Assad’s army, backed by Russian and Iranian allies, has recaptured the city of Aleppo, which might be a major victory for President Assad in Syria’s six-year-long civil war. It is not the same city the rebels and the regime were first fighting for. It has dramatically changed. Much of it has become in ruins. Much of it has been lost. Most of its people have been traumatised as thousands have died and many more have been detained or displaced. Nothing seems to be real for the people in Aleppo except the sound of war. Aleppo, as it was before the civil war, has become a memory.

Demonstrations erupted across Syria in April 2011, turned into a civil war in some areas by the end of that year, and then exploded into Aleppo in the end of summer of 2012, when rebel fighters took over the east of the city.

On one hand, the rebels hoped their march into Aleppo would be the beginning of the end for President Bashar Al-Assad. On the other, the Assad regime vowed to swiftly drive them out of the city. Neither side achieved their goals. An ugly series of violent transgressions on both sides have become commonplace in Aleppo, while civilians have been the ones to pay the price every time.

“Aleppo was liberated thanks to a coalition between Iran, Syria, Russia and Lebanon’s Hizbollah,” said Seyed Yahya Rahim-Safavi, one of Khaminei’s military commanders.

“Iran is on one side of this coalition which is approaching victory and this has shown our strength. The new American president should take heed of the powers of Iran.”

Are You Incapable of Shame?

Addressing an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on Syria, the US ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, has accused Syria, Iran and Russia of carrying out barbaric “crimes” in Aleppo. Using a very strong language, Power tells the Security Council that Assad government and its allies Russia and Iran bear responsibility for killing civilians in Aleppo.

“To the Assad regime, Russia and Iran, your forces and proxies are carrying out these crimes, your barrel bombs and mortars and air strikes have allowed the militia in Aleppo to encircle tens of thousands of civilians in your ever-tightening noose.

“It is your noose. Three member states of the UN contributing to a noose around civilians. It should shame you.

“Instead, by all appearances it is emboldening you. You are plotting your next assault.”

“Is there literally nothing that can shame you?”

“Is there no act of barbarism against civilians, no execution of a child that gets under your skin? That just creeps you out a little bit? she asks. “Is there nothing you will not lie about, or justify?”

Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin responded by accusing the US of creating ISIS as a result of US-UK intervention in Iraq.

In the same vein Russian officials negate Power’s allegations.

“We are tired of hearing the lamentations of our American colleagues … that the hostilities [in Aleppo] should stop and that Russians are willing to do so only after having an agreement on corridors [for opposition fighters to leave],” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov said that “All of the statements by high-ranked Western officials, which cite so-called ‘reports by the activists,’ as well as ‘flicks,’ showing alleged ‘Russian bombardments,’ ‘executions’ and other stuff are staged videos, produced by special film crews formed by militants”.

Rejecting claims that 250,000 civilians (100,000 children) were trapped in eastern Aleppo, Konashenkov asserts that “the Syrian troops’ operation to liberate the eastern parts of Aleppo is successful and humane in every sense in regard to civilians.”

“Don’t ever fall for terrorist propaganda,” he advises.

Message From Inside

Messages have been sweeping the Internet from inside the besieged eastern part of Aleppo pleading for the international community to save non-combatants from what they described the arbitrary executions by Assad forces.

Head of the White Helmets, Raed Saleh, sends a message about the approximately 100,000 civilians trapped in eastern Aleppo.

“For the past four years, we the Syria civil defence (or White Helmets), have saved thousands of lives in Aleppo. In the last few days we can no longer even count the dead.

“About 100,000 civilians are trapped in besieged eastern Aleppo in a rapidly shrinking space – less than a few square kilometres. On Tuesday [13 December], they went through hell – people were shot on sight and hundreds of children were trapped in the crossfire. Hundreds of people remain crammed into small spaces, meaning any new direct strike will hit dozens if not hundreds of people. Bodies are lying on the ground where they have fallen or trapped under the rubble. Civilians have been sheltering underground for days. Without a safe passage, death or detention seem to be the only way out of this nightmare.”

The Syrian regime and its allies, as claimed by Saleh, have been systematically targeting journalists, teachers, doctors and nurses for years and are the first ones to face detainment or execution.

“Aleppo’s humanitarians are calling for safe passage for all civilians, and those that serve them, out of Aleppo,” pleaded Saleh.

Doctors Without Borders

On 13 December 2016, the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) expressed their outrage over the unremitting violence directed against civilians in the city of Aleppo and the unresponsiveness of those who can stop it.

“This is one of the worst crises MSF has witnessed in years,” said Teresa Sancristoval, head of MSF’s emergency unit for Aleppo.

“We remind all sides that even war has rules. It is paramount that all parties allow people to flee to safety, allow the evacuation of the sick and wounded, and facilitate the protection of, and humanitarian assistance to, those who are caught on the front lines.”

According to the MFS, “all negotiations to secure access by the United Nations (UN) and other groups—including MSF—to provide humanitarian assistance in the besieged areas of eastern Aleppo have failed. In most cases, people were not provided the chance to flee.”

Once Upon a Time There Was a City Called Aleppo

Before Syria’s civil war struck Aleppo, it was one of the most vibrant centres with its long heritage of ancient landmarks in the country. Great sections have been destroyed by conflicting parties in a shameful vie for territorial power: “Sections of the medieval souq, or market, have been ruined or burnt down, and the 11th century minaret at the Umayyad mosque was destroyed three years ago,” according to various reports. Once Syria’s largest city, Aleppo has been the worst-hit and marred by war.

Now Aleppo has turned into a symbol of action and inaction.

This article appeared in Mashreq Politics and Culture Journal.

As everybody knows in politics there are two bandwagons often strongly assailed by those who would like to be admitted in: the winner’s bandwagon and the discontent’s bandwagon.

In normal times the drivers of the two wagons behave in quite the opposite way. The driver of the winner one tries to keep most people out, that of the discontent one, tries to embark most people in. The reasons of different behaviors are quite clear. The driver of the winning wagon follows the golden rule: less people share the cake, larger is the slice. That of the discontent wagon follows the golden rule: more people are discontent, larger is the cake that can be captured thanks to them.

Both rules usually work pretty well, but in order to win both need a slogan easy to capture, to sell, or to promote the intention of the wagon driver. In the first case the slogan Blood and Tears has worked usually well to maintain crowd out of the winning wagon. It conveys the idea that if you want to share benefits of the cake you first have to start to suffer. The mere fact that history shows that benefits often move from those who suffer to those who avoid suffering, is not usually recalled.

To justify this hiatus we can accept the idea that sufferance is a profession, often a vocation, which requires craft that not everybody has, and as a consequence must be left to those who have it. No reason to compete. As the slogan Blood and Tears works decently well, but only at times, for the discontent wagon the search of a slogan has a lot richer field of opportunities. The driver of the wagon can freely fish from the deep sea of discrimination, low wage, sexual abuse, religion bigotry, etc, etc. Easy to find a proper slogan? If the driver want good lasting results he should not be overcome by easy slogans.

Choosing the right slogan to convince people to mount the wagon of discontent is an art usually linked to the art of promoting fast oblivion. Let’s not forget this. To overcome unhappiness is much tougher then collect unhappy crowds. The driver can get many people jump on his discontent wagon but he must be sure that as he reaches some sort of destination (free election in a freed democratic country?), he must be able to make people to forget the disgruntlement in order to let him stay politically safe.

This peculiar ability to collect people who are unhappy, drive their discontent for a while, then as some sort of finish line is reached, to be able to discharge them fast enough to politically survive, it is a must required for those who want to drive a wagon of economic discontent, but it is also a dangerous game. Why? French President Hollande could make a seminar on it. In economy the deep sea of discontent is deeper then any other sea and more fishy then any other water. It is hard to believe there is anyone fully satisfied by his economic status. That means that if you want to get people on your discontent wagon you can freely fish in a deep sea and catch preys at will, but in economy if you want to make somebody happier is difficult that you don’t make somebody unhappy.. As Brutus said:

Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men?

Therefore if somebody is jumping on the wagon, many people could be induced to leave it. That is why the slogan is really the crux of the matter. Which slogan could keep most of the people in the same discontent wagon without inducing other people to leave it?

In Europe emerging political people are lucky. Ever since the year 2000 the ruro has taken on itself the charge of centralizing all types of discontent: Inflation, deflation, stagnation, high rental costs, excessive fluctuations of commodities, slowness of bureaucracy, you name an economic disease and soon or later somebody will write that is Euro’s responsibility.

I remember a very nice book of Daniel Pennac in which in a department store the work of one man was to be the scapegoat. He had to endure all complaints and take up the responsibility for whatever was wrong. In Europe the job of little guy that is beaten up for the prince’s faults in order to make the prince learn how to behave, is beautifully done by the euro. That is why many princes like it. They suffer, but the other guy is beaten up.

For many politicians, it is obviously convenient to have before people’s right complaint a good culprit: euro. That makes the gathering of unhappy people jumping of the discontent wagon easier. To easy to say that?

At this point as some recollections of Great William came up to now softly, now come to my mind strongly and I would like to assure that

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

If unemployment, inflation, deflation, low rent control, high commodities price variation, wrong function of street lights and bad sewage discharge come from the euro, then let’s bury it.

The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Euro,

Somebody dares to say that euro produced some good for the people?

Let’s not listen to them.

The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men—

We must listen to the honourable man, the noble Brutus. Even though myself I would remember the fascinating diner with Baron Roy Jenkins, in a town, Pamplona, which closed a conference in which both of us were invited as speakers. (in my case I need to reckon more because of my bullfight affection that by my economy views). At dinner time, in the midst of a tasteful dinner, made more precious by the wonderful hospitality of Pamploneses, and by the over shrewd comments of Baron Jenkins, I dared to ask him if he wanted England to get into the European common market he assured me that he wanted much more. He opened up his wallet and he showed me many currencies he had in. He told me “I just came from many travels in European countries, it is ridiculous to have to deal with so many currencies”. That was a noble support to the euro.

The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men—

But who in economy is more Noble then the Nobel prize winner?

Easy answer. Nobody.

Didn’t they tell us well in advance of the 2008 crises so that we could take proper shelter from it?

Didn’t they tell us well in advance that oil price was going to drop dramatically after a dramatic surge?

Didn’t they advise well in advance insurances against too much easy real estate lending?

And the junk bonds, please, were they not complaining all the time against too much high rate of return on investment in garbage?

Of course this is just a short list of the damages Euro produced all over the world.

Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.

For Europe the damages are much clearer. We all know Euro didn’t make 508 million people rich, nor flattened house rents to a marginal portion of our income, and neither reduced unemployment to acceptable sacrificial rate of 3-4 % enough to sustain a full employment policy. But is anybody able to show a quite better performance in countries out of Eurozone, or for those that share that Euro-maladie a much better performance in their own past times? Just to remain not within that euro field, but move on in the surroundings: England to overcome unemployment is voting for the Brexit, but now top financial institutions in England plan to move to Frankfurt. What? In the central core of Euro financial market? USA is promising walls to prevent people from NAFTA coming in, and is promising to throw out Muslims that already got in. What? Walls in the reign of free people movement that so much fascinated pre-Schengen euro people?

Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.

Obviously there is no greater usefulness for an economist to jump now on the wagon of the Euro discontent economists over populated by Noble Nobels. But leaving aside the economists, watching a bit carefully the face of political people ready to bury euro, one is sometimes worried that what they really want is something else then the good of economic people’s standing.

I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?

A good friend of mine used to say that historically wealth of a country comes from low price of raw material (he was including with strong cynicism also labor), for capacity to control exchange prices with armored ships (he was saying England was top operator in this a bit forced version of International Labor division), for embodying knowledge into the production systems (and here the real master is California silicon valley dream).

Maybe the third road should be a bit better explored. Why not trying before burying the Euro the road of improving productivity of investment through a different knowledge policy? Had that be suggested by economic counsellors to Vladimir Putin perhaps he would have stood better in face of Russia’s budget crisis. But in order to do that, we need some key fundamental intellectual change. Not easy, indeed. Why not accessing to a new form of Wealth of Nations based on the production and distribution of Knowledge, (say Gross Domestic Knowledge Product)? Why not study in Europe a form of Knowledge Money where each country would be free to exercise its free money printing capacity without any restriction if not that of REAL political capacity to invest in the future of its people?

That in my mind should be preliminary explored, because without concrete alternatives the abolition of the Euro will spark a race in excessive national currency spending, not necessarily prolegomena to better investments, that would instead promote a run to inflationary monetary policy, very very difficult also for the dollar to manage.

The deep impression one has in the too much widespread euro criticism is that political people that strongly want the destruction of Euro really look for freedom to run deficits.

But yesterday the word of Caesar might
Have stood against the world; now lies he there.
And none so poor to do him reverence.

*Umberto Sulpasso, senior Fellow of Center for Digital Future Annenberg School of Communication, University of Southern California has a Degree in Economics in Italy and MBA from Columbia University. Has been teaching in different countries Economy of Knowledge, and publishing books and directing ecnclopedias. His most recent publication has been Darwinomics where for the first time the model of GDKP was announced.

I’ve had a series of informal exchanges over Richard McLaren’s second report on doping in Russian sports. What follows is a fine tuned version of my impression of that subject. It’s in line with the December 10 Duran article “Professor McLaren Again Attacks Russian Sport“.

Among the major Western news media venues, the BBC has a well deserved enough reputation for being the most objective. That observation is relative to the competition and doesn’t mean that everything at the Beeb is always kosher.

The December 9, BBC piece “Russian Doping: McLaren Report Says More Than 1,000 Athletes Implicated“, is much like the same day televised BBC coverage aired in the US. In each instance, the opening starts out with words like “according and “claims”, regarding McLaren’s latest report. Thereafter, BBC reporters erroneously present McLaren’s observations as facts.

Lacking verifiable specifics, McLaren asserts that more than 1,000 Russian athletes are linked to a state sponsored doping program. The combined total of Russian Summer and Winter Olympic athletes is less than 1,000. The overwhelming majority of these athletes haven’t been found guilty of doping.

Two unnamed Russian women ice hockey players (highlighted by McLaren and the BBC), along with some other anecdotes are a far cry from conclusively proving an unethically vast state sponsored doping regimen. At the 2016 Rio Summer Olympics, the heavily booed Russian swimmer Yulia Efimova, was clearly not involved in an illicit state orchestrated doping campaign. The booing of Efimova and other Russian athletes at Rio were the result of misinformed individuals (many from English speaking countries), who’ve readily accepted the suspect claims stated in the media they rely on.

Efimova’s first offence involved using an over the counter supplement legally bought in the US (where she has lived and trained), which has some matter banned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the sports federations affiliated with it. Her second infraction concerned a drug (Meldonium), that had only recently been banned. Before a panel of non-Russians, Efimova made the case that her use of Meldonium was before it became banned. (Testing can find traces of that drug in a person’s body for months after its use has ended.)

Grigory Rodchenkov, the so-called “whistleblower” (who was fired from his Russian sports medicine position for taking bribes to cover up positive tests) hasn’t been made available for follow-up questioning. Upon his disgraced dismissal in Russia, Rodchenkov turned up in the US, where he made sensationalistic claims, utilized by McLaren.

After the release of McLaren’s second report, the IOC announced a retesting of Russian blood samples from the 2012 London Summer Olympics and 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. As time passes, the testing methodology improves. Hence, a retested negative sample from 2012 could turn up positive years later. If there’s a sincere effort to clean up doping in the Olympics, there should be an across the board retesting that includes non-Russian athletes. Any reluctance to do so suggests an insincere effort.

The drive to isolate Russia is factually challenged, if not bigoted. It’s fair to believe that North American legal politicos Travis Tygart and Dick Pound wouldn’t favor a collective ban if the tables went against their respective nation with the same level of “evidence”. An underlying current of arrogance, ignorance and hypocrisy relates to the incessant Russia bashing which has been evident.

Last week, the comparatively more open minded John Batchelor, had two segments concerning anti-Jewish instances in the US. When it comes to the American academic, mass media and political establishments, anti-Russian sentiment is the greater reality. This point doesn’t deny the anti-Jewish manner existing within some extreme elements outside the aforementioned grouping.

I note this as someone of Jewish and Russian Orthodox Christian backgrounds. In US mass media, some establishment journos periodically note their roots to the former USSR, in a way that suggests having some greater insight. These particular folks tend to slant in the direction of the predominating mass media preferences.

Meantime, there’re people with that former Soviet familial background in the West (that takes varying ethno-religious forms) with different views. The perspectives from these individuals are under-represented. The level of anti-Russian bigotry is something that a good number of the JRL (Johnson’s Russia List) court appointed Russia friendly regulars aren’t as well versed on, when compared to some of those who regularly get censored.

During the Cold War, people of White Russian background (whose families opposed the Communists, while being quite proud of their Russian background) experienced being called Commies because of their stated Russian heritage. On the left, some have blamed the Russian character for perverting an otherwise noble ideology (at least as perceived by some). I sense that this left grouping includes some PC types who talk about being tolerant towards others – Russians excluded.

All this meshes with the flawed mindset of the Cold War era created National Captive Nations Committee (NCNC), that influenced the US government to approve Captive Nations Week (CNW). With a heavy nationalist western Ukrainian diaspora influence, the NCNC/CNW project took to recognizing Nazi advocated states like “Cossackia” as captive nations, with Russia and Russians portrayed as benefactors of Communism at the unfair expense of others.

Quite rightly, there’d be an outcry if Jews were put in place of that thought. (That idea periodically crops up among some fringe circles.) Therein lies the kind of selective sensitivity that’s out there. In reality, the Soviet Union had multiethnic supporters and detractors in varied proportions.

(An aside regarding Cossackia: with some exceptions, most Cossacks appear to have a positive affinity for Russia. As is true with the NCNC/CNW agenda, the Nazi support for Cossackia was premised on a divisive front against Russia. Cossackia also challenged the Communist drawn boundaries of Ukraine – something that the Cold War period nationalist western Ukrainian influenced NCNC didn’t seem to actively confront. For the most part, anti-Communist Ukrainian nationalists appear to favor Ukraine’s Communist drawn boundaries.)

Prior articles of mine on (among other things) the issue of doping in Russian sports:

“Russians Held To Different Standards“, August 24, 2016

Russian Track And Field Athletes Face An Ongoing Ordeal“, July 12, 2016

“Enhanced Russia Bashing At The New York Times“, June 6, 2016<

“Russian Athletics Punishment To Hopefully End By Next Olympics“, January 25, 2016

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. A related version of this article appeared under the title of “More Russia Bashing On Sports Doping Claim” at the Strategic Culture Foundation on December 15.

US President-elect Donald J. Trump on Thursday announced the nomination of David Friedman to serve as the United States Ambassador to Israel.

Friedman, an attorney who has been counselor to some of the world’s top businessmen and companies, was one of the President-elect’s principal advisors on the US-Israel relationship during the campaign.

When Israel proclaimed itself an independent republic in 1948, the United States was the first country to extend formal recognition of the new government. From that moment forward, the two nations have enjoyed a special relationship based on mutual respect and a dedication to freedom and democracy, noted the Trump transition team in a statement.

According to the Trump transition team, with Mr. Friedman’s nomination, President-elect Trump expressed his commitment to further enhancing the US-Israel relationship and ensuring there will be extraordinary strategic, technological, military and intelligence cooperation between the two countries.

“The bond between Israel and the United States runs deep, and I will ensure there is no daylight between us when I’m President,” said President-elect Trump. “As the United States’ Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman will maintain the special relationship between our two countries. He has been a long-time friend and trusted advisor to me. His strong relationships in Israel will form the foundation of his diplomatic mission and be a tremendous asset to our country as we strengthen the ties with our allies and strive for peace in the Middle East. Nothing is more critical than protecting the security of our citizens at home and abroad.”

The Trump transition team noted that Friedman held his bar mitzvah at the Western Wall in Jerusalem 45 years ago, and is a fluent speaker of Hebrew and a lifelong student of Israel’s history.

The ongoing evacuation of civilians from Aleppo was suspended on Friday after pro-regime foreign militants waylaid a civilian convoy shortly after it left Aleppo’s besieged eastern districts for the nearby city of Idlib.

According to Anadolu Agency correspondents in Aleppo, pro-Assad regime foreign fighters opened fire on the convoy of buses, which were carrying some 800 of the city’s civilian residents.

The fighters forced the vehicles to stop in southwestern Aleppo’s regime-held Ramouseh suburb and took the passengers hostage, correspondents reported.

Crowds of regime supporters then protested next to the convoy to demand that Syrian opposition forces lift an ongoing siege of the pro-regime Shia villages of Fua and Kefraya, both of which are located in Idlib province.

Members of the crowd reportedly demanded the release of relatives allegedly trapped in the two villages.

Under siege by armed opposition groups for more than a year and a half, Fua and Kefraya currently host fighters from both Lebanon’s Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The Assad regime has been resupplying the two villages by air, while regime forces have besieged 18 opposition-held areas across war-torn Syria.

Under the terms of an earlier agreement between the Assad regime and Syrian opposition groups, civilians trapped in eastern Aleppo will be allowed to go to the opposition-held city of Idlib.

Situated near the border with Turkey, Idlib is located some 65 kilometers (roughly 40 miles) from Aleppo.

In recent days, at least 7,500 civilians have left eastern Aleppo for Idlib, according to opposition sources.

Since the Syrian war erupted in 2011, more than a quarter of a million people have been killed and more than 10 million displaced across the war-battered country, according to UN figures.

However, the Syrian Center for Policy Research, a Beirut-based NGO, has put the total death toll from the five-year conflict at more than 470,000.

Original source

Surfing the internet in class is now linked to poorer test scores, even among the most intelligent and motivated of students.

Michigan State University researchers studied laptop use in an introductory psychology course and found the average time spent browsing the web for non-class-related purposes was 37 minutes. Students spent the most time on social media, reading email, shopping for items such as clothes and watching videos.

And their academic performance suffered. Internet use was a significant predictor of students’ final exam score even when their intelligence and motivation were taken into account, said Susan Ravizza, associate professor of psychology and lead author of the study.

“The detrimental relationship associated with non-academic internet use,” Ravizza said, “raises questions about the policy of encouraging students to bring their laptops to class when they are unnecessary for class use.”

Funded by the National Science Foundation, the findings will be published online soon in the journal Psychological Science. The article is titled “Logged in and zoned out: How laptop internet use impacts classroom learning.”

The research was conducted in a one-hour, 50-minute lecture course with 507 students taught by Kimberly Fenn, MSU associate professor of psychology and study co-author. In all, 127 students agreed to participate in the study, which involved logging onto a proxy server when the students went online. Of those participants, 83 checked into the proxy server in more than half of the 15 course sessions during the semester and were included in the final analysis.

Intelligence was measured by ACT scores. Motivation to succeed in class was measured by an online survey sent to each participant when the semester was over.

Interestingly, using the internet for class purposes did not help students’ test scores. But Ravizza said she wasn’t surprised. “There were no internet-based assignments in this course, which means that most of the ‘academic use’ was downloading lecture slides in order to follow along or take notes.”

Previous research, she added, has shown that taking notes on a laptop is not as beneficial for learning as writing notes by hand. “Once students crack their laptop open, it is probably tempting to do other sorts of internet-based tasks that are not class-relevant.”

In her courses, Ravizza said she has stopped posting lecture slides before class. Instead, she waits until the week before the exam to upload them so there is no reason for students to bring a laptop to class.

“I now ask students to sit in the back if they want to bring their laptop to class so their internet use is not distracting other students,” she said.

The international community has yet to develop a strategy for effectively promoting human rights under the new political structure in Burma, which now has two power bases, the military and the National League for Democracy-led government. Neither of which is respecting human rights.

On Saturday 1st October 2016, the Burmese Army fired six mortars into Pu Wang village in northern Shan State. The bombs killed a 2 year old child, Mang Shang Zung Myaw, and seriously injured a 5 year old and a 6 year old child.

The attack was barely reported in Burma, let alone internationally. Attacks like this by the Burmese Army are so common, they don’t make the headlines. It’s just what happens.

Step back and think about that for a moment. After years of reforms, after the lifting of sanctions, after the praise lavished on the military for their reform process, it is still so commonplace for the Burmese Army to bomb a civilian village and kill a child that it barely warrants a mention.

Eight days later, attacks on police border guard posts in which nine policemen were killed prompted a major military crackdown in Northern Rakhine State. The Burmese Army’s so-called clearance operations have left more than 30,000 people displaced, and there are credible reports that dozens of women have been raped and hundreds of people killed. There are reports of babies and children being thrown into burning homes that the Burmese Army has torched. Food supplies have been destroyed and unknown numbers arrested and tortured. Aid has been blocked to tens of thousands of Rohingya who were already living in squalid conditions and not getting enough aid. By now people will be dying, children first. We don’t know how many as journalists and aid workers are banned from going to these areas.

Many of these human rights violations meet the legal definition of crimes against humanity, and some legal studies state they could also meet the legal definition of genocide.

Embracing the military

While these horrific human rights violations were taking place, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, the man ultimately responsible for these human rights violations, was enjoying a tour of European Union countries, and attending a meeting of the European Union Military Committee-EUMC Meeting, the highest level EU military forum.

As his soldiers raped Rohingya women and burned villages, Min Aung Hlaing met military heads and defence ministers in Italy, and went sightseeing in Rome and Venice. He boasted that the visit was for: “further promotion of bilateral ties and cooperation between the two armed forces of both countries, exchange of goodwill visits, and issues of cooperation between the two armed forces in the future.” He was even taken to visit a manufacturer of military vehicles, and taken to a military aircraft company involved in the Eurofighter Typhoon jet. He enjoyed a tour of their factory.

It’s not just the EU which is ingratiating itself with the Burmese military. The USA, Australia and other countries are also building closer relationships with the military, and inviting them to observe joint military exercises. The British government is providing free training to Burmese Army soldiers. The Burmese military are being brought in from the cold, even as the human rights violations they commit are increasing.

For the past few years the approach of the international community has been one of soft engagement, hoping the military will have a gradual epiphany and realise it is in their own self-interest to agree to further reform.

Recently Aung San Suu Kyi appears to be taking a similar approach, attempting to persuade the military that she, and a democratic government, are not a threat to their interests. It is perhaps to this end that she is uncritical of their actions in Rakhine State, Shan State and Kachin State, even defending them domestically and internationally. It could partly be for this reason that she has appointed more current and former military people to key government posts than she has NLD members. And why she has told MPs that debating and questioning the military budget is out of bounds.

Members of the international community don’t appear to have a clear strategy for how to address the new political situation in Burma. Some still talk about the need to ‘reward’ the military for the reforms undertaken. This argument never made much sense. All the reforms in Burma have been on the military’s terms. Not once have they responded to domestic pressure or pressure from the international community to change in any way the transition plan and political landscape that they laid out in their 2008 Constitution. They were being ‘rewarded’ for ignoring the international community and sticking to their own plan.

The 2008 Constitution is based on the presumption that the NLD will win a landslide in the elections, and makes provisions to ensure military interests are preserved when they do so. A smooth transition was an essential part of a plan the military have been implementing for almost ten years. They have as much at stake as anyone in the process, they designed it. The last thing the military want to do is retake direct control over the government of Burma. Their plan has worked perfectly.

Even if there was merit to the ‘reward’ argument, it is passed now. The reform process is over. The 2008 Constitution has now been implemented. The military have the political structure they want in place, and are refusing to allow further democratic reform.

At the present time, the military are the obstacle to reform, not the facilitators of it. They will not allow Constitutional reform. They are responsible for the majority of serious human rights violations taking place in Burma. They are the main obstacle in the peace process succeeding. Why is the language of rewards still being used?

The other argument being used is the need for engagement. No-one is opposed to engagement. Engagement is essential. The question is, which kind of engagement is effective?

The current approach is one of soft engagement. It is seemingly based on a belief that just by bringing the military into the welcoming arms of the international community, and exposing them to professional armies, while at the same time ending their supposed isolation and their being able to see the benefits of change, will encourage them to agree to further change.

This isn’t working. This has never worked. Ever. Human rights violations which could break international law are on the increase. Those promoting this approach are left clutching at straws.

The presumption that a professional military is one which respects human rights is not borne out by current or historical evidence. There are numerous examples of professional military bodies that either run or are under brutal regimes. The Burmese military has seen substantial budget increases since 2011. This money has not been used to professionalise the military, but it has been used to modernise it. New heavy weaponry has been purchased which is being used in ethnic states, in conflicts where civilians are being targeted and killed.

Proponents of the soft engagement approach also highlight how the military allowed a smooth handover of power after the NLD won a landslide in the elections. In doing so they are praising the military for following their own plan, instead of responding to calls from the international community and people of Burma to change the Constitution.

As already described, the military have not budged at all from following their own agenda, a top down reform process negotiated with nobody except themselves.

The fact that Min Aung Hlaing is being given tours of arms manufacturers suggests the prospect of future arms sales may also be a driving factor in the softly softly approach towards the military.

The more the military are welcomed into the arms of the international community, the more sanctions are lifted, the more UN engagement on human rights is lifted, the more they are praised for reforms, the more their confidence grows that they can continue to commit human rights violations and block democratic constitutional reform with impunity.

Premature decisions based on wishful thinking

Just how badly the international community has got it wrong is shown by their approach in the weeks running up to the latest Rohingya crisis. The evidence was there, the warnings were there, but they were ignored.

In June 2016, a report by the High United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights – Situation of human rights of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar – stated the following:

“The information received by OHCHR suggests that minority groups have suffered a wide range of human rights violations and abuses. Moreover, in the context of armed conflicts, reports over many decades have documented violations of international humanitarian law allegedly committed by the military and armed groups. If established in a court of law, some of these violations could amount to war crimes.”

In all the years of conflict in Burma, this was the first time the United Nations has been so direct in describing human rights violations as war crimes.

On the Rohingya, the conclusions were just as serious:

“The situation described above reflects a pattern of gross human rights violations that affect fundamental civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Rohingya. Widespread discriminatory policies and/or practices targeting them on the basis of their ethnic and/or religious identity have led to an acute deprivation of fundamental rights. Many of the acts described would suggest a widespread or systematic attack against the Rohingya, in turn suggesting the possible commission of crimes against humanity, if established by a court of law.”

Rather than consider what new steps can be taken to end such violations of international law, the international community moved in the opposite direction.

The 2015 UNGA resolution on Burma contained 17 paragraphs with recommendations to the government of Burma and the military for improvements in human rights. The only one which has been met related to a smooth transition to a new government following elections. Outstanding areas where action has not been taken by the government and/or military include releasing all political prisoners, bringing all national institutions, including the military, under democratic civilian control, ending arbitrary arrest and detention, ending forced displacement, ending rape and other forms of sexual violence, ending violations of international humanitarian law, establishing a country office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, implementing agreements to end the use of child soldiers, addressing trafficking, ensuring Rohingya have access to full citizenship, freedom of movement, and civil and political rights, and investigating human rights violations against Rohingya to ensure accountability.

Yet in 2016 the Resolution was discontinued.

Since the NLD-led government came to power earlier this year, much of the international community took the approach that the job of the international community in promoting human rights and democracy was pretty much done. Alok Sharma MP, the British Foreign Minister with responsibility for Burma said as much in a recent article entitled ‘Celebrating Success with Aung San Suu Kyi’:

“Among the throngs of world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly Secretary General Ban Ki-moon held a meeting to celebrate the conclusion of his partnership group on Burma – their work is complete.”

Just eight days after making this statement, the death of a two year old child at the hands of the Burmese Army is evidence that their work is far from complete. A week after that, the mass human rights violations against the Rohingya provided further evidence.

There are a wide range of reasons why much of the international community is prepared to play down remaining human rights problems in Burma. These include domestic political considerations, geopolitical concerns, trade interests, and a general global trend of human rights moving down the foreign policy agenda.

Efforts to present Burma as a country which has a reached a stage in a transition to democracy that has now moved to a technical assistance and support stage are at odds with the reality on the ground. While there are now a great many areas where progress can be made, there are also many problems left unresolved, and the Burmese Army is responsible for the majority of these.

The international community needs to change its approach so that it can differentiate between the two. It needs to provide assistance and support in some areas, and maintain and even increase pressure in other areas.

The lifting of most remaining sanctions by the US, the decision by Ban Ki-moon to end the UN Partnership Group on Burma, and the decision by the EU to discontinue the UN General Assembly Resolution on Burma, are examples of how the international community is using a one size fits all approach to a complex human rights situation.

Small positives

Citing public commitments to peace made by the military bears little credibility when at the same time they are waging war. Promises to respect human rights are broken as soon as they are uttered, as they have been for decades.

There have been recent cases, rare occasions, when the military have taken action in response to violations, which are used as ‘evidence’ of change by the military. One case involved an 8 year old girl raped by a soldier, who was then convicted in a civilian court. Another relates to seven people from Mong Yaw village who disappeared after being detained by the military. The military later admitted five of them were tortured to death, and the soldiers responsible were put on trial.

These steps are welcome, but for every case like this there are a thousand where impunity continues, including high profile cases such as the killing of journalist Ko Par Gyi in 2014 and the rape and murder of two Kachin schoolteachers in 2015.

Small steps like this cannot be claimed as evidence that there is any significant change in the attitude towards the military regarding human rights. They do provide evidence though that the military does care more about its image with the Burmese public. This is a potential point of leverage.

Military blocking democratic reform

The Burmese military, through their 2008 Constitution, have ensured that they are independent of the government, while still controlling key government ministries and setting their own budget. Through their seats in parliament they are able to veto any constitutional change to reduce their power and move Burma towards a full and genuine democracy. They have consistently stated that they do not see the need for constitutional change. As far as the military are concerned, the reform process is over. There will be no further transition towards democracy.

Such is the sensitivity regarding Constitutional reform that it has pretty much dropped off the NLD agenda.

Military committing other human rights violations

In April 2016 the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon reported that the Burmese military were continuing to recruit children, and use child soldiers in conflict. Recruiting and using children under the age of 15 as soldiers is prohibited under international humanitarian law and is defined as a war crime by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The UN and local community organisations have continued to document the use of rape and sexual violence against women and children, including a 5 year old girl, by the Burmese Army. This meets the legal definition or a war crime and a crime against humanity.

Military undermining the peace process

Through a combination of military attacks and hardline negotiating positions, the military is the biggest obstacle to peace.

At the Panglong II peace conference, Min Aung Hlaing, head of the Burmese Army, repeated the military position that ethnic armed groups have to abide by the 2008 Constitution, one of the military’s ‘six principles for peace’. This would require armed ethnic groups to place themselves under the control of the Burmese military, and require them to give up on more autonomy for ethnic states as this requires constitutional change which the military have rejected.

If the military continue to stick rigidly to this position, it will make a long term political solution to tackle the root causes of conflict impossible to reach. This threatens the entire peace process.

Ethnic political and community leaders repeatedly make a point seemingly ignored by the international community and many politicians in Burma, that if the Burmese Army was committed to peace as its states, it could simply stop its military offensives. It is the Burmese Army which is the main aggressor in the conflict, and which has been breaking ceasefires.

Attempting to kick the can down the road on human rights violations by citing the peace process will only be possible until the peace process itself hits a crunch point where the military obstruct any further progress by blocking constitutional reform and insisting armed ethnic organisation come in under the 2008 Constitution. And what happens if the NLD-led government negotiates a ceasefire which armed ethnic organisations agree to, but the Burmese military keep waging war?

Unless the military change their approach, peace will be impossible.

What next for military engagement?

A key question now for the international community is how to influence the Burmese military, which as ever, is the main obstacle to democratic reform and improving human rights in Burma.

The international community needs to develop an approach towards the Burmese military with two clear goals in mind. First, how to persuade the military to stop committing human rights violations, and second, how to persuade the military to agree to constitutional change which will enable to peace process to succeed, and which will allow further democratic transition in the country.

The military will only agree to change when they decide it is in their interests to do so. At the current time, they have little incentive to reduce human rights violations or agree to further democratic reforms. They have in place the system they designed to protect their interests and give them control over the areas such as security and defence which they believe that only they are able to guarantee the safety and security of the nation.

On the domestic front, the military will only come under significant pressure to change their behaviour when civil society, religious and political leaders join and mobilise public opinion. Even then, on issues of constitutional reform, the military are likely to resist. But on issues of conflict and human rights abuses, there may be opportunities. This is why many ethnic people have been critical of Aung San Suu Kyi over her failure to strongly speak out over human rights violations in ethnic states. She has the capacity to mobilise and influence domestic and international attention and opinion, which in turn could lead the military being under significant pressure to reduce abuses. She can act as a source of pressure rather than as a shield.

Her current approach of reaching out to the military appears to be bearing little fruit. While she has established relationships with some in the military, her efforts to reach out to and work with the higher echelons, including Min Aung Hlaing, have not been successful. During the Rakhine crisis, she has been unable to persuade the military to lift the new restrictions on aid which they have put in place. Nor have they been persuaded to soften their stance on the peace process. It is probably only a matter of time before more serious divisions emerge, and in the meantime opportunities to reduce human rights violations will be lost.

It is not just the Burmese military who are using Aung San Suu Kyi as a shield to deflect criticism. The international community are using her position on the military to defend their inaction. The British government repeatedly cites support from Aung San Suu Kyi when faced with questions as to why it began providing free training to the Burmese military without setting any preconditions on human rights.

Providing training without even trying to extract any concessions on respect for human rights is leverage being given away for nothing in return. The same applies with invitations to observe military exercises, visits by navy warships and UN Peacekeeping training. Rewards have their place, but they must come at the right time and in response to the right moves. To throw away the stick and give rewards up front without anything in return discards all leverage. It amounts to a fingers crossed approach that if we are nice to the Burmese military they will suddenly come around. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the mind-set of the military. They have a very clear idea of their role in Burmese politics and society, one that is deeply ingrained. It is not the same vision western democracies have of the role of a professional military.

When the EU and USA lifted sanctions they made no differentiation between sanctions which targeted the government and sanctions which targeted the military and their associates. The same applies to discontinuing the UN General Assembly Resolution on Burma. This decision was justified as being in acknowledgment and support of reforms and the new government, without differentiation between the government and the military and their actions.

The current NLD-led government may not be fully supporting human rights but it is in a completely different league from the military, which continues to commit multiple human rights violations which break international law and meet the criteria of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Policy must be based on current human rights violations, not on vague hopes that in a decade or more things might get better IF the military can see it is in their interests. Continuing and escalating violations of international law cannot continue to be ignored.

Opportunities for leverage

It is time for a debate which identifies potential points of leverage on the military and how they can be most effectively applied.

Diplomatic pressure

Current soft engagement where ‘sensitive’ subjects are avoided or dealt with indirectly or obliquely does not appear to be delivering results. The military know diplomats are going through the motions and there will be no consequences for ignoring them. A change of tone and content should be considered, ensuring the military are aware that friendly relations are dependent on respect for human rights.

Defence attachés provide an opportunity for engagement but this should be focused on promotion of human rights, not promotion of good relations. The removal of diplomatic attachés to countries with bad human rights records, including Burma, has been used in the past to signal displeasure, but can often be little more than a gesture. For example, in the case of Burma diplomatic attachés were removed but American and European companies continued to invest in joint projects with the military government providing them with billions of dollars. There is a risk again that members of the international community, if they do decide to try to exert pressure on the military, will resort to gestures like the removal of defence attachés, without following through by applying other more effective measures. Robust engagement and targeted pressure should be applied before tactics of isolation.

Invitations to high-level military meetings and events should be reconsidered immediately. The application of visa bans to the military and people associated with their business interests is another option.

Military training and exercises

Training of any kind to the Burmese military at a time when it is committing multiple violations of international human rights law, and refuses to acknowledge it is committing abuses, and at the same time obstructs democratic reform, is very hard to justify. Training by the British government has not even been evaluated for its effectiveness despite hundreds of thousands of pounds being spent on it. Such programmes should be discontinued and only resumed once specific measurable improvements in human rights have been agreed.

Invitations to observe military exercises are a reward the military have not earned. Governments extending such exercises need to be clear and specific on how such an invitation helps end human rights violations by the military.

Economic pressure

Calls for general sanctions in response to the latest Rohingya crisis are more likely to further antagonise the people of Burma against the Rohingya than help them. There could be opportunities to apply leverage for change through economic pressure, but only if it could be applied in a targeted way in support of diplomatic and other initiatives.

In the past in Burma, sanctions and other forms of pressure were usually only applied in response to an atrocity, such as the crackdown in 2007. The way pressure was applied was as a knee jerk slap on the wrist, rather than as part of any overall strategy or in support of diplomatic initiatives.

Sanctions of various kinds were gradually built up over 20 years, diminishing their impact. The USA, EU, Australia and Canada had various forms of pressure but did not coordinate their actions, not even managing to have a similar visa ban list. Mistakes of the past should not be repeated. Economic or other pressure would need to be coordinated as far as possible with countries willing to apply them. Clear benchmarks and timelines should be set in support of concerted diplomatic efforts to persuade the military to end human rights violations and agree to democratic reforms.

Economic sanctions aimed at military interests could have a role to play in pressuring the military to change. This could include individual companies withdrawing from any contracts or partnerships with military owned companies, and individual countries applying bans on doing any form of business with military-owned companies and members of the military.

Legal pressure

The evidence has been there for decades but only in the past year has the United Nations become more willing to clearly describe human rights violations in Burma as possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. The vast majority of these violations are committed by the military.

There is clearly no credible investigation taking place within Burma into the totality of the situation in Rakhine State, including those responsible for human rights violations since 2012.

A UN Commission of Inquiry should be established to assess the totality of the human rights situation in Rakhine State, including human rights violations against Muslims and Buddhists, identify perpetrators and instigators of violence and hatred, assess laws and government policies which discriminate against the Rohingya, and provide detailed recommendations to improve the situation.

In the short term, the establishment of a UN Inquiry could help curtail some of the human rights violations taking place as the government and military will know that a credible independent investigation is taking place. We have seen in the past that international attention and pressure on human rights violations in Burma/Myanmar can help curtail the scale of abuses taking place.

In the past ethnic civil society and political groups supported a UN Commission of Inquiry into human rights violations in the whole of Burma. It is likely that such calls will grow again in light of the ongoing violations committed by the Burmese Army, including in Kachin and Shan States.

Many countries are also parties to treaties or have other legal obligations to arrest those responsible for torture, even if the crime happened in another country. Members of the military on trips abroad should all be investigated and arrested if there is credible evidence they have been involved in the use of torture. At the current time, countries are not carrying out such checks on visiting members of the military.

Conclusion

It appears that the hope of some in the international community regarding the Rohingya crisis is that things will calm down over Christmas, that the international outcry will fade, that they can hunker down and things will return to normal. But normal was already unacceptable. The Rakhine Commission chaired by Kofi Annan won’t address the abuses committed by the military or the broader human rights and political situation in the country. Another crisis is waiting down the road, and more people will lose their lives.

Human rights violations by the Burmese Army are tolerated by the international community, as long as they continue to take place in ethnic states. It is inconceivable to think that there would be the same muted international response if the Burmese Army had fired six mortar bombs in Rangoon and killed and injured children there.

Would Min Aung Hlaing still have been given red carpet treatment by the EU if his soldiers were burning hundreds of homes and raping dozens of women in Rangoon?

The biggest potential threat to improving human rights and future democratic reform in Burma is the military. They are serial violators of international law. It is time the international community reassessed its approach towards the Burmese military and judge them by their actions, not their words.

Published by Burma Campaign UK

An upset US-based Hindu group is urging world’s largest online retailer Amazon.com for the immediate withdrawal of skateboards, bed covers, duvet covers and bedspreads; carrying the images Hindu deity Lord Ganesha; calling it highly inappropriate.

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada today, said that Lord Ganesha was highly revered in Hinduism and was meant to be worshiped in temples or home shrines and not to put your feet on or touch with your feet or sleep on it. Inappropriate usage of Hindu deities or concepts for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the faithful.

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, also urged Amazon.com and its President Jeffrey P. Bezos to offer a formal apology, besides withdrawing about few dozen of such products, as this was not the first time for the company to offer such products which were deemed offensive by Hindu devotees.

Symbols of any faith, larger or smaller, should not be mishandled, Rajan Zed indicated.

Zed further said that such trivialization of Lord Ganesha was disturbing to the Hindus world over. Hindus were for free artistic expression and speech as much as anybody else if not more. But faith was something sacred and attempts at trivializing it hurt the followers, Zed added.

In Hinduism, Lord Ganesha is worshiped as god of wisdom and remover of obstacles and is invoked before the beginning of any major undertaking. There are about three million Hindus in USA.

Ruling AIADMK (All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) is passing through a difficult phase of existence after the sudden death of its iron leader CM Jayalalithaa who worked hard to rebuild the party after the death her mentor and former CM MGR, the founder of AIADMK. .

Soon after the cremation of former Tamil Nadu CM Selvi J. Jayalalithaa, media reported suspicions among some sections of people about the sudden demise of her. Aspersions are being cast on the prolongation of treatment period and absence of details about the treatment to the public. Sensing danger to the unity of the ruling AIADMK, ministers and MPs, among top leaders began naming Jayalalithaa’s close friend Sasikala as the next general secretary of the party and requesting her to take over the party leadership to keep the party together. AIADMK leaders are keen to r avoid repetition of the split of the party as it had happened after the death of AIADMK founder and then CM M.G. Ramachandran.

In 1987, when her husband M. G. Ramachandran died, Janaki was asked by party members, who opposed Jayalalithaa, to take his place. She took his place as the leader of the AIADMK party, which subsequently split into two factions. Janaki Ramachandran became Chief Minister in January 1988 soon after her husband’s death, but her government lasted only 24 days, the shortest in the history of Tamil Nadu. Her ministry won the vote of confidence of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly in January 1988 but the Central Government under the late Rajiv Gandhi used Article 356 of the Constitution of India to dismiss her government in February the same year. Her party was subsequently defeated in the next elections that were held in 1989. She quit politics after the unification of the two factions of the AIADMK under Jayalalithaa.

After a long struggle Jayalalithaa faction won the battle with MGR’s wife actress Janaki who became Tamil Nadu CM to take over the government left behind by MGR. However, in the next assembly election Janaki and her faction lost election winning just one seat while Jayalalithaa, though also lost, won 28 seats. DMK won the election and formed the government by making use of the vertical split in the AIADMK.

Now the leaders of AIADMK does not want a similar split to destroy the party because even Sasikala could be used by DMK or BJP or both to split the party. This anxiety is the reason why the leaders in AIADMK are in a haste to make Sasikala to leaded the party and ministers, MLAs, MPs, etc. Already photos and video clips have appeared in the media showing how the ministers are standing in a queue before Sasikala (chinnamma-sister of mother) in a worship fashion as they had done it before their Amma (Jaya).

Obviously the doubts being expressed in media about the death of former Chief Minister have upset and made the ruling party leaders to be alert.

As controversy surrounds over the death of J Jayalalalithaa, opposition DMK and PMK demanded a ‘white paper’ on the medical treatment given to the leader as they said “there were apprehensions among the public and party supporters on the matter.”

DMK Treasurer and Opposition Leader MK Stalin and PMK founder S Ramadoss made demands in this regard. “The Tamil Nadu government should release a white paper on the treatment given to former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa. Since AIIMS doctors had also treated her, the treatment details should be informed to public by the Centre,” Stalin said. He added that neither he nor his party wanted to “politicize” the matter. “Jayalalithaa was not on an ordinary person but the Chief Minister. Even during her hospitalization, parties including DMK sought publicizing of information on her treatment,” he told reporters.

Stalin recalled that in the past when former chief ministers like late CN Annadurai and MG Ramachandran, were hospitalised, the then Health ministers in the respective cabinets used to come up with periodic updates on their health status. However, no statement was released by the government or the Tamil Nadu Health minister when Jayalalithaa was hospitalised. Only Apollo Hospitals, where she was admitted, issued medical bulletins, he stated.

Expressing grief over the AIADMK leader’s death, Stalin said, “There are various reports about the treatment given to the former chief minister,” and referred to the demand by PMK founder S Ramadoss, who also sought a white paper on the matter.

“There are doubts among many people about the death of the (former) chief minister. To completely dispel them, a white paper should be published as demanded by Ramadoss,” he said.

Ramadoss, on his part, said there were “apprehensions” among the public and AIADMK workers over the treatment given to Jayalalithaa as well as her death. “To dispel them, the state government should immediately release a white paper detailing the medical treatment given to Jayalalithaa,” he said.

The public is not fully convinced about the reported health conditions of Jayalalalithaa leading to her death as no photo or TV video clips were published by the government to assure the people of her health condition on regular basis. When MGR was in hospital in USA, the government had, in order to put an end to rumours circulated in the media that MGR had died along ago but the government hid the facts, readily published living photos of CM MGR reading news papers. This gave the AIADMK an upper hand over rival DMK in propaganda tactics.

Not only DMK but also BJP and PMK- lost in the assembly and recently held by-elections and badly affected by Jayalalithaa’s increasing sway over masses – naturally think without Jayalalithaa at the helm of affirms it is possible to defeat AIADMK if they could split the ruling AIADMK. DMK has one important pending ambition- finding space on the Marina beach in front of Madras University for Karunanidhi’s memorial and for which he, as the convention followed so far, should die as CM of the state. It is certainly an abnormal agenda as DMK needs to outsmart AIADMK which is building a memorial for their leader Jayalalithaa who just passed away as TN CM and her mortally remains have been buried behind MGR’s memorial. The Marina beach memorial issue is indeed a serious matter for DMK. In fact, both Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi “competed” for space for their own memorial on Marina Beech and jaya has succeeded.

Meanwhile, former CM Karunanidhi has been admitted again in Kaveri hospital in Chennai. On December 07 he returned home in Gopalapuram from hospital fully recovered from illness after treatment for a week. It seems he suffered from allergy and was not reacting to medicines as they have become ineffective as he getting too old.

Many DMK leaders and his relatives are in the hospital. Over-strain in politics and literature is cited as being the cause of his failing health. The hospital authorities say Karunanidhi’s condition is stable and there is no danger to his life.

The one-sided Western media reporting against the Russian and the Syrian government is skyrocketing as the fall of eastern Aleppo comes to a close. Both governments are accused of committing war crimes as if the other side consists of fighting angels and not Western-supported and financed US mercenaries and terrorists. The war is presented only from the atrocities committed by Assad or the Russians. Since the so-called civil war broke out in 2011, which was initiated by the CIA and other Western and Arab intelligence agencies in order to manufacture regime change in Syria, according to the Libyan model, the Western media blame only Bashar al-Assad and later Russian President Vladimir Putin as the only evildoer.

From day one of the instigated “uprising” against Assad, the Western public has been constantly misinformed by one-sided reporting or even fake news produced either by the CIA, the Pentagon or by a London-based public relations company, Bell Pottinger. For their fake videos and other disseminated lies, they received $540 million, which means that the American taxpayers have paid for being lied to by their own government. This company has already served almost every rogue state or political thug around the world.1

Another Western lie pretends that Assad is supposedly killing his own people. If this holds true, he would have been overthrown by his own people long ago. Why do people flee from the terrorist held areas into Assad-controlled territories, if he would kill them? If one thinks for just a moment, everybody can tip the scam. This is not a justification of the atrocities committed by the Assad regime.

With the start of the US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria the mainstream media have lost their credibility because they never questioned the arguments and the “proof” that were presented by the US government, although serious doubts were obvious right from the start of the instigated wars that aimed at the annexation of resources. The mainstream media were the main cheerleaders for the toppling of the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Muammar al-Gaddafi, and now Bashar al-Assad, although their regimes were “less” brutal and “bloodthirsty” than the ones the US created through its policy of chaos.

On “Ron Paul’s Liberty Report”,2 independent journalist Vanessa Beeley, sets the record straight on the situation in Aleppo. Since 1979, the US has been siding with terrorists, beginning in Afghanistan via Libya till Syria. They have been supporting all terrorist groups, comments Beeley. The last ceasefire in Aleppo was used by the US and its Western allies to supply the terrorists with missiles and other weaponry. Beeley who just came back from Aleppo contradicted the picture drawn by the Western media. The terrifying situation created by the different terrorist organizations such as hostage taking, killing, raping and torturing the people of Eastern Aleppo are dismissed by Western media.

She also had interesting things to say about the so-called humanitarian organization “White Helmets”. Beeley describes them as a fake group. The organization was created by the West and has the task to build the foundation of a “parallel state”. They receive over $ 100 million from the US, UK, and other Western countries; Germany supports this “humanitarian organization” with $ 7 million. According to Beeley, they are trained in Turkey and “they act as terrorists”. Apparently, all of them are “volunteers”. Why do they need then such an enormous amount of money, asks the journalist?

Actually, the much lauded so-called humanitarian organization “White Helmets” seems to be an asset in the Western-led war against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. They look like a party in the Western-led terrorist front to overthrow the legitimate Syrian government. They closely cooperate with the different terrorist organizations in Syria. Surprisingly enough, they were awarded the „Alternative Nobel Prize“ by the “Right Livelihood Award Foundation”, although many of their rescue missions are fake.

The CIA spin against an apparent Russian meddling in the American electoral process has to be seen in a larger context. So far, no evidence has been shown and none of the other 15 intelligence agencies have supported the CIA accusations, not to speak of the FBI. The made-up scandal by the CIA was not a hack but a leak by somebody who didn’t want to see Hillary Clinton as the next US President.

One of the aims of these unfounded rumors could be to influence the Electoral College that meets on 19 December in order to formally elect Donald Trump as the next US President. Beyond that, US Congress should be positioned against Trump’s soft policy towards Russian and his nominee Rex W. Tillerson as Secretary of State.

Despite the heavy anti-Russian sentiments within the Washington political establishment, “The Brian Lehrer Show” on WNYC interviewed Stephen Cohen, Professor emeritus of Russian history, who said that liberals and Democrats have all lined up viewing Russia and Putin as evil. There are more urgent points to discuss between the superpowers right now such as the role of the intelligence agencies that have produced no “public facts” to support the view that Russia hacked the Democratic Party emails.

Donald Trump is criticized for his “wisdom” saying that he refused to demonize Putin and wouldn’t it be great if the two countries could cooperate instead to fight each other. Whether Cohen’s criticism will lead to a more rational and open debate has to be seen. Right now, the destructive and war-prone forces in Washington have still die upper hand.

Even President Obama has joint the crowd and threatened Russia with retaliation despite zero evidence. The speech of UN ambassador Samantha Power at the UN Security Council shows an apparent moral superiority and hypocrisy that is unrivaled.3 Craig Paul Roberts talks to the point of the whole CIA spin: “What we are experiencing in the delegitimization of Donald Trump is an extraordinary rejection of democracy by elements in the government and by the presstitutes.”

Notes:
1. http://www.salon.com/2016/10/03/u-s-paid-p-r-firm-540-million-to-make-fake-al-qaida-videos-in-iraq-propaganda-program/
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8mA0h7dCKI&feature=share
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBFCRNm-zyY&feature=share

India–Japan relations have always been on the smooth road and has never been nudged by the USA. But, Mr. Trump’s assertiveness for isolationist policy and his paradoxical behavior have raised eyebrows over the impact on India-USA relations. This may have spiraling impact on India-Japan relation, if the exasperated Trump really pursues an “American only” policy.

Both the USA and Japan are strategically important for India. The USA plays a crucial role in India’s foreign and economic policies and Japan plays a lead role as a strategic economic partner of India.

Japan is a key ally to USA. It has been playing an important role in driving Obama’s Asia pivot policy, the main aim of which is to counter China’s hegemony in Asia. The recent summit between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Japan  mirrored Japan’s circuitous drive to accelerate the USA Asia pivot policy.

During the recent visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Japan, economic focuses were preceded by defense commitments. Japan’s sale of US -2 amphibious planes to Indian Navy, a pledge for defense equipment and cooperation through Defense Framework Agreement and Joint Working Group, joint cooperation for development of Chabahar Port in Iran and reiteration of commitment for maintenance of peace in South China sea in the Joint Statement, all reflected new directions in the India-Japan relationship. This harps on dwarfing China’s concern in Asia and Asia –Pacific region

Prime Minster Shinzo Abe explained his new strategy in the Indo-Pacific region. He called for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy in Tokyo International Conference on African Development in August in Nairobi. The aim was to create a stronger connection between Asia and Africa and emphasized  a joint role by Japan and India in this connectivity. Both realized the importance of Japan and India cooperation to balance the Indo-Pacific region and continue their maritime exercises with the USA. Maritime exercises by India and the USA in Malabar began in 1992. Later, Japan joined the exercise.

The sustainability of the USA’s Asia Pivot policy and its potential impact on India- Japan relations depends upon how the new US President, Mr Donald Trump, calibrates US foreign policy. Will he tinker Obama’s Asia Pivot strategy or follow suit? If he tinkers, what shape the India- Japan relation will take, given the new direction underpinned in the relation during the recent visit of Modi to Japan?

Mr Trump, as a candidate, was known as “unfriendly toward Japan” (according to The New Yorker) and threatened to quash the fifty-six year old US security alliance with Japan. He said, “ You know we have a treaty with Japan, where if Japan is attacked we have to use the full force and might of United States”. But, “ If we are attacked, Japan doesn’t have to do anything. They can sit home and watch Sony television”. It may prove benign to Mr Abe to amend the Japanese Constitution, despite the Japanese people’s feeble support. But, Trump’s allergy to protect Japan at the cost of American tax payers is likely to weaken the USA – Japan bond.

To this end, a revisit of the India–Japan relationship is not a bad prognosis. With the unexpected victory of Mr Trump, his inexperienced policy strategies are likely to put the India-Japan relationship into quandary, particularly from the perspective of both countries joint role in Asia and Asia–Pacific region.

Mr Modi established a close bond with President Obama, keeping an eye on a nuclear deal and protection to Indian IT professionals in the USA. Will Trump replicate the Obama-Modi partnership? Trump called Mr Modi a ‘great man’ and had expressed his willingness to work closely with India. If Trump pursues an isolationist “America First” policy and the growing relationship between India-Japan is not a hinge on the USA’s foreign policy, including economic expansion, Trump’s isolationist policy is unlikely to haunt the India-Japan relationship.

Trump assertiveness to dump TPP ( Trans-Pacific Partnership) may prove benign for India-Japan relations. This is because it will bring Japan more close to India. Abrogation of TPP is a loss to Japan. It could help Japan to revitalize the economy through a powerful economic block, which spearheads trade and investment opportunities. The dumping of TPP will force Japan to revisit its global strategy for trade and investment partnership with RCEP members, where India offers a big market, owing to high GDP growth and a large middle class.

India has emerged as the Asian Detroit for Japanese automobiles, leaving behind Thailand. India produces three times more cars than Thailand and Japan is dominant player in the Indian car industry. There is a large potential for the Indian automobile market through the RCEP route.

Trump’s outrage against outsourcing cheap human resources and warning to restrict HI B policy may dampen India’s IT software market. But, it may also prove propitious as it will force India to find alternate markets. Japan can prove green-pastures for the new Indian IT software market. Today, Japan constitutes less than 2 percent of India IT software market export. The language barrier, a factor to stymie the India’s export potential of IT software, is abating with the growing Japanese investment in India.

India-Japan relations, which are now deeply rooted, is synergized by several similarities between Mr Modi and Mr Abe. Both are congruous to big ticket reforms. Both inherited deeply fractured economies that were not curable by mild or near term reforms. Mr Modi received an high inflation indicted economy and was engulfed by corrupted governance, and Mr Abe inherited a long recession economy with rare chances for upturn in the economy.

Mr Modi tried to re-write a new chapter for the India- Japan relationship with a shift from strategic economic relation to global partnership. He reiterated that India and Japan were the two oldest democracies in Asia and were among the three biggest economies. He asserted that 21st Century is to be decided by Asian countries and India and Japan bilateral relations will be the engine for 21st Century growth.

Therefore, Trump’s calling Mr Modi a “good man” and Japan being an ally of the USA , which is unlikely to be altered in real foreign policy of Trump, both tender little vibrations in India-Japan relations.

*S. Majumder, Adviser, Japan External Trade Organization ( JETRO), New Delhi. Views are personal.

The US, with its characteristic hypocrisy, has been at great pains over the liberation of Aleppo from the clutches of extremist jihadists (from over three dozen countries) and, yet, has demonstrated hardly any grief over the ISIS takeover of the ancient city of Palmyra, as if there is a grain of truth to the suspicion in Damascus, Moscow, and Tehran, that US deliberately turned a blind eye to ISIS’s assault on Palmyra for all the obvious reasons, i.e., continuing with the “radical Islamic card” against its enemies.

It is therefore with a tinge of humor when interpreting the US ambassador to UN’s grandstanding, asking the Syrian government and its allies if they are “really incapable of shame?” Perhaps the real question is if the US is really capable of accepting defeat? After all, the US’ investment on the Syrian rebels, many of whom are al-Qaeda affiliates, has come to naught, But, the game is not over and the Palmyra tragedy is indicative of a new chapter in the Syrian conflict that has featured strange bedfellows.

In Aleppo, thousands of residents have been celebrating the liberation of their city in the broken streets of this great historic city, but one would not know that by watching CNN and other US networks that have toed the official line by reporting, without any proof, of mass killings by the government forces.

The US propaganda against Syria is in full force and plays a major role in rationalizing US’ ‘game of strategy’ in the region, which has implicated the US in, among other things, complicity with the Saudi mayhem in Yemen, decried by the UN and rights organizations, although not the US and its UN representatives, such as ambassador Samantha Power, who has made a mockery of her human rights pretensions by failing to as much as raising an eye brow at the Saudis’ relentless destruction of hospitals, schools, and, indeed, the whole civilian infrastructure of poor Yemen, with the US and UK-manufactured bombs.

What about Yemen, someone at the Security Council should have had the courage to throw at ambassador Power when she took the moral high ground and criticized the Syrians and others, when what she should have done was to congratulate them for a successful campaign to restore peace in Aleppo and get rid of foreign fighters who have wreaked havoc there for the past four and a half years.

Certainly, one can only hope that the incoming Trump administration would keep the campaign pledges to refrain from engaging in regime change and prioritize fighting the menace of ISIS, which has spread to so many countries like a growing tumor.

Obama, who turned a blind eye to ISIS’s takeover of Mosul two years ago, has now done it again in Palmyra, thus leaving a highly undesirable legacy, call it unfinished project, for his successor, who must choose between continuity and discontinuity in US’ foreign policy. Trump’s opponents have already begun their efforts to weaken his hands by their insinuations of Trump-Russia connection, hoping that this will act as a speed bump on Trump’s desire to normalize relations with Moscow.

There is, of course, nothing anti-American to pursue this objective with respect to a country that matches US in nuclear muscle and can be a partner in global crisis-management as seen in the case of Iran nuclear negotiations.

Trump can prioritize the American national interests by putting a lead on NATO’s aggressive anti-Russian posture, which has resulted in Russia’s encirclement by NATO forces, despite the earlier American pledges of not militarizing the former parts of Soviet empire in Eastern Europe. But, in all likelihood, Trump the president will be overwhelmed by the weight of military institutions and vested interests that include Israel, which has been content in seeing Muslims fighting Muslims along sectarian lines while it continues with its land grab in the occupied territories.

In other words, one must not vest too much hope in Trump’s ability to introduce radical changes in the familiar pattern of US foreign policy conduct, one reason being that his own “make America great again” runs parallel to the neo-imperial pattern of the post-WWII era. Making America great again along Wilsonian lines is certainly not the Trump way.

The period between the division of Poland between Nazi and Soviet forces in September 1939 and Germany’s attack on the Low Countries and then France in May 1940 is known as “the phony war,” a period when most of the countries of Europe went about their business as usual even though other countries were being attacked.

Ukrainian commentator Vitaly Portnikov argues that the world has once again entered a “phony war” period, one in which countries like Iraq and Ukraine are being attacked by dictators but in which most of Europe is at peace and assumes that it can express its concern about such things without having to take any additional action (graniru.org/opinion/portnikov/m.257480.html).

Looking back at 1939-1940, it is difficult to imagine that the countries living at a time of phony war could consider themselves safe from the conflagration that soon spread to them. But it is perhaps easier to understand, the commentator suggests, given the futile gestures and lack of real action now in such countries in the face of naked aggression and crimes against humanity.

Turning off the lights of the Eiffel Tower to show sympathy for the residents of Aleppo being destroyed by the force of Asad and Putin is symbolic of this situation, Portnikov suggests. It shows that people care enough to take symbolic actions but not to do anything that might prevent the evils from spreading.

In this situation, the tower is dark but people can be certain that their champagne will be properly chilled, a reflection of cynicism that is hardly confined to or even most clearly manifest in France. Not only is it time to identify the sources of this cynicism but it is time to fight it before another and broader kind of fight becomes unavoidable.

The fact that some dictators can act with impunity, Portnikov argues, “is the chief result of the Western policy of complacency in recent years.” Indeed, one can properly say that it is “the essential feature of the foreign policy achievements of the Barack Obama administration.” After all, if the US isn’t willing to act, why should the French or anyone else?

That achievement has allowed for the appearance of three “totally new rules” governing the international system. First of all, if a country has nuclear arms, then its regime can destroy any number of people because we do not want a third world war.” Second, the only tool is economic sanctions which won’t last too long lest they hurt those imposing them.

And third, the civilized world is quite ready to teach others the rules it says it believes in but it will “allow itself to elegantly back away from these values if they involve the lives of others or immediate interests.” In the future, Portnikov suggests, encyclopedias will refer to these new principles as “’the Obama rules.’”

Under such circumstances, no one should be surprised that ever fewer people “trust professional politicians and ever more trust instead storytellers who simply tell them what they want to hear.” After all, they can see that their supposed leaders are only concerned about the modalities of reaching agreements with those committing the worst crimes.

At present, Portnikov continues, “the Western world is overfilled with gentlemen-Chamberlains to the point that even the cautious Angela Merkel, who is trying simply to maintain good sense looks epically heroic and the last hope. And that is correct, becaue our last hope as always in times of collective slaughter really becomes the hope for good sense.”

Owing to the Democratic Party’s all-to-clever subversion of the primaries, party leaders’ insistence, rank-and-file be damned, on making Hillary Clinton their candidate for president, and the terrible campaign their terrible candidate ran, we now face the prospect of a solidly Republican Congress and the sociopathic Donald Trump as president. It’s a toxic situation in which whatever laws the most whacked out Republicans want to pass, whatever programs they want to eliminate, they can push through, and President Trump will sign it into law.

It seems like a desperate situation, one that will lead to accelerating climate change, gutting of our civil liberties and important rights like abortion and equality for all, and probably to mass deportations of so-called “illegals.”

But there is a way to fight back. There is, at this moment, one branch of the federal government that the Republicans and the new president don’t control, and that could block many of the worst actions of the branches that they do control: the US Supreme Court.

Thanks to the gluttonous behavior of the porcine and paleo-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who overate on one of his many put-it-on-the tab junkets and died in the splendor of his free presidential bedroom, the court is currently split 4-4 between arch conservatives and liberal justices.

All that has to happen now is for the four liberal justices to stay healthy for the next four years, and for the four conservatives — or at least one of them — to follow in Scalia’s heavy footsteps, whether by retirement or mortality, and we’d have a liberal 4-3 court.

Well, okay, I oversimplified. This ideal scenario actually requires one more thing: an uncharacteristically feisty and determined Democratic bloc in the Senate that simply refuses to approve any new picks for the Supreme Court, and that instead leaves things as they are as justices die off or retire.

The Democrats have every reason to stand firm. It has after all been the Republican strategy to leave the top court shy one justice since Scalia’s demise last February 13, even refusing to consider an unquestionably qualified replacement, Merrick Garland, nominated by President Obama way back on March 16, or, in most cases, even to meet with him informally, but for all federal court appointments. But even before Scalia’s death, Republicans were pulling the same stunt with lower court appointments at the district and especially the appellate level.

Democrats would need to adopt this same obstructive strategy of just refusing to even consider any Republican nominees on the Supreme Court. (They should probably follow the example of the Republicans and refuse to consider nominations for any federal court position, just to prevent those lower courts from moving rightward.)

Now you might well ask, “But what if a liberal justice dies first?”

I agree that would be a catastrophe, but I think the odds are against it. Justice Steven Breyer is 78, but he seems quite healthy looking — even young for his age. His weight is normal, maybe even on the thin side, but not abnormally so, and he seems to like his job. Given the excellent health care available to to government officials, it’s easy to imagine Breyer staying healthy and on the job at least through Trump’s first term, and probably even, perish the thought, through a second Trump term. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, at 62, is a spring chicken of a justice, and should be an easy bet to go the distance. The same for Elena Kagan, who’s a spry 56. The real concern is with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who at 83 is the court’s oldest member. Ginsburg is a cancer survivor — she’s had both colon cancer and pancreatic cancer — the latter operated on in 2009. These are both cancers that have relatively poor survival rates, especially pancreatic cancer, but Ginsburg’s cancers were both caught early and in both cases, her prognosis is at this point pretty good.

My own feeling is that this most consistently liberal member of the court is such a tough-minded and dedicated fighter for civil liberties, justice and for equality under the law that much like William O Douglas , who held out on the High Court for 35 years until his poor health forced him to step down, she will not allow herself to die or become too sick to quit while Trump remains president.

That means that the best Trump and the Republicans in Washington can hope for are tie votes on the high court. So if progressive lawyers are careful to bring their suits against repressive or regressive Republican laws and regulations in the most liberal possible Appellate Circuits, and if they win those cases at the Appellate level, a tie would leave any decision where it was at that lower level.

Meanwhile, the prospects for a reduction in numbers on the Republican / conservative side of the Supreme Court bench are actually relatively good. Justice Clarence Thomas, known for sycophantically following in the footsteps of his mentor Scalia, has done so also in terms of his personal health. Nearly as obese as Scalia, Thomas clearly is a man who like Scalia enjoys his freebies and junkets, including the free eats. Though only 68, he’s not the kind of guy you’ll see jogging in the morning through a Georgetown park or playing a rough game of tennis. (My guess is Ginsburg would beat him in either sport.)

So there’s always the chance Thomas will follow Scalia to face his own judgement at the Pearly Gates, where he’ll have to answer to St. Peter for his rulings. (I wonder how Scalia — the justice who famously said that evidence of innocence was not necessarily grounds for granting a doomed convict a right to a new trial — made out there?)

Then there’s the most moderate of the Republicans, Justice Anthony Kennedy. At 80, the court’s second-oldest jurist, Kennedy has been on the court now since 1988, a total of 28 years. If he stays on, it’s not the worst thing that could happen. He was already the swing justice on many cases, siding often enough with the liberal justices to give them 5-4 victories even when Scalia was still alive. He has trended more liberal as he has aged, and could continue moving in that direction, which would effectively produce a 5-3 liberal court. But while he seems quite healthy and fit, this Reagan appointee to the court has served on the Supreme Court for 28 years, and there are rumors out there that he’s thinking of stepping down next year, which would make it a 4-3 liberal court.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts, while a healthy looking guy at just 61, does have a history of at least two serious seizures, one in 1993, and a second in 2007. This, according to some doctors, shows strong evidence of epilepsy, though he has reportedly not been diagnosed with that disease. Nonetheless, his seizures have been dramatic — in the second one, he fell nearly 10 feet onto a dock near his summer home on Hupper Island, ME. What this means in terms of his tenure on the court is unclear. It is not uncommon for victims of serious seizures to suffer severe injuries, including to the head. On the other hand, there are medications that can control certain types of seizures, and so Roberts could keep his seat on the bench for a long time.

Justice Samuel Alito, a healthy 66-year-old, seems like he’ll be on the court for some time to come, filling out the right side of the bench.

But viewed in this way, it looks like, if I’m right and Justice Ginsburg’s liberal spit and vinegar keep her going, and if the Democrats show more gumption and conviction than they usually can muster in the Senate and just refuse to approve any Trump appointees to fill vacancies, the Supreme Court will be in a position to block much of the Trump/Republican agenda, either by winning over Justice Kennedy on key issues, or by a loss of just one more member of the conservative block of four men in black.

It might be good, though, just as a precaution, for the four liberal justices to hire food testers.

The need to organize against various oppressions is ever present across the United States. But the South is the region which illustrates most clearly the need for black people to assert their political and human rights. It is the innermost part of the belly of the beast.

The Southern Human Rights Organizers Conference (SHROC) recently met in Jackson, Mississippi for their 20^th annual convening. This SHROC conference was dedicated to the late Chokwe Lumumba, mayor of Jackson and a force behind Cooperation Jackson, an effort to free majority black cities from decades of corrupt and ineffectual leadership. The SHROC theme was “Forward Ever, Backwards Never: 20 Years of Advancing a Global South Agenda for Human Rights.”

Activists and labor organizers met to strategize and to familiarize one another with their struggles. International solidarity was on the agenda with guests such as Jesus “Chucho” Garcia, the Venezuelan consul in New Orleans. This columnist joined a panel that included Green Party vice presidential candidate Ajamu Baraka as we discussed liberation, what it means, and how to make it a reality.

As should always be the case when the left gather together, direct political action was in order. The assembled group joined workers at the Renault-Nissan auto plant in Canton, Mississippi. We protested a wide variety of unfair labor practices and the thwarted efforts to form a union. Mississippi competed with other southern states to see who could race to the bottom fastest. The state ultimately subsidized the Renault-Nissan corporation with $1.3 billion in public funds for a plant where 4,000 men and women are employed. Corporations like Renault-Nissan target the southern states whose retrograde history of slavery and Jim Crow segregation creates a compliant and largely non-unionized source of labor. The workforce at this plant is 80% black.

But corporate welfare from Mississippi wasn’t enough for Renault-Nissan.  Fully 40% of workers at the plant aren’t employees at all but instead are hired by a temporary agency. They are of course deprived of the full pay and benefits that their Nissan counterparts receive. Organizers spoke of people who are fearful of protest because this work place presents better opportunities than the region as a whole.  Mississippi is consistently ranked among the worst states in the nation because of sparse spending for public needs and its infamous history of oppressing black people. The song Mississippi God Damn immediately comes to mind when the magnolia state is a topic of discussion.

Mississippi exemplifies the suffering created by capitalist predation. It was created by a white settler population who successfully demanded the removal of the indigenous population. That genocide was committed so that another could take place. Chattel slavery made cotton king and in the process created hell on earth for enslaved people who were shipped and bred as commodities to keep the plantation economy thriving. Liberation was still a long time coming as short lived Reconstruction was followed by nearly one hundred years of reaction and race-based terrorism.

Heroes like Fannie Lou Hamer and Medgar Evers and Chokwe Lumumba lifted their people up with revolutionary love. They were uncompromising, and each paid a personal price. But they accomplished heroic acts and their memories were an inspiration to the SHROC attendees.

The Nissan workers’ plight is also an example of the useless Democratic Party as it functions in the political duopoly. In 2008 Barack Obama and the Democratic Party campaigned on the promise of passing the Employee Free Choice Act. Popularly known as card check, the Renault-Nissan workers could have easily formed a union had this legislation been passed. Instead the Democrats talked a good game but never had any intention of going to bat for their voters or the unions on whom they depend for money and foot soldiers.

Malcolm X said that any place south of Canada is the South. Mississippi is not alone in using public funds to give handouts to multinational corporations like Renault-Nissan. These workers are not unique. The levels of suffering are relative and all workers exist on a precipice and hope they won’t be made redundant by the movement of international capital and the work of self-serving politicians.

The struggle of black people in places like Mississippi was the template for every movement of the last 50 years. At SHROC one sees that can still be the case as self-determination is obviously the order of the day. Protesting president elect Trump doesn’t serve much of a purpose if treacherous Democrats still get votes, money and energy from activists. Cooperation and struggle are most needed now and SHROC is among those leading the charge.

Jim Himes, a Congressional leader in the oversight of the National Security Agency and US cybersecurity, has just torpedoed Obama’s case against Russia.

Obama has revealed his intentions to attack Russia in retaliation for alleged hacking of Democratic Party and Clinton campaign emails. He’s offered no substantiation for his accusations. The evidence he and others have cited does not check out. What’s more the allegations have never been addressed by the UN or any other competent international security agency.

But the lack of substantiation is actually beside the point. The primary issue is that countries covertly gathering information from other countries is nothing new, and is certainly not unique to Russia.

The US, for example, was caught hacking telephone conversations of the German Chancellor and the president of Brazil.

The other part of Obama’s allegation is that Russia has interfered with the US process of selecting political leadership. I don’t know whether that’s true or not. But so what. How does that matter? There are plenty of examples available of America’s insinuating itself decisively into leadership issues of other countries. There’s nothing new or unique here either.

Himes’ torpedo of Obama’s case against Putin came this morning when he was interviewed on MSNBC about the Russian hacking. Himes clearly asserted, “We’re better than them in hacking into networks.” Bingo. There’s the admission. Let me repeat what he said, “We’re better than them in hacking into networks.”

Obama himself admitted at today’s press conference that “there is hacking going on every single day,” and went on to explain that the United States has offensive capabilities, not simply defensive ones.

Pick your own analogy. Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Is it a holier than thou attitude? The bottom line, though, is that Obama has vilified Putin for the very same things that America itself has been doing all along.

We should be thankful that Himes blew the whistle and pulled the rug out from under Obama’s planned aggression toward Russia.

Himes should know what he’s talking about. He is the ranking member in Congress for handling NSA and cybersecurity matters for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. That committee has oversight for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Central Intelligence Agency; Defense Intelligence Agency; Department of Defense; Department of Energy; Department of Homeland Security; Department of Justice; Department of State; Department of Treasury; Drug Enforcement Administration; Federal Bureau of Investigation; National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; National Reconnaissance Office; National Security Agency; Office of Naval Intelligence; Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency; United States Army Intelligence and Security Command; United States Coast Guard Intelligence; and Marine Corps Intelligence Activity.

This all leaves open the question of why Obama is doing this. He’s already said he personally talked to Putin about the alleged hacking and told him to “cut it out.” Obama added that there have been no further incidents. But yet Obama persists in saying he intends to even the score with Russia.

Obama’s news conference today was billed as the final one of his presidency. Why would he reasonably want to depart the presidency with rhetoric tempting a totally unwarranted and manufactured crisis?

It’s hard to understand how this won’t become a major blemish on his legacy. A buffoonish donnybrook in his final days seems like something that his own self interest would lead him to avoid.

Something’s fishy here. Who’s putting him up to this?

By Debora Iozzi*

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the tightening of the U.S. embargo, the early 1990s saw Cuba facing a severe food crisis and a collapse of more than 30 percent of the island’s GDP. In order to tackle this grave moment, in which the Havana’s government was unable to deliver adequate food supplies to the population, Cubans were forced to develop a new method of farming: urban agriculture, hopefully a sustainable way of land exploitation and food production.

Even though it was not the result of a deliberate government policy, but rather an unfortunate consequence of helpless events, the results of this new system led Cuban authorities to adopt specific measures to incentivize its expansion. This effort rendered the island a world leader in sustainable agriculture and its food production system became a model for other countries in the world to follow, especially developing societies that should be guarded against any damaging transformations.

A Model of Sustainable Agriculture Born out of Necessity

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba faced a grave shortage of oil supplies, which cut it off from cheap imports. The island was plunged into what was called the “Special Period in Peacetime”, further hardened by the relentless U.S. embargo. Indeed, in 1996 the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act – also known as the Helms-Burton Act – strengthened the already existing embargo against the island, applying sanctions extraterritorially to foreign firms trading with Cuba. The lack of fuel, fertilizers, and other farm inputs decreased agricultural productivity. According to statistical data, the per capita food production annual average growth was negative, by -5.1 percent, between 1986 and 1995.[i] Farmers had to switch to predominantly oxen traction because of fuel scarcity.[ii]

Oil shortages also forced producers to move closer to consumers since fossil fuel-powered transportation was limited. City dwellers were the first hit by supply shortfalls, and, in order to effectively respond to the food crisis, they started to occupy unproductive state lands to produce their own food. Additionally, ordinary citizens used balconies, backyards, and roof terraces for cultivation and raising livestock.[iii] Furthermore, rural farmers, out of necessity, adopted agro-ecological methods due to the lack of oil-based pesticides and fertilizers. Without having it as a main goal, they started to practice sustainable farming as a way of food production in order to guarantee nutritious and accessible food for everyone while natural resources are managed in a way that maintain ecosystem functions to support current as well as future human needs.[iv] This includes a full participation of farmers, pastoralists, and other rural dwellers who might benefit from the economic development. Sustainable agriculture includes promoting urban farming, which improves food security and favors equitable access to resources, managed in the most efficient way.

The Cuban government understood the potential of this spontaneous citizens’ initiative. The government soon started supporting and encouraging urban agriculture through a number of measures, which entailed the revision of property rights, a significant change for the socialist system. Cuba went through a drastic revision of the work paradigm: it shifted towards a decentralized production model and an acceptance by farmers that they obtained benefits from their own labor. The possibility of gaining from their efforts functioned as a major incentive for workers who had a greater interest in maximizing their production. The reorganization of agricultural production consisted mainly in converting the large state farms into smaller, more efficient, cooperative farms and distributing land in usufruct to small producers.[v] Farmers had the right to enjoy the use of the soil and take advantage of its products, without necessarily owning the land.

The aim of the Cuban leadership was to improve agricultural production and cut, if not eliminate, food imports into the country. For this reason, it supported the creation of the Department for Urban Agriculture at the Ministry of Agriculture in 1994 and of the National Group for Urban and Sub-urban Agriculture (GNAU) in 1998. [vi] The GNAU coordinates and promotes the development of sustainable urban agriculture in Cuba and was charged with encouraging the recycling of nutrients and wastes. It frames guidelines with agro ecological principles and directives for individual production of compost and seeds, local use of resources, and organic plant protection for Cuban producers.[vii]

Later in 2008, the newly installed government of Raul Castro adopted Law Decree 259, a land reform targeted at the distribution in usufruct of unproductive parcels. In 2011, Lineamientos, a reform package aimed at modernizing the Cuban economy placed a large emphasis on agricultural production. In 2012, Law Decree 300 provided for the construction of buildings on the usufruct land, and the planting of forests and fruit trees.[viii] The government, moreover, started to work on creating additional commercial possibilities for farmers, providing training and access to agricultural inputs. The promotion of Cuban agriculture had become so important that domestic food production was declared a national security issue.[ix]

Riding on Agroecology

Cubans were not aware of their environmentalist turn. The scarcity of resources and farm inputs brought farmers to experiment with new methods and organic pest control. Organic principles were followed and locally available resources were used. They practiced crop rotation, intercropping, used green manure, and planted hedges. Furthermore, they used repellent plants such as common thyme, basil, marigold, maize or ruddles to reduce pest infestation or to attract beneficial insects.[x] Government educational programs endorsed sustainable farming methods, but farmers used, above all, traditional knowledge derived from elders or their childhood memories.[xi]

Those new practices that we could define as agroecology represents “a whole-systems approach to agriculture and food systems development based on traditional knowledge, alternative agriculture, and local food system experiences.”[xii] It turned out to be a model of food production that guarantees the preservation of natural resources and relies on minimum artificial inputs, from a sustainable perspective. A cornerstone of agroecology is diversification of both crops and farming methods –including livestock integration– that contributes to the promotion of biodiversity and of a more efficient use of resources, such as sunlight, water, soil and natural pests. Diversification intensifies natural processes such as photosynthesis, nitrogen fixation, absorption of soil phosphorus, and the enhancement of biological activity both above and below ground.[xiii] This diversification represented also a change of paradigm in Cuba, after the ultra-specialization on export of sugar and derivative products to the USSR during the Cold War.

According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) bi-annual Living Planet Report 2016, Cuba is the most sustainable country on the planet.[xiv] Indeed, the Fund created an environmental footprint index that combines human development and the exploitation of natural resources. The island was found to have both an acceptable ecological footprint per capita, using an exemplary amount of energy and natural resources, and an acceptable Human Development Index rating. Such indicators demonstrate that a sustainable system of food production is compatible with a high level of literacy, life expectancy and low infant mortality.[xv]

The Path Towards Global Food Security

According to the data collected by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life – about one in nine people on Earth.[xvi] This is a clear indication that the promotion of industrial agriculture has failed to deliver satisfactory results. Industrial food systems affect human health and broader ecological systems. There has been a dramatic increase of non-communicable diseases linked with poor quality of food consumption, with obesity being described as a pandemic.[xvii] Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980; in 2014, 600 million adults were classified as obese. This phenomenon is not restricted to industrialized societies; in developing countries it is estimated that over 115 million people suffer from obesity-related problems.[xviii]

Worse, industrial agriculture has tremendous environmental costs. Not only do chemical pests and fertilizers contaminate the surrounding areas, but they also contribute to the increase of carbon dioxide emissions, accelerating the pace of climate change. Out of the total emissions released in the atmosphere by agricultural activities, 11.5 percent comes from chemical pests and fertilizers.[xix] The consequences of industrial land exploitation includes the desertification of agricultural land, deforestation, water consumption and contamination, land degradation, as well as global warming. Indeed, environmental fallout is not limited to agricultural production, but pollution continues to be present in all the other phases of the process, from food transportation to processing, and from storage to retailing.[xx]

A sustainable agricultural model, such as the Cuban one, may be looked at as an alternative to improve food security and environment health. Even though its development was due to necessity, Cuba’s urban agriculture has become a model for the rest of developing world. Cuba has a socialist political system in which property rights and agricultural policies are managed in a centralized way, significantly different from the rest of the world. As a result, the whole production process has been consigned to government oversight, from the distribution of the land, seeds and agricultural inputs to commercialization. However, the evidence of the island’s success in sustainability highlights the potential of urban agriculture, or “urban agroecology”, as a way of food production for sustainable megacities and even smaller towns around the world.

Cities usually depend on imports from rural areas for their supply of water, energy or food. Thus, city dwellers are usually more vulnerable to unpredictable changes, such as a national food crisis.[xxi] Therefore, food production within a city may reduce the dependency on external resources. Sustainable agriculture also promotes the amelioration of human health, encouraging the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables. Indeed, following the changes in the agricultural system in Cuba there was a marked decline in death rates from diabetes and heart diseases.[xxii] Diabetes incidence decreased by 53 percent from 1986 to 1996 when the agricultural production change was taking place.[xxiii]

Moreover, urban agriculture could provide employment and an income opportunity for marginalized parts of a city’s population; in addition to this, greater inclusion and community building could be side effects of urban farming, which could contribute to making cities more livable and pleasant, improving the population’s standard of living.[xxiv] Furthermore, sustainable and urban agriculture could be a way to achieve food sovereignty, a term defined as self-sufficiency and national autonomy for food production. Developing countries could view this goal as an interesting one to attain, and provide them with the flexibility to shift their monetary resources from food import to local investments.

Agroecology and sustainable agriculture could be a solution to hunger and food security, and it is also a resilient system of food production. This means that it resists harmful environmental factors while recovering faster from the impacts of extreme climate events that recently are becoming more usual due to the impact of climate change. A survey conducted in the provinces of Holguin and Las Tunas forty days after hurricane Ike hit Cuba in 2008 found that diversified farms experienced losses of 50 percent compared to 90 or 100 percent in monocultures.[xxv] Likewise, agro-ecologically managed farms showed a faster productive recovery (80–90 percent) 40 days after the hurricane hit.[xxvi] Actually, many countries are already adopting this model not only in Latin America, but also in other regions of the world, including countries such as Laos and Malawi, and should be followed by countries such as Haiti in order to enable more communities with poor land quality to fight malnutrition.[xxvii]

The development of urban agriculture will be difficult to promote and implement since there are many barriers to its unbridled success. Some of the challenges to face are access to land, the recognition of land rights, water availability, low soil fertility, pollution, and inexperience of new farmers, as well as the presence of cheap products on the market, produced in heavily subsidized agricultural sectors in the Western world. Also, urban land is usually a more valuable commodity than rural land and its use is fiercely contested.[xxviii] The quantity of water needed for food production could be difficult to find in a city.

Furthermore, urban soils are usually polluted and near roads or industrial areas that could contaminate the products.[xxix] However, the urgency of food crises in developing countries and the negative impacts of climatic events on food production constitute a major effort towards the promotion and spreading of sustainable agriculture.

Defending a Precious Production System from the Capitalist’s Assault

Agricultural trade between the United States and Cuba, based mainly on sugar, was the bedrock of bilateral relations during the first half of the 20th century. The Castro revolution changed the situation with the interruption of trade relations between the two countries. Since then, U.S. interests have not influenced Cuba’s agriculture policy, even though the U.S. trade embargo considerably affected the island’s agricultural sector.

Now, with the unfreezing of bilateral relations, U.S. agro-industry sector yearns for this new market. The question is whether the peculiar Cuban agrarian sector, small-scale and family-farmed agriculture, will survive a “capitalist assault”. Cuba is already importing food from the United States. In 2000, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSRA) allowed sales of certain food and medicines to Cuba.[xxx] U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba averaged $365 million USD per year between 2012 and 2014.[xxxi] However, U.S. restrictions on extending credits to Cuban buyers have curtailed trade possibilities.[xxxii]

The complete dismantling of the embargo, including the abrogation of the Helms-Burton Act, will open a wide range of trading opportunities. Already in November 2015, the United States Agricultural Coalition for Cuba (USACC) started to plan for the full expanding of the agricultural investments in the historically adversarial country.[xxxiii] There have been many U.S. agro-business groups lobbying for the end of the embargo; for instance the Arkansas Rice Growers Association is interested in expanding its market in Cuba, since the island’s per capita rice consumption is fivefold greater than that of the United States.[xxxiv]

U.S. interests seem to be focused on technology transfer to Cuba and on consumer behavior detection in order to sell products to the island. Cubans could be potential major purchasers of U.S.-produced inputs, but also of meat, grain, or cooking oil.[xxxv] However, what could be the advantages of the significant opening to U.S. agricultural products for the Cuban economy? Cuban agricultural production cannot compete with industrial U.S. production, in terms of both output quantity and costs. Firstly, the introduction of U.S. imports in Cuba will destroy the nascent non-state system; local producers will be driven out of business.

Secondly, the Cuban products that could be sold in the U.S. market are numerous, among these tobacco, rum, tropical fruit, and seafood.[xxxvi] They could compete on quality, through artisanal production, non-genetic modification or other niche merchandise. Thirdly, a tension between domestic market production, domestic prices, and agricultural export costs will arise. Until now, Cuban agriculture focused on producing for self-sufficiency and domestic consumption; there is the risk that turning to food-exports will subtract resources from this, with the subsequent worsening of the population’s living conditions. But what will suffer more is the sustainable model that Cuba was able to develop in the last twenty years, an agrarian model that is based on small-scale production, on traditional and ecological methods that are not efficient enough to compete with industrial ones, but in the long term will prove better for the environment and those producers who employ them. The exchanges between U.S. and Cuban agricultural systems seem to be unidirectional.

Indeed, in the USDA press release, reporting on a bilateral agricultural accord signed during President Obama’s trip to Cuba, there was no mention of agroecology or organic agriculture, showing that there is little interest in bringing Cuban sustainable techniques in the States.[xxxvii] “We will not renounce our ideals of independence and social justice, or surrender even a single one of our principles, or concede a millimeter in the defense of our national sovereignty. We will not allow ourselves to be pressured in regards to our internal affairs. We have won this sovereign right with great sacrifices and at the cost of great risks,” affirmed Raul Castro commenting on Barack Obama’s visit to the island.[xxxviii] The two major events in the leadership of both countries, Fidel Castro’s death and Donald Trump’s election, sprinkle the future of U.S.-Cuba relations with deep uncertainty. Whether the normalization will continue or new setbacks will occur, the Cuban government does not want to give up its method of agricultural production and is ready to fight the “capitalists’ infiltration.”[xxxix]

Sustainable Agriculture to be Endorsed

Sustainable and urban agriculture was a logical response of Cubans to their resource constraints. Traditional low-input agricultural techniques, based on organic pests’ control and crop diversification, has been the backbone of the ecological food production in Cuba. This system is also resource conserving, environmentally sound, socially inclusive, and a model to be followed by other countries.

Indeed, it furthers food security and sustainable development for megacities and large towns all over the world, and it is particularly important for developing countries. The Cuban model is not perfect and the system still has ongoing problems, but it has met significant challanges in public and environmental health, even if unintended. The new uncertainty on the future of U.S.-Cuban relations has put on hold the countless economic interests that U.S. businesses, specifically in the agrarian sector, have in the island.

However, the Cuban sustainable agriculture model should certainly be promoted, protected, and spread abroad. The question would be: how can this be done in the context of the current opening to the U.S. economy? This food production may be the only alternative for many developing countries fighting hunger to be able to assure the necessary sustenance to their own population and an opportunity for everyone to live in a sustainable world.

*Debora Iozzi, Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[i] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The State of Food and Agriculture 2006. Accessed December 6, 2016. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0800e/a0800e.pdf

[ii] GARRETT GRADDY-LOVELACE. United States–Cuba Agricultural Relations and Agrarian Questions. Journal of Agrarian Change. 2016. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joac.12190/epdf

[iii] Friedrich Leitgeb, Sarah Schneider, Christian R. Vogl. Increasing food sovereignty with urban agriculture in Cuba. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015. Accessed November, 10 2016.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christian_Reinhard_Vogl/publication/297989405_Increasing_food_sovereignty_with_urban_agriculture_in_Cuba/links/56e802b208aec65cb45e782b.pdf

[iv] Sustainable Food and Agriculture. FAO. Accessed November 16, 2016. http://www.fao.org/sustainability/background/en/

[v] Carmen G. Gonzalez. Seasons of Resistance: Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security in Cuba. Tulane Environmental Law Journal. Vol 16. 2003. Accessed November 9, 2016. http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1601&context=faculty

[vi] Friedrich Leitgeb, Sarah Schneider, Christian R. Vogl. Increasing food sovereignty with urban agriculture in Cuba. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015. Accessed November, 10 2016.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christian_Reinhard_Vogl/publication/297989405_Increasing_food_sovereignty_with_urban_agriculture_in_Cuba/links/56e802b208aec65cb45e782b.pdf

[vii] Ibidem

[viii] Ibidem

[ix] Ibidem

[x] Friedrich Leitgeb, Sarah Schneider, Christian R. Vogl. Increasing food sovereignty with urban agriculture in Cuba. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015. Accessed November, 10 2016.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christian_Reinhard_Vogl/publication/297989405_Increasing_food_sovereignty_with_urban_agriculture_in_Cuba/links/56e802b208aec65cb45e782b.pdf

[xi] Ibidem

[xii] Agroecology. Accessed November 18, 2016. http://www.agroecology.org/index.html

[xiii] The scaling up of agroecology: spreading the hope for food sovereignty and resiliency. SOCLA’s Rio+20 position paper. May, 2012. Accessed November 18, 2016. https://www.socla.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/Rio20.pdf

[xiv] As World Burns, Cuba Number 1 for Sustainable Development: WWF. Telesur. October, 27 2016. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/As-World-Burns-Cuba-Number-1-for-Sustainable-Development-WWF-20161027-0018.html

[xv] ibidem

[xvi] Hunger Statistics. WFP. Accessed November 18, 2016. https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

[xvii] Liesel Spencer. “Urban Agriculture in Cuba: Alternative Legal Structures, Crisis and Change”. Balanced Urban Development: Options and Strategies for Liveable Cities. Volume 72. pp 343-354. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/380/chp%253A10.1007%252F978-3-319-28112-4_20.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fchapter%2F10.1007%2F978-3-319-28112-4_20&token2=exp=1478722673~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F380%2Fchp%25253A10.1007%25252F978-3-319-28112-4_20.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Fchapter%252F10.1007%252F978-3-319-28112-4_20*~hmac=8250b6aa4688e4dea09ea522e3cd23c57b77f46d7ee72087409450b525f51575

[xviii] World Health Organization. Obesity and overweight. 2016. Accessed December 7, 2016. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/

[xix] FAOSTAT. Emissions by sector. Accessed December 7, 2016. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GT/visualize

[xx] Liesel Spencer. “Urban Agriculture in Cuba: Alternative Legal Structures, Crisis and Change”. Balanced Urban Development: Options and Strategies for Liveable Cities. Volume 72. pp 343-354. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/380/chp%253A10.1007%252F978-3-319-28112-4_20.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fchapter%2F10.1007%2F978-3-319-28112-4_20&token2=exp=1478722673~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F380%2Fchp%25253A10.1007%25252F978-3-319-28112-4_20.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Fchapter%252F10.1007%252F978-3-319-28112-4_20*~hmac=8250b6aa4688e4dea09ea522e3cd23c57b77f46d7ee72087409450b525f51575

[xxi] Friedrich Leitgeb, Sarah Schneider, Christian R. Vogl. Increasing food sovereignty with urban agriculture in Cuba. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015. Accessed November, 10 2016.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christian_Reinhard_Vogl/publication/297989405_Increasing_food_sovereignty_with_urban_agriculture_in_Cuba/links/56e802b208aec65cb45e782b.pdf

[xxii]Ibidem

[xxiii] Manuel Franco et al. Population-wide weight loss and regain in relation to diabetes burden and cardiovascular mortality in Cuba 1980-2010: repeated cross sectional surveys and ecological comparison of secular trends. BMJ. April 2013. Accessed December 7, 2016. http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/346/bmj.f1515.full.pdf

[xxiv] Friedrich Leitgeb, Sarah Schneider, Christian R. Vogl. Increasing food sovereignty with urban agriculture in Cuba. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015. Accessed November, 10 2016.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christian_Reinhard_Vogl/publication/297989405_Increasing_food_sovereignty_with_urban_agriculture_in_Cuba/links/56e802b208aec65cb45e782b.pdf

[xxv] The scaling up of agroecology: spreading the hope for food sovereignty and resiliency. SOCLA’s Rio+20 position paper. May, 2012. Accessed November 18, 2016. https://www.socla.co/wp-content/uploads/2014/Rio20.pdf

[xxvi] Ibidem

[xxvii] Cuba’s Sustainable Agro-Ecological Model Could Save the World. Telesur. October 16, 2016. Accessed November 16, 2016. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Cubas-Sustainable-Agro-Ecological-Model-Could-Save-the-World-20161013-0023.html

[xxviii] Liesel Spencer. “Urban Agriculture in Cuba: Alternative Legal Structures, Crisis and Change”. Balanced Urban Development: Options and Strategies for Liveable Cities. Volume 72. pp 343-354. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/380/chp%253A10.1007%252F978-3-319-28112-4_20.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fchapter%2F10.1007%2F978-3-319-28112-4_20&token2=exp=1478722673~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F380%2Fchp%25253A10.1007%25252F978-3-319-28112-4_20.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Fchapter%252F10.1007%252F978-3-319-28112-4_20*~hmac=8250b6aa4688e4dea09ea522e3cd23c57b77f46d7ee72087409450b525f51575

[xxix] Friedrich Leitgeb, Sarah Schneider, Christian R. Vogl. Increasing food sovereignty with urban agriculture in Cuba. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015. Accessed November, 10 2016.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christian_Reinhard_Vogl/publication/297989405_Increasing_food_sovereignty_with_urban_agriculture_in_Cuba/links/56e802b208aec65cb45e782b.pdf

[xxx] United States Department of Agriculture. U.S.-Cuba Agricultural Trade: Past, Present, and Possible Future. June 2015. Accessed December 6, 2016. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/aes87/53141_aes87.pdf

[xxxi] Ibidem

[xxxii] Ibidem

[xxxiii] Garrett Graddy-Lovelace, United States-Cuba agricultural relations and agrarian questions. Journal of Agrarian Change. 2016. Accessed November, 21 2016. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joac.12190/epdf

[xxxiv] Ibidem

[xxxv] Garrett Graddy-Lovelace, United States-Cuba agricultural relations and agrarian questions. Journal of Agrarian Change. 2016. Accessed November, 21 2016. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joac.12190/epdf

[xxxvi] Ibidem

[xxxvii] Could U.S. Trade Threaten Sustainable Agriculture in Cuba? Nacla. March 05, 2016. Accessed November 21, 2016. http://nacla.org/news/2016/05/02/could-us-trade-threaten-sustainable-agriculture-cuba

[xxxviii] President Barack Obama’s visit to Cuba. Granma. Accessed December 6, 2016. http://en.granma.cu/cuba/2016-03-09/president-barack-obamas-visit-to-cuba

[xxxix] Garrett Graddy-Lovelace, United States-Cuba agricultural relations and agrarian questions. Journal of Agrarian Change. 2016. Accessed November, 21 2016. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joac.12190/epdf

(EurActiv) — The speaker of the Catalan parliament denied in court today (16 December) she had committed a crime by letting the assembly vote on whether to pursue independence, and said no court could stop the separatist movement.

Hundreds of supporters massed outside the Barcelona court to protest against the trial of speaker Carme Forcadell on charges of contempt of court and neglect of duty.

The parliament voted in July to continue with its plan to detach Catalonia from Spain, in defiance of a ruling by the Spanish Constitutional Court annulling an earlier resolution to form an independent state with or without Madrid’s consent.

Forcadell said she pleaded not guilty to the charges on the first day of her trial at the Catalan high court, which she entered after blowing a kiss to the cheering crowd.

“No court can prevent the parliament from debating the independence of Catalonia and above all what is in people’s interest,” she told reporters later, accusing the Spanish government of using the courts to quash freedom of expression.

The Constitutional Court on Wednesday (14 December) again ruled that the Catalan parliament’s plan to hold a referendum next September was unconstitutional, and warned Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont to obey its ruling or also face criminal charges.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has said he is open to greater dialogue with Catalonia but has steadfastly opposed holding a referendum.

“The idea of Catalonia’s independence is not a crime or a sin, it is just an idea, and an idea can never be a crime,” Catalonia’s former leader, Artur Mas, told reporters outside the court.

“If the court bars her from office, the only result would be to add more fuel to this cause for sovereignty,” said Mas. He is also set to stand trial for holding a non-binding independence referendum in 2014, despite a Constitutional Court ruling that he must play no part in it.

In that vote, more than 80% of ballots cast called for Catalonia to separate from Spain, although less than half of the electorate turned out. Some 48% of Catalans supported secession in a poll in July.

The main secessionist group “Junts pel Si” (Together for Yes), backed by the smaller leftist CUP party, won a majority of seats in Catalonia’s parliament in a regional election in 2015. Puigdemont’s government won a confidence vote in September to push ahead with secession plans.

By Terri Moon Cronk

Using appropriate government-to-government channels, the Defense Department has called upon China to immediately return an unmanned underwater vehicle that it unlawfully seized yesterday in the South China Sea, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said in a statement today.

Earlier, Pentagon press operations director Navy Capt. Jeff Davis told reporters that a Chinese Navy Dalang-III class submarine rescue vessel launched a small boat and retrieved the UUV as the oceanographic survey ship USNS Bowditch was attempting to retrieve it and a second UUV in the South China Sea.

The incident occurred in international waters about 50 nautical miles northwest of Subic Bay Naval Air Station in the Philippines, Davis told reporters.

Calling for International Law Compliance

“The UUV is a sovereign immune vessel of the United States. We call upon China to return our UUV immediately and to comply with all of its obligations under international law,” Cook said.

Bridge-to-bridge communications took place between the Bowditch and Chinese ships, but demands to have the UUV returned were ignored, Davis said.

“The USNS Bowditch and the UUV — an unclassified ‘ocean glider’ system used around the world to gather military oceanographic data such as salinity, water temperature, and sound speed — were conducting routine operations in accordance with international law,” Cook said.

Chinese Ignored Calls to Return UUV

Davis said the Chinese ignored repeated U.S. calls for them to return the U.S. property.

“As [the Chinese ship] went sailing off into distance, [it] said, ‘We are returning to normal operations,’” Davis said.

“We need to find out what the Chinese have to say about it,” he said. “It’s certainly not something we consider to be commensurate with their level as a professional military.”

Davis said the entire incident occurred within a 500-yard area.

“It is ours. It is clearly marked; we’d like to have it back and [would] like this to never happen again,” he said.