potential to counter the effect of climate change and will become a net source of atmospheric carbon dioxide, experts have warned.

Experts have forecast that a quarter of the carbon found in soil in France could be lost to the atmosphere during the next 100 years. This could lead to soil becoming a net source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. At present soil is considered to absorb carbon dioxide and this partially counters the impact of man-made climate change.

The pace and nature of predicted changes in climate over the next century will make the soil less able to store carbon, while business-as-usual land use change has limited capacity to counteract this trend, experts from the University of Exeter, INRA and CERFACS in France and University of Leuven in Belgium say in the journal Scientific Reports.

If, as predicted, soils lose a significant amount of their carbon this will endanger their ability to produce food and store water and this could lead to increased soil erosion and flood damage.

Researchers made these predictions for the 21st century by combining models of soil carbon and land use change with climate change predictions, using France as a case study. The study shows that land under almost all uses will be subject to dramatic losses of soil carbon by 2100. Only conversions of land into grass or forest result in limited additional storage of carbon in soils. Unfortunately these land changes are not likely to happen on a large scale because of the pressures on land resources imposed by urban expansion and food production.

Lead author Dr Jeroen Meersmans, from the University of Exeter, said: “A reduction in anthropogenic CO2 levels is crucial to prevent further loss of carbon from our soils. However, promotion of land use changes and management that contribute to soil carbon sequestration remains essential in an integrated strategy to protect soil functions and mitigate climate change.”

Co-author Dr Dominique Arrouays of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research added, “Purposive, targeted land use and agricultural practice changes would be needed if climate change mitigation is to be maximized. Therefore, the efforts to enhance carbon sequestration in soils, as proposed by France during the COP21, should be promoted immediately.”

The research collaboration involved academics from the Geography Department at the College of Life and Environmental Sciences at the University of Exeter (UK), the InfoSol Unit at INRA in Orleans (France), CECI, CERFACS – CNRS in Toulouse (France), the Geography and Tourism Research Group at the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Leuven (Belgium).