Scientists at Princeton University and the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) have developed a rigorous new method for modeling the accretion disk that feeds the supermassive black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy. The paper, published online in December in the journal Physical Review Letters, provides a much-needed foundation for simulation of the extraordinary processes involved.

Accretion disks are clouds of plasma that orbit and gradually swirl into massive bodies such as black holes — intense gravitational fields produced by stars that collapse to a tiny fraction of their original size. These collapsed stars are bounded by an “event horizon,” from which not even light can escape. As accretion disks flow toward event horizons, they power some of the brightest and most energetic sources of electromagnetic radiation in the universe.

The colossal black hole at the center of the Milky Way — called “Sagittarius A*” because it is found in the constellation Sagittarius — has a gravitational mass that is four million times greater than our own sun. Yet the accretion disk plasma that spirals into this mass is “radiatively inefficient,” meaning that it emits much less radiation than one would expect.

“So the question is, why is this disk so quiescent?” asks Matthew Kunz, lead author of the paper, assistant professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University and a physicist at PPPL. Co-authors include James Stone, Princeton professor of astrophysical sciences, and Eliot Quataert, director of theoretical astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley.

To develop a method for finding the answer, the researchers considered the nature of the superhot Sagittarius A* accretion disk. Its plasma is so hot and dilute that it is collisionless, meaning that the trajectories of protons and electrons inside the plasma rarely intersect.

This lack of collisionality distinguishes the Sagittarius A* accretion disk from brighter and more radiative disks that orbit other black holes. The brighter disks are collisional and can be modeled by formulas dating from the 1990s, which treat the plasma as an electrically conducting fluid. But “such models are inappropriate for accretion onto our supermassive black hole,” Kunz said, since they cannot describe the process that causes the collisionless Sagittarius A* disk to grow unstable and spiral down.

To model the process for the Sagittarius A* disk, the paper replaces the formulas that treat the motion of collisional plasmas as a macroscopic fluid. Instead, the authors use a method that physicists call “kinetic” to systematically trace the paths of individual collisionless particles. This complex approach, conducted using the Pegasus computer code developed at Princeton by Kunz, Stone and Xuening Bai, now a lecturer at Harvard University, produced a set of equations better able to model behavior of the disk that orbits the supermassive black hole.

This kinetic approach could help astrophysicists understand what causes the accretion disk region around the Sagittarius A* hole to radiate so little light. Results could also improve understanding of other key issues, such as how magnetized plasmas behave in extreme environments and how magnetic fields can be amplified.

The goal of the new method, said Kunz, “will be to produce more predictive models of the emission from black-hole accretion at the galactic center for comparison with astrophysical observations.” Such observations come from instruments such as the Chandra X-ray observatory, an Earth-orbiting satellite that NASA launched in 1999, and the upcoming Event Horizon Telescope, an array of nine Earth-based radio telescopes located in countries around the world.

By Jaya Ramachandran

Almost a third of all humans traded around the world for the purpose of sexual slavery, forced labour, or commercial sexual exploitation are children, and women and girls comprise 71 per cent of the victims of “human trafficking”, according to a new report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

The 2016 UNODC Global Report on Trafficking in Persons is the third of its kind mandated by the General Assembly through the 2010 United Nations Global Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons.

It covers 136 countries and provides an overview of patterns and flows of trafficking in persons at global, regional and national levels, based primarily on trafficking cases detected between 2012 and 2014. As UNODC has been systematically collecting data on trafficking in persons for more than a decade, trend information is presented for a broad range of indicators.

“Trafficking for sexual exploitation and for forced labour remain the most prominently detected forms, but victims are also being trafficked to be used as beggars, for forced or sham marriages, benefit fraud, or production of pornography,” said UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov in presenting the report on December 21, 2016.

The report found that while women and girls tend to be trafficked for marriages and sexual slavery, men and boys are typically exploited for forced labour in the mining sector, as porters, soldiers and slaves. While 28 per cent of detected trafficking victims worldwide are children, in regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa, and Central America and the Caribbean children comprise 62 and 64 per cent of victims, respectively.

UNODC Chief Fedotov emphasized the link between armed groups and human trafficking, noting how armed groups often engage in trafficking in their territories of operation, coercing women and girls into marriages or sexual slavery, and pressing men and boys to act as forced labour or combatants.

In this regard, 23-year old Yazidi woman Nadia Murad Basee Taha, who was formally appointed UNODC Goodwill Ambassador for the Dignity of Survivors of Human Trafficking on September 16, 2016, has related her heartbreaking account of being enslaved by ISIL (Da’esh) terrorists.

She briefed the Security Council in its first-ever session on human trafficking in December 2015, describing how she was rounded up with fellow Yazidis in Iraq in 2014 and witnessing ISIL fighters shooting men and boys in cold blood. She was subject to grave abuses at the hands of ISIL fighters and was bought and sold various times.

At the induction ceremony in New York, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recognized Nadia’s resolve to serve as a voice for the voiceless, noting that “Nadia survived horrific crimes. I cried when I heard her story. But I didn’t only cry out of sadness. I was also moved to tears because Nadia has so much strength, courage, and dignity. She rightly calls for a world where all children live in peace.”

This year’s report includes a thematic chapter focusing on the connections between trafficking in persons, migration and conflict.

“People escaping from war and persecution are particularly vulnerable to becoming victims of trafficking,” said Fedotov. “The urgency of their situation might lead them to make dangerous migration decisions. The rapid increase in the number of Syrian victims of trafficking in persons following the start of the conflict there, for instance, seems to be one example of how these vulnerabilities play out,” he added.

Data included in the report reveal that trafficking in persons and regular migration flows broadly resemble each other for some destination countries in different parts of the world. Factors that increase vulnerability to human trafficking during the migration process include the presence of transnational organized crime in the country of origin, and a person’s socio-economic profile.

The report also includes information on the multitude of trafficking flows, including within countries, between neighbouring countries or even across different continents. More than 500 different examples of these flows were detected between 2012 and 2014.

The report refers to trafficking victims from countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia, who are traded to a wide range of destinations. A total of 69 countries were reported to have detected victims from Sub-Saharan Africa in this same period.

Most countries have passed legislation that criminalizes trafficking in persons as a specific offence; many have done so recently. The Global Report shows that there is a relation between how long a country has had proper trafficking legislation on its books, and how many convictions it reports. Countries with longer-standing legislation record, on average, more convictions.

“That said, the overall criminal justice response to trafficking in persons, which has historically been very weak, has not improved significantly,” notes the report.

“Some one hundred and fifty-eight, or eighty-eight per cent, of countries have criminalized human trafficking, in line with the Protocol [to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons],” said Fedotov.

“This is a huge improvement since 2003, when only eighteen per cent of countries had such laws on their books. Nevertheless, as we highlighted in the last report, the rate of convictions remains far too low, and victims are not always receiving the protection and services countries are obliged to provide.”

The UNODC Chief stressed that more resources clearly need to be devoted to identify and assist trafficking victims, as well as improve criminal justice responses to detect, investigate and successfully prosecute cases.

The report, produced by UNODC every two years, reinforces the link between tackling this crime and achieving the 2030 Agenda’s Sustainable Development Goals.

On the New York Declaration adopted at the Summit for Refugees and Migrants in September 2016 it was further stressed that refugees and migrants in large movements were at risk of being trafficked, and that states needed to combat human trafficking and migrant smuggling as part of comprehensive responses to development and migration.

By Salma Rasa*

Syed Razaee spends his days sitting in a wooden booth in the second district of Kabul city, selling talismans and reading palms. Wearing a white hat to indicate his supposed scholarship, he said that in fact he had inherited the business from his father.

“When I was a kid, my father provided people with amulets and I learned this art from him,” the 42-year-old told IWPR. “I studied only until 10th grade and after that I started working because my father died. I had to support my family financially.”

Rezaee said he saw about 15 customers each day, offering a range of services.

“I am a palm-reader, a fortuneteller and sell amulets, to help the public as well as to provide for my own family,” he said, adding that he sat down to make his charms three times a day; in the early morning, at noon and in the evening.

“My amulets contain verses of the Quran which have healing properties.”

There is a long history of belief in such magical practices in Afghanistan.

Palm-readers and fortunetellers claim that they have been gifted with extraordinary powers, while specialist talisman inscribers say they can fix all sorts of problems, from diseases and infertility to bringing lovers together, tracking down lost or stolen items, and boosting or destroying a business.

Their methods include blowing on their clients, scraping them with a thorn or knife blade, hitting them with thin, wet sticks, drawing geometrical shapes, writing mysterious figures or copying out verses of the Koran to make an amulet.

Talismans often come with special guidelines instructing that they should be buried, burnt, or dipped in water which must then be drunk by the customer. Sometimes the talisman is hung around the neck of a sick person, or placed under a pillow.

Although forbidden in Islam and outlawed under Afghan law, these traditions have become so ingrained that many believe they are part and parcel of the Muslim religion.

Clerics warn that they contradict Islamic precepts and lead to exploitation by charlatans.

“There is no doubt that Quran verses are healing, but only when help is sought directly from God,” said Ghayasuddin, a 55-year old religious scholar.

“People who write and sell amulets are not scholars and don’t have the correct understanding of Islam. They are uneducated or have very little knowledge. People should not commit sins by going to them… and people who sell amulets are [also] committing a sin.”

However, Rezaee argued that he provided a valuable service.

“People who have health problems which can’t be treated by doctors come to me and I write amulets for them,” he continued. “I don’t ask for a specific amount of money. They can pay as much as they can afford. Rich people pay 100 dollars and people who live abroad send 300-400 dollars by bank transfer and I help them with their problems via telephone.”

He said that people were free to criticize those in his profession.

“What should I do? There aren’t other good jobs in our country. I built my house through selling amulets. Luckily, I have many customers. People who come to me once come again and even recommend me to their relatives. People who believe in us should visit us and those who don’t trust or believe in us don’t need to visit us.”

Indeed, some customers are very pleased with the service such soothsayers provide.

Pari Gul, 30, stopped to talk to IWPR on her way back from visiting a street where amulet sellers displayed their wares.

She said that her mother-in-law had used an amulet to cast a spell on her. As a result, Pari Gul was suffering from a variety of illnesses that did not respond to medical treatment.

“I went many times to see doctors, but I didn’t get better. One day my aunt suggested that I go see an amulet seller because she thought somebody had enchanted me, so I went to see the famous Mullah Shamshiri in Taimani. He charged me 300 dollars, but now I feel good.”

Romance is another major source of income for the talisman writers and fortune-tellers, especially when it comes to young people who face difficulties in getting married.

Hashmatullah Naweed, a 20-year old student at a private university in Kabul, has been queuing for hours to see renowned amulet seller Agha Sahb.

He said he had fallen in love with a fellow student whose family did not approve of the match.

In an effort to make his beloved’s father accept him as a suitor, Naweed had reluctantly turned to sorcery.

“This is the first time I’ve taken such step despite knowing that it is a sin, but I have to do it. Agha Sahb doesn’t charge much. In fact, even if I give him a small amount of money as a gift, he will not say.”

Naweed said he would not recommend this course of action.

“I don’t want other people to do what I am doing because I know it’s not an Islamic act and I don’t want others to commit the same sin as me.”

OFFICIAL CRACKDOWN

Jamshed Rasa, a psychologist who works in a private clinic, acknowledged that these traditional methods might have a placebo effect, especially for people suffering from emotional distress or mental problems.

“Some people who suffer from anxiety or depression go to amulet sellers because they believe that this would help. By chance, some get better, but it doesn’t happen for everybody.”

He argued that modern medicine was preferable to seeking out fortunetellers and risking serious harm.

“If somebody has mental problems, today he or she can be treated and have their symptoms controlled by medicine, because science has diagnosed and identified the causes of all these issues. It is completely wrong to turn to amulet sellers when a person has mental problems.”

Fortune-telling and similar practices are illegal in Afghanistan, and only Islamic scholars have the right to write and sell amulets.

The ministry of haj and religious affairs has recently stepped up efforts to combat the soothsayer and talisman business ever since a brutal incident in March 2015 when a young woman called Farkhunda was beaten to death by a mob near the Shah Du Shamshera shrine in Kabul.

She had protested against an amulet seller who then accused her of burning a copy of the Quran.

Mullawi Safiualllah, of the ministry of haj and religious affairs, told IWPR that they had recently closed down the operations of 250 amulet sellers and pam readers.

Officials from the ministry of haj and religious affairs said that they were working in coordination with police and local lawyers to identify amulet sellers and palmists.

Safiualllah said, “Some are really good scholars who use Quranic verses in their amulets, but there also some frauds. Our panel investigates to differentiate between scholars and fraudsters and then acts according to our procedure.”

He said that amulet sellers whose works were in accordance with Sharia would be permitted to continue working.

“It is the responsibility of the haj and religious affairs ministry to prevent and control such professions,” said Fraidoon Obaidi, head of criminal investigations at Kabul police headquarters.

He said that his department was working closely with the religious authorities.

“The commission has arrested many amulet sellers at their shops and homes where they were operating. The commission has also shut their shops and their hunt will continue.”

The traditions may have become part and parcel of Afghan culture, but some people are happy that the police are finally cracking down on amulet sellers.

Monisa, 28, has been married for ten years but has never been able to get pregnant.

She said that despite being an educated woman she had wasted a staggering amount of money on amulets and palm-readers in the hope of becoming a mother.

“I went to many doctors in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India to seek help for my problem. I also went to amulet sellers and they asked for cash, chickens, sheep, silver and silk to solve my problem. However, nothing worked and everything proved to be useless and ineffective.”

Monisa now bitterly regrets her decision to turn to amulet sellers for help, and wants her money back.

“Amulet sellers took everything I owned, all my wealth. They are robbers. The government should punish them because they deceive people by misusing the word of God.”

This report was produced under IWPR’s Promoting Human Rights and Good Governance in Afghanistan initiative, funded by the European Union Delegation to Afghanistan. This article was published by IWPR’s ARR 561

By Sanjay Badri-Maharaj*

The air forces of Latin America are unique in comparison with any region except perhaps sub-Saharan Africa, in that their combat aircraft components are composed of an odd but nonetheless effective mix of combat capable trainers operating alongside smaller numbers of relatively modern combat aircraft. However, as the decades wear on, the region’s smaller air forces will be forced to confront the issue of replacing a fleet of ageing aircraft for which spares are going to be increasingly in short supply. It should be noted that while the risk of large scale conventional air combat is relatively low, Latin American air forces take their air defence responsibilities seriously and their aircraft have also seen service in counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics operations.

Only the air forces of Venezuela (23 Su-30MKVs and 12 F-16s), Chile (57 F-16s and 11 modified F-5E Tigre III nominally on strength) and Peru (9 Mirage 2000s, 19 MiG-29s and 18 Su-25s) operate modern multi-role aircraft. To these can be added Ecuador’s 10 Atlas Cheetahs and 8 IAI Kfirs as well as Colombia’s 20 Kfir C.7s. Brazil’s most modern aircraft, pending the arrival of 36 Saab Gripen NG, are 43 ageing F-5EMs which operate alongside 47 A-1/A-1M attack aircraft. The once vaunted Argentinian air force is now left without any operable combat aircraft other than combat capable trainers.

For many decades, the venerable F-5 served alongside Mirage III as the most modern combat aircraft available to Latin American air forces. Brazil operated both types while Chile operated F-5s alongside modified Mirage V (Elkan and Pantera variants). Venezuela operated ex-Canadian F-5s alongside Mirage Vs. Mirage F.1s served with distinction in Ecuador’s brief war with Peru in 1995 alongside SEPECAT Jaguars. Argentina operated Mirage IIIs, IAI Neshers and A-4 Skyhawks. Honduras and Mexico operated F-5s alongside armed trainers while the other air forces of the region had to make do with Cessna A-37 Dragonflies as their principal jet combat aircraft augmented by trainers such as the EMB-312/314 Tucano/ Super Tucano and, in the case of Chile and Honduras, CASA C-101s (in service with the latter air force, the C-101 was responsible for a number of air-to-air victories against narcotics-trafficking aircraft). It should also be mentioned that Brazilian versions of the Aermacchi MB.326 trainer served with Brazil and Paraguay before being retired without a direct replacement.

While the larger air forces are capable of sustaining their existing and future inventories for some time to come, the combat assets available to the region’s smaller air forces are facing a problem of pending obsolescence. Even Mexico’s otherwise substantial air force possesses only three F-5s in operational condition. Across Central and South America, air forces composed of F-5s and armed trainers are facing the nightmare of having to replace aircraft without the benefit of the assistance packages that facilitated the acquisition of combat assets in the 1970s and 1980s.

Latin American air forces have a proud history of operating fighter aircraft. The United States gifted substantial quantities of ex-Second World War F-47 Thunderbolts and F-51 Mustangs to establish modern combat aviation throughout Central and South America. The progression of the Cold War saw the United States provide Latin America’s first jet combat aircraft from F-80 Shooting Stars and T-33 trainers to F-86 Sabres. However, from the 1970s, the United States expressed a reluctance to supply any aircraft more modern than the F-5 and then only to countries like Mexico, Chile and Brazil. Venezuela’s oil industry enabled it to obtain F-16s in 1983 as fears of Cuban air strikes using MiG-23BNs persuaded the Reagan Administration of the need for these aircraft. No other country was so fortunate until Chile received a mixture of new and ex-Dutch F-16s from the year 2000 onwards. It was this US reluctance to supply modern aircraft that led many South American air forces to procure Mirages; led Honduras to obtain ex-Israeli Dassault Super Mystere B.2s until F-5s were delivered in the mid-1980s; and El Salvador to invest in ex-Israeli Dassault Ouragans.

Since then, the combat elements of many Central American and South American air forces have gone into a state of steep decline. As spares for the Ouragans and Mysteres became impossible to obtain and with the aircraft becoming unsafe to operate, they were withdrawn from use. Cessna A-37s became the principal jet combat aircraft within the region as the United States provided many of these specialist counter-insurgency aircraft to regional air forces as they battled left-wing insurgencies. While this aid was forthcoming in the 1970s, 1980s and the early years of the 1990s, it ended thereafter. And soon, the A-37 fleets of all regional air forces began to decline precipitously as aircraft were lost to attrition and accidents or withdrawn from use because of increasingly intense spares shortages. Replacing the aircraft with turbo-prop armed trainers (such as the Tucano/Super Tucano and the T-6C Texan) has worked for the light-strike role but these aircraft lack both the speed and altitude performance to intercept jet-powered narcotics-trafficking aircraft.

This was compounded by some short-sighted political decisions by the United States which embargoed spares supplies to Honduras for its F-5s, blocked the overhaul and upgrade of Venezuela’s F-16s and vetoed Bolivia’s decision to procure Czech L-159 light attack/advanced trainers to replace its life-expired AT-33 armed trainers. Bolivia turned to China (K-8s) and Venezuela turned to Russia (Su-30s) and China (K-8s) for the supply of combat aircraft and armed trainers. Honduras has, however, retained its F-5s despite significant logistical and financial challenges and has expressed its intention to overhaul them and retain the force as long as possible. Argentina’s attempts to replace its Mirages, Neshers and A-4Rs have been repeatedly stymied by British pressure and the reluctance of the United States or Western European countries to supply aircraft.

Finding replacements for the F-5s and Cessna A-37s presents smaller regional air forces with serious challenges. Bolivia and Venezuela have strained relationships with the United States and have no hesitation in looking to China and Russia for aircraft. However, other countries are not quite as keen to shift to non-Western suppliers partly due to their continued dependence on the United States for military assistance, economic aid and diplomatic and political support but also because neither China nor Russia has any support structure in the region to maintain, overhaul or otherwise service the aircraft they sell. Peru had a difficult time with its MiG-29s, Su-25s and its now withdrawn Su-22s, with large numbers being unserviceable for want of spares support from the erstwhile USSR and then Russia. Peru’s situation has improved, thanks in part to a vibrant, albeit small, aircraft industry. But this cannot be said for smaller nations which are now facing the urgent requirement of replacing aircraft obtained as aid with aircraft that will be considerably more expensive.

The choices for the region’s smaller air forces are limited. The United States no longer manufactures “cheap and cheerful” high performance aircraft like the F-5 and has no jet replacement for the A-37. In addition, it has been very reluctant to supply even used F-16s to any country in Latin America outside of Chile. Western Europe offers more attractive options in the form of aircraft like the BAE Hawk and Aermacchi’s M-346, both of which can replace the A-37. For a replacement for the F-5, however, a new supplier may emerge as a potential wild-card – the Republic of Korea with its FA-50 which is being aggressively marketed.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India. Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/idsacomments/state-smaller-latin-american-air-forces_sbmaharaj_221216

By Michael A. Reynolds*

(FPRI) — The assassination of the Russian Ambassador to Turkey in an Ankara art gallery on December 19 was a dramatic event in every way.  The ambassador had just begun speaking to the audience when a man pacing behind him, neatly dressed in coat and tie and appearing perhaps to be part of his entourage, suddenly pulled out a pistol and fired nine shots into the ambassador.

The low-key cultural event, the opening of an exhibit of photographs entitled, “From Kaliningrad to Kamchatka: Russia Through the Eyes of Travelers,” had a greater significance: it marked the first such public appearance of the Russian ambassador since November 2015 when the Turkish air force’s downing of a Russian military jet near the Turkish-Syrian border had triggered a severe crisis in relations between the two countries. That crisis lasted until Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan made an uncharacteristically apologetic overture to Russian President Vladimir Putin this past summer. The ambassador’s public appearance at the art gallery was a sign of the restoration of normal relations between the two countries. Still more significant was the fact that the assassin struck on the eve of a planned meeting in Moscow between the foreign ministers of Russia, Turkey, and Iran. The agenda for that meeting was the situation in Syria.

That situation, the assassin made clear, was the reason for the ambassador’s death sentence. “We die in Aleppo, you die here,” he shouted as the diplomat lay bleeding on the floor.  Since July of this year, the Syrian city of Aleppo has been the site of an epic siege. The Syrian Army, backed by Russian air support and Iranian-led militias, are now on the verge of taking the whole of the city from the Syrian armed opposition and thereby dealing those rebels a decisive defeat. The plight of the rebels in Aleppo has received extensive attention in the West, and media coverage there has portrayed the tactics of the Assad regime and the supporting Russian expeditionary force as exceptionally brutal. Earlier this month the mayor of Paris even had the Eiffel Tower go dark to show solidarity with the besieged Aleppines. Inside Turkey, coverage has been no less intense, and the proximity of the war has amplified the passions connected to it.

The assassin of the Russian ambassador was not a Syrian, but a twenty-two year old Turkish police officer named Mevlut Mert Altıntaş. Lest anyone be left in confusion as to whom Altıntaş meant by “we,” Altıntaş was clear. Upon gunning down the ambassador, he recited in Arabic “We are the one who pledged allegiance to Muhammad, to wage jihad,” gave a tekbir (a shout of Allahu Akbar, “God is Great”), and held aloft a single index finger, a gesture favored by Sunni Islamists to symbolize the unity of God (albeit with his left hand, as the preferred hand, the right, was grasping his pistol). “Do not forget Aleppo, do not forget Syria,” he exhorted his stunned audience. In short, Altıntaş identified as a Sunni Muslim, not as a servant of the Turkish state, and had taken it upon himself to exact revenge on Russia for its role in backing the Syrian government and Iranian forces in Syria.

To have a Turkish state employee, and worst of all a police officer, assassinate a foreign diplomat is a tremendous embarrassment to the Turkish government. Turkish officials were quick – probably much too quick – to point their fingers at Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish preacher who until recently commanded an estimated 5 million Muslim followers in Turkey and around the world. Gülen resides in Pennsylvania, the beneficiary of an unusual American visa program. The Turkish government accuses Gülen of orchestrating the failed putsch of July 15 and has asked for his extradition. As I have argued elsewhere, there is no doubt that Gülen has a great deal to answer for in subverting law and governance in Turkey over the past several years, and Ankara’s outstanding request for extradition deserves the most serious consideration. Thus far, however, little evidence tying Altıntaş to Gülen has emerged.

A more straightforward and plausible explanation may not be difficult to find. Radical Sunni currents are neither new nor unusual in Turkey. They have been part of Turkey’s political underground from the founding of the republic in 1923. Although the Turkish Republic has a long history of suppressing religious movements that challenge the state, it has an almost as venerable tradition of coopting and using fringe or radical illegal elements that can assist the state.

The pattern of state actors recruiting religiously motivated radicals arguably extends back to the pre-republican, late Ottoman period when an embattled Ottoman empire, outgunned and outweighed by the Great Powers, sought to boost its geopolitical heft by mobilizing networks that linked Muslims outside the empire with those inside. These networks ranged from public and non-violent charitable ones and religious brotherhoods to clandestine paramilitary groups.

During the Cold War, the Turkish Republic made use of Islamist and ultra-nationalist radicals to counter Communist and Leftist influence and to combat Kurdish separatism. There was nothing especially unusual about Turkey’s use of these underground groups. States battling severe challenges from non-state actors routinely recruit illegal and extralegal elements such as gangsters and political radicals as allies. By granting illegal but cooperative actors reprieve from prosecution in exchange for performing the “dirty tasks” that the law formally forbids, states acquire proxies that can be effective at rooting out underground threats. Because such arrangements belie the state’s claim to uphold the law and monopolize the legitimate means of violence, however, they cannot be openly acknowledged. And a dangerous tradeoff comes with the blurring of the lines of legality and loyalty. Employees of the state sometimes can begin to identify with and serve the causes of the subterranean organizations they are dealing with.

Altıntaş is hardly the first young Turkish radical to make world news by gunning someone down. Perhaps the most famous Turkish hit man remains Mehmet Ali Ağca, who was just twenty-three when he shot Pope John Paul II four times in Rome in 1981 in a nearly successful assassination attempt. To this day little is known about Ağca’s motives or who was backing his assassination attempt. One theory is that the Soviet Union working through its Bulgarian Communist allies sent Ağca to kill the popular anti-Communist and Polish pope in the hopes that this would help quell the burgeoning Solidarity Movement in then-Communist Poland. Another is that Ağca was involved in an Iranian plot against the Pope ordered by Ayatollah Khomeini. What is known about Ağca, however,  is that prior to 1981 he had been a member of Turkey’ ultranationalist “Idealist Hearths” (Ülkü Ocakları), had killed a famous and influential left-wing Turkish journalist in 1979 on the Idealists’ behalf, and was subsequently sprung from prison by a Turkish crime boss, Abdullah Çatlı. Çatlı was no ordinary criminal.  He was known for his ultranationalist sympathies and as his death in the Susurluk scandal in 1996 revealed conclusively, he was a criminal who had worked closely with Turkish security services right up until the moment he died. As for Ağca, he is now out of prison and remains a revered figure among Turkish far right circles.

A more recent Turkish assassin of note is Ogün Samast, who in 2007 murdered Hrant Dink, an Armenian-Turkish journalist. In response to Dink’s efforts to highlight the fate of Armenians in Ottoman and Turkish history, ultranationalists undertook a public campaign branding him as a traitor. That campaign culminated in Samast’s attack. Samast at the time was just seventeen years old, and at the trial it became clear that the teenager had not acted alone and had been manipulated by others. Moreover, irregularities during the trial and the release of photographs showing Turkish police officers standing alongside Samast in detention and proudly mugging with him as if he were a hero led many Turks to the conclusion that the security services were engaged in a cover-up and that higher-ups had sanctioned the assassination of Dink.

The point in bringing up the examples of Ağça and Samast is not to argue that Altaş fits into a quintessentially Turkish pattern of assassins, nor is it to suggest that he acted on behalf of a conspiracy inside the Turkish security services. Thus far no evidence conclusively linking Altaş to other plotters has surfaced. Rather, these examples illustrate the ways in which members of the Turkish security services have been bound up with the underground far right and its causes.  Although in the realm of ideas ultranationalists and Sunni radicals diverge, in practice the groups meet and overlap. Their lists of enemies are largely the same and their sympathizers tend to come from similar backgrounds. The nationalists typically regard being a Sunni Muslim as an essential part of Turkish identity.

Since Syria was the issue that agitated Altaş, it would be useful to review Turkey’s role there. In 2011, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forcibly suppressed protests against his rule throughout the country. The severity of Assad’s crackdown coupled with his pointed refusals to heed Erdoğan’s appeals to refrain from violence led Erdoğan eventually to call for his overthrow. The following year, the United States and Turkey began joint operational planning to bring down the Syrian president. Turkey subsequently began cooperating with some Syrian opposition groups and lent backing to some rebel militias as well. The Turkish effort has had two basic goals: to topple Assad’s regime and to block the emergence of an independent or autonomous Kurdish entity that might undermine Ankara’s control of Turkey’s own heavily Kurdish southeast. The precise extent of Turkey’s collaboration with the multifarious Syrian rebel groups is unclear.  At a minimum, up until the summer of 2015 Turkish authorities turned a blind eye to foreigners traveling through Turkey to Syria to fight against Assad and permitted fighters from Syria to recuperate inside Turkey. Some, including Vladimir Putin, charged the Turks with actively assisting radical Sunni groups inside Syria, including the Islamic state.

Again, leaving aside the unproven allegations of direct Turkish support to the Islamic state and Al-Qaeda affiliates, Turkey’s support for Sunni Syrian rebels has been neither unusual nor surprising. The Pentagon and American CIA also attempted to mobilize Sunni rebels for the sake of overthrowing Assad. But where for Americans the conflict in Syria remains geographically remote and culturally distant, of little interest to the general American public, and of only professional interest for American soldiers and spies, for Turkey the war is intimate, high stakes, and emotional. Nearly three million Syrian refugees are already inside Turkey, and the question of Syria’s territorial integrity has direct implications for Turkey. The success of Kurdish militias in Syria in carving out a de facto autonomous region inside Syria has inspired Kurdish separatists inside Turkey and alarmed Turkish nationalists, thereby stoking a merciless ongoing conflict between Kurdish militants and the Turkish security forces.

Not least, the sectarian overtones of the Syrian civil war, where a Shi’i international that is led by Iran and includes Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Shi’i militiamen from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan fights on the side of Assad against an opposition dominated by radical Sunnis, have resonated powerfully inside Turkey, where the great majority of the population is Sunni. For these Turks, the participation of their historical rival Russia on the side of Assad further underscored the perfidious nature of the anti-Sunni coalition.

Erdoğan throughout his political career has played on the theme of oppression of Sunni Muslims to effect, and with his Syria policy it was no different. In order to rally support for the idea of overthrowing Assad the ruling AK Party and their supporting media outlets have often framed the tactics of Assad and his backers as wanton barbarism directed against all Sunnis. Ankara has also played the ethnic card, arming ethnic Turkmen inside Syria and facilitating the formation of units named in honor of Ottoman Sultans. Notably, the ultranationalist Idealists have also flocked from Turkey to Syria to take up arms. Russia’s bombing of Turkmen militias may well have helped precipitate the Turkish decision to shoot down the Russian jet in 2015. It was a Turkish Idealist in a Turkmen unit who reportedly killed the Russian pilot after he ejected from his aircraft. Inside Turkey, public demonstrations against “Murderous Russia” became a regular feature of Turkish political life following Russia’s intervention. Indeed, as recently as a week ago Turkish citizens staged a mass protest outside the Russian consulate in Istanbul. Although the majority of Turkish citizens remain skittish about intervening in Syria, the Syrian civil war and the Turkish media’s coverage of it have indisputably heightened hostility toward Russia and energized the Islamist and ultranationalist sectors in Turkey.

Thus when Erdoğan earlier this year patched up relations with Putin by apologizing for the downing of the Russian jet and offering compensation to the pilot’s family, he performed a pivot that was stunning in the realm of diplomacy but a disorienting and hence risky one in the domestic arena. After being goaded to loathe Putin’s Russia as a sinister and barbarous foe, many Turks on the Islamist and ultranationalist right have found it difficult to follow Erdoğan and embrace Russia, particularly when it is not Russia that has backed away from its goals in Syria. Perhaps in the same way that the staunchly anti-Communist Richard Nixon was able to pull off a pivot to the People’s Republic of China in 1972, only a Turkish leader with credentials on the Turkish right like Erdoğan can reverse policy on Syria and resume cooperation with Russia. But Erdoğan faces dangers that Nixon never did. Some of his critics, unlike Nixon’s, are armed, and as Altıntaş demonstrated, some of them are serving inside Turkey’s security services. The possibility that the loyalties of others who work for the state might become confused is all too real.

In the immediate aftermath of the assassination Ankara and Moscow alike asserted immediately that the attack will not derail their relations. The meeting between the foreign ministers of Russia, Turkey, and Iran in Moscow went ahead as planned and even concluded with a joint declaration on Syria. The three countries intend to continue their talks in Kazakhstan. Thus for all its visual drama, Altıntaş’s crime had no practical impact. But that does not mean it lacks significance. Just as many Sunni activists in the Arab world and elsewhere outside Turkey openly hailed the death of the ambassador as justified, there can be no doubt that privately a significant number of their Turkish counterparts did as well. The killing powerfully illustrated both the simmering sectarian and nationalist anger inside Turkey and the fissures inside Erdoğan’s own coalition.

Worse, the assassination may point to an alarming decline in the discipline and professionalization of Turkey’s security services. Turkey’s armed forces, gendarmerie, and police for the past several years have been undergoing a test as severe as any they have ever experienced in their histories. From within, they were subjected to comprehensive subversion by the followers of Fethullah Gülen, who infiltrated the ranks of the police and then went after the upper ranks of the armed forces, jailing hundreds of senior officers on wholly fabricated charges. From without, they find themselves fighting simultaneously against two relentless, deadly and effective foes, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Islamic State. These struggles have left Turkey’s soldiers, gendarmes, and police confused, angry, and above all, disoriented.

In his fight against Assad in Syria and his contests against rivals and enemies at home, Erdoğan has not hesitated to whip up his base of Sunni Turks. He has done so by often playing on their communal identity and playing up contemporary conflicts as new episodes in epic struggles against hoary foes. One consequence of such rhetoric has been to blur the boundaries of Turkish Republican identity to an unprecedented degree. Are those who bear arms in the name of Turkish Republic fighting on behalf of the republic, its laws, all its citizens, and its elected government? Or are they fighting on behalf of something more elusive but grander, such as Islam against the unbelieving Kurdish socialists?  The Sunni community against the Alawite Assad and his Shi’i Persian backers? Or the descendants of Sultan Osman against the Imperialist Russians and their lackeys? The various possible answers an official, police officer, or soldier might give to these questions will produce very different forms of behavior.

In Syria Erdoğan has overseen what is likely the largest covert operation backing irregular armed units in the history of the Turkish Republic . The men serving in those units, including volunteer fighters from Turkey who now will likely return home, certainly do not conceive of their struggle as one solely for the sake of the republic. Whether or not their handlers in the Turkish security services do is a very large and open question. Altıntaş, who despite serving only inside Turkey performing relatively mundane police tasks, made it clear he did not.

A great, and unfortunate, irony is that whereas just a few years ago Erdoğan sought to transcend the limitations of traditional Kemalism by building upon a shared Muslim identity to better incorporate Kurds into the republic and build stronger ties to Turkey’s Arab neighbors, today he finds himself embroiled in desperate struggles against the two great bugbears of Kemalism: Kurdish separatism and militant Islam. As he belatedly pursues a realpolitik gambit to shore up the Turkish Republic by cutting his losses in Syria and drawing closer to Russia so as to block further advances by the PKK (and Islamic State) inside Syria, Erdoğan may discover that under his rule over the past decade the institutional and ideational foundations of the republic have deteriorated to the point that far from being the president of a unified modern state with disciplined and effective institutions, he will soon be  more akin to a warlord at the head of a surly and unhappy tribe, the members of which he can never wholly trust.

About the author:
*Michael A. Reynolds is a Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Program on the Middle East and an Associate Professor in Princeton’s Department of Near Eastern Studies.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

By Daud Abdullah*

If UN Security Council Resolution 2334 regarding Israel’s illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is to be worth the paper it’s written on, certain tangible steps must be taken. Failure to act will make it worthless.

First and foremost, there must be a serious review of Israel’s membership of the world body. Ever since it was carved out of the land of Palestine, Israel’s leaders have projected their country as something exceptional and thus entitled to special treatment. Israel is indeed unique; it is the only state in the world that owes its very existence to a UN resolution – 181 (II). Its membership was, however, conditional, and remains so.

Upon admission to the world body, the new entity gave a solemn undertaking to respect the General Assembly Partition Resolution (of Palestine) and the status of Jerusalem contained therein. This included the requirement to allow Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and land. Israel has repudiated these conditions. The UN is, therefore, well within its rights to suspend Israel from participating in all of its bodies and institutions, as it did with the South African apartheid regime in 1974 and the former Yugoslavia in 1992.

After decades of burying their heads in the sand there is now a growing realisation among Western leaders that Israel’s exceptionalism is actually a destabilising factor, not only the Middle East but increasingly so in the West. Recent intelligence documents leaked by Edward Snowden revealed that Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had warned in 2008 that “the Israelis remain a real threat to the stability of the region…”

Inevitably, Israeli officials have poured scorn on the latest Security Council resolution. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office described it as “shameful” and vowed not to abide by its terms. Rightfully, the resolution calls for an end to all “settlement activities” on Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, noting that they have “no legal validity.”

Though such contempt for the will of the international community is not something unique to Israel, it is precisely such open defiance of the rule of law which has created the current chaos in the Middle East. Failure to act will only make matters worse. The threat posed by Israel’s intransigence must not be taken lightly. Already, it has announced that it “looks forward to working with president-elect Trump and with all our friends in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution.”

Instead of awaiting this eventuality, the General Assembly must act to suspend Israel from UN bodies. Should this corrective measure fail to bring about the desired compliance, it must then resort to economic, diplomatic and travel sanctions of the kind imposed successfully against the racist South African apartheid regime.

Secondly, on the regional level, the League of Arab States must ensure that the current Egyptian government is never again entrusted with any peace initiative on Palestine, even if this means that the organisation’s headquarters has to be moved from Cairo. It has become patently clear that the current Egyptian government under Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi cannot be entrusted with any leadership role on the Palestine issue. Without the backing of Israel and the US, the coup leaders who toppled the country’s democratically-elected civilian government could not have survived for one week. They are now evidently beholden to the extremist government in Tel Aviv and their ilk; this alone has to be a valid enough reason to question its ability to act independently and resolutely to support the Palestinian people.

Furthermore, instead of acting to protect the legitimate aspirations of the people of Libya, Yemen and Syria, the Egyptian regime has pursued policies that can be described as dubious at best and obstructive at worst. In Palestine, Sisi has allowed Egypt to take a partisan stance, supporting one faction against another instead of promoting a genuine dialogue and reconciliation. Its latest shenanigans at the UN, during which it succumbed to Israeli blackmail, must be the final warning that it is not fit to be entrusted with strategic regional interests.

The manner in which the vote was taken in the Security Council suggests that non-permanent members are ready and willing to uphold the rule of law, even when it means going against the West and its client states in the Middle East. For the Palestinian people who have long endured Israel’s brutal settler-colonialism, the end of 2016 has thus brought some degree of optimism about the future. It is true that they have been down this path before, witnessing the UN take one step forward at critical moments and then two steps backwards thereafter. Their hope will be that 2017 ushers in a clean break from this pattern of international indecision. For the sake of regional stability and global peace, Resolution 2334 must not be squandered. Israel has defied 28 other Security Council resolutions; this must not be the 29th.

*Dr. Daud Abdullah is Director of Middle East Monitor (MEMO).

By Hilal Khashan*

The dramatic drop in oil prices has depleted Saudi Arabia’s cash reserves by a whopping US$150 billion and driven the ruling family to contrive hastily a financial rescue plan.[1] On April 25, 2016, Deputy Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman announced the “Vision 2030” plan to revolutionize the Saudi economy by ending its dependency on oil.[2]

Based on a report by the consulting firm McKinsey, the plan seeks to reinvigorate a Saudi economy that yielded an annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth of only 0.8 percent between 2003 and 2013, less than most emerging economies.[3] The plan seeks to reduce the role of the public sector and bureaucracy while simultaneously empowering the private sector to become the main employer and vehicle for economic growth. The plan calls for the creation of a huge sovereign wealth fund to be funded by an unprecedented initial public offering (IPO) of a 5 percent stake in Aramco.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reservedly endorsed the Saudi intention to address its alarming monetary deficit but voiced subtle doubts about Vision 2030, specifically because its 14-year time frame “sets a bold and far-reaching transformation of the economy to diversify growth, reduce dependence on oil, and increase the role of the private sector.”[4] Another more critical assessment by John Edwards, a member of the board of the Reserve Bank of Australia, warned that, in order for the plan to be successful, it must “profoundly change Saudi society and politics.”[5] And selling 5 percent of Aramco cannot reverse the kingdom’s gloomy economic outlook unless revenues are generated as soon as possible from non-oil sources since the proceeds from the IPO equal the annual depletion rate of cash assets.

Riyadh has already wasted precious time, having spent trillions of dollars in 1970-2014 on nine 5-year development plans that left 90 percent of the annual Saudi budget dependent on oil revenues.[6] Vision 2030 is, therefore, bound to fail for four reasons: It is an overblown mega-project scheme; it focuses on economics and discards political development; it superficially approaches the challenge of instilling values of achievement; and it takes the generation of non-oil revenues as its ultimate goal.

The Mega-project Scheme

The McKinsey plan projects a $2 trillion investment program, which will double Riyadh’s GDP over the next fourteen years.[7] Yet, a sober economic analysis describes the ability to raise such a staggering amount of money as “practically next to impossible, unless crude oil prices see a significant appreciation, or Saudi Arabia plans to sell a higher portion of Aramco.”[8] Since the goal of Vision 2030 is to double GDP by increasing the industrial output of the private sector, investment in appropriate industries is a requirement.

Vision 2030 focuses on creating jobs for Saudis to operate a modern, productivity-led economy. This raises the question of what industries to promote though “it is easier to say what kind of economy it won’t be.”[9] Based on the McKinsey report, the plan identifies eight sectors that, if properly utilized, would generate at least 60 percent of Saudi economic growth. These include “mining and metals, petrochemicals, manufacturing, retail and wholesale trade, tourism and hospitality, healthcare, finance, and construction.”[10] The contribution of the private sector to the GDP would rise from 40 percent to 60 percent, thus lowering unemployment from 11 percent to 7.6 percent.[11] This expansion of the Saudi economy is projected to enable it to move from its “current position as the 19th largest economy in the world into the top 15.”[12]

However, serious issues impede the planned economic expansion. For example, Riyadh cannot realistically compete in labor-intensive manufacturing industries, as low wages do not appeal to Saudis accustomed to high-paying public sector jobs. The petrochemical sector is already well developed and has little room to absorb more workers. The same thing goes for mining, which also does not require a large workforce. Even if Saudi Arabia further develops its health care sector, it would be virtually impossible for it to become a medical hub because other facilities elsewhere in the region, such as in Lebanon and Jordan, are already far more advanced and readily accessible. Likewise, banking and finance require specialized training, and it is doubtful that the kingdom can carve a niche in this very competitive regional sector.

The most promising economic sector remains religious tourism, which has grown in recent years to become the second most important economic activity after oil; in 2015, it netted $22.6 billion and is expected to add an additional $10 billion in revenues by 2021.[13] Religious tourism does not actually need government investment because the Saudi private sector can readily handle it. But the main hurdle slowing the growth of religious tourism is the Saudi reluctance to issue visas.

The proposed Saudi economic expansion necessitates building the infrastructure for a new industrial economy that will consume much of the proposed investment fund without assurances that it can generate sustainable revenues. Judging by the expansion of the Saudi development infrastructure over the past five decades, the need for expatriate personnel, including highly paid executives and skilled specialists, will increase exponentially. Privatization will also increase dependence on foreign skilled labor, despite the unattractiveness of the Saudi work environment, because Saudis lack the necessary skills and motivation to do manual or strenuous work.[14]

Another Vision 2030 goal is to place at least five national universities among the world’s top two hundred and to empower Saudi students to exceed international averages in education indicators.[15] But academic rankings are unnecessary: What the country needs is heavy investment in vocational education, which the vast majority of Saudis reject and consider beneath them.

There is very little in Vision 2030 that previous Saudi development plans did not target. Building infrastructure, developing human resources, empowering the private sector to drive and diversify economic growth have been recurring themes from the second through the eighth 5-year development plans (1975-2009). In fact, Vision 2030 looks pretty much like a continuation of the ninth development plan (2010-15), with its emphasis on promoting sustainable development and raising the competence of the Saudi workforce while creating a knowledge economy in an environment of progressive structural development.

Economic Development but No Political Reform

Riyadh no longer has the luxury of ignoring the relationship between economic and political development. The transformation into a production state is bound to create a knowledge economy and break the kingdom’s tribal-based system. Long gone are the days when Saudi Arabia could enjoy a holiday from politics as a result of “the lack of binding budgetary constraints,which reduced and sometimes even eliminated the need to set spending priorities and allocate scarce economic resources.”[16]

But contrary to what one might expect from a country that claims to be committing itself to economic liberalization and ensuring the happiness of its people, the Saudi government is further clamping down on the freedom of expression—dismal to begin with—under the guise of promoting religious moderation. The Ministry of Religious Affairs has begun implementing an electronic system to centralize the Friday sermon throughout the kingdom’s mosques; preachers will read a single approved sermon from an iPad.[17]

Yet, no matter what the government does to quiet demands for freedom of expression and participation, privatizing the economy and an influx of foreign investors and technicians, along with their families, are bound to “strain the conservative rules of Saudi society.”[18]

Deputy crown prince bin Salman’s Vision 2030 plan is, indeed, visionary but inherently unsound. He wants to do away with the entrenched notion that “oil has become our constitution,”[19] yet glosses over the fact that King Abdulaziz ibn Saud’s modern Saudi state rests on the three pillars of religion, tribalism, and oil. Wahhabi religious doctrine has become synonymous with radicalism and is admittedly injurious to the cause of modernity. Placing emphasis on the creation of a productivity-driven economy is bound to usher in a class society that would result in the withering of tribalism. In essence, the deputy crown prince is calling for deconstructing the pillars of the Saudi political system without replacing them with modern ones.

The only thing political about Vision 2030 is Saudi foreign policy. The kingdom will forgo its traditional role of a swing oil producer instead opting for a major role in the global energy industry that requires the transformation of Aramco, its oil conglomerate, into “a fully-fledged international oil company.”[20]

Saudi Cultural Values

Riyadh’s cultural values do not support the objectives of Vision 2030. Saudi society is closed, status-oriented, and tribally structured. On the whole, Saudis are not law-abiding citizens, and they often violate it with impunity. They also tend to treat expatriates, especially laborers from poor countries, as nonentities unworthy of human dignity. Sordid abuse of hapless foreign workers is the norm rather than the exception.[21] This makes it urgent to “rehabilitate the social environment to restrain shameful public behavior and total disrespect for the law.”[22]

A population with universalistic values is essential to the operation of a modern economy, which will in turn force Riyadh to become a very different society, in short time, to implement Vision 2030.[23] A Saudi columnist and radio broadcaster urged the government to introduce “new cultural and social programs to build citizenship and influence a more moderate and progressive society.”[24]

Indeed, the plan does not neglect the need for building “a culture that rewards determination, provides opportunities for all, and helps everyone acquire the necessary skills to achieve their personal goals.”[25] By extension, this implies investing “in education and training so that our young men and women are equipped for the jobs of the future.”[26] But it is difficult and time-consuming “to rehabilitate and reeducate a population that has gotten used to a nanny state.”[27]

The authors of Vision 2030 are keenly aware that for the plan to succeed, Saudi society must adopt the “values of moderation, tolerance, discipline, equity, and transparency.”[28] Yet it is absurd of them to claim that the authorities “shall have zero tolerance for all levels of corruption, whether administrative or financial.”[29] This is simply impossible in a society where family, tribal, and regional ties are stronger than the nebulous conception of state identity. This is probably why the plan avoids references to government measures to win the cooperation of the Saudi public that, in addition to its strong primordial ties, grew dependent on “state largesse that included fuel subsidies, loans, free land, and public sector jobs.”[30]

Energetic and avant-garde Dubai presents a particular challenge to Riyadh’s Vision 2030. The two neighbors belong to two different worlds and temperaments when it comes to business. Unlike Saudi Arabia, where most of its merchant community hails from Yemen’s Hadramaut region, Dubai has a strong and well-established entrepreneurial spirit. Its indigenous population follows the Maliki school of thought in Sunni Islam that is considerably more moderate than the austere Wahhabi doctrine of the Saudi ruling elite. Whereas in Wahhabism the ruler controls society and enforces piety, the Maliki ruler does not implement compliance with the faith, which rests solely with the individual believers. As a corollary to its control of society, the Saudi state drives economic development. In Dubai, the emirate facilitates and lauds the achievements of its vibrant private sector. For Riyadh, the innovative edge of Dubai’s rip-roaring capitalism is too tall an order to emulate.

All about Revenues

The International Monetary Fund urged the Saudi government to exercise firm control of public expenditures and to levy value-added and income taxes.[31] The plan projects raising non-oil revenues from $45 billion in 2015 to $266 billion by 2030.[32] It is questionable that Riyadh will find foreign investors to participate in its grandiose projects. Instead, it is more likely it will end up selling as much as 49 percent of Aramco’s shares to cover the cost of its investment in Vision 2030. In its increasingly frantic efforts to avoid bankruptcy, the government’s fixation is more on generating revenues than inducing economic development.[33]

Like other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states, the Saudi government is planning to introduce a 5 percent sales tax in January 2019, a measure bound to aggravate inflation. Riyadh also says it wants to withhold income tax that would be levied only from the expatriate workforce. In a poll of foreign companies operating in the GCC, 80 percent responded “they would consider moving abroad if an income tax were to be introduced.”[34]

It is unlikely that Saudi Arabia would impose income tax on expatriates, but it is vigorously pursuing other means of extracting financial resources. The government is leaving no stone unturned as it identifies new sources of revenues. In recent months, for example, it introduced taxes on tobacco, carbonated drinks, air tickets, and travelers’ arrivals and departures.[35] Riyadh is already privatizing electricity and water supplies to cut public spending.

If the Plan Fails?

The Saudi public must somehow be made to believe in the Vision 2030 plan and to commit itself to the government’s financial austerity policies; otherwise, the plan will fail. But the plan took the public by surprise. The truth remains that the ruling elite has “embarked on a path of unprecedented transformation. A key characteristic of this major effort is that it is reactive.”[36]

Vision 2030 specifically focuses on involving the country’s youth in the privatized market economy it hopes to found. This is particularly challenging since this age group (under the age of thirty) constitutes nineteen million out of a total population of twenty-nine million, forcing some two million Saudis to enter the workforce each year over the next decade.[37]

The Saudi economy is heavily skewed to the public sector, which employs about 70 percent of the indigenous workforce. Shifting gears toward privatization thus means ending the dominance of expatriates who account for more than 80 percent of the kingdom’s workforce.[38] But, there is no guarantee that privatization will lead to the generation of the desired jobs. And a production economy necessarily creates unwanted socioeconomic stratification. Saudi nationals have for many years taken for granted the availability of easy, high-paying jobs in the public sector and will not readily discard this comfortable reality.

Without boosting direct foreign investment in genuine economic diversification, the Saudi sovereign wealth fund will seem as if it is taking from one hand to give to the other. This would transform the kingdom from an oil rentier state into an oil-financial rentier state.[39] As such, Vision 2030 “resembles a ‘phantasmagoria,’ articulated by outside consultants insensitive to local cultures, structural constraints, and domestic power struggles and balances within the Kingdom.”[40]

Prudent analysts seriously doubt the Saudi claim to end the country’s economic dependence on oil by 2020.[41] The only way for the Saudi economy to free itself from the hegemony of oil is to relinquish its role as a provider for society.

The Saudi ruling elite is keen on avoiding the pitfall of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad who, at a time when dwindling financial resources could no longer support welfare services, employed authoritarian power to modernize authoritarianism. He impoverished his people, who were heavily dependent on meager welfare provisions, in the name of pursuing “economic liberalization and privatization, in the process of shifting public assets to crony capitalist ‘networks of privilege,’ expansion in the real estate, tourism, and banking sectors.”[42] This, in addition to other factors, resulted in a destructive civil war that has no end in sight. The Saudi leadership has traditionally shown remarkable resilience. The question is whether deputy crown prince Muhammad bin Salman, dubbed the prince of war and war, is truly capable of dissenting from the eternal policy charted by the kingdom’s founding monarch Abdulaziz ibn Saud.

About the author:
*Hilal Khashan is a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut.

Source:
This article was published by The Middle East Quarterly in its Winter 2017 edition.

Notes:

[1] Rakesh Upadhyay, “How Realistic Is Saudi Arabia’s $2 Trillion Sovereign Wealth Fund?” Oil Price, Apr. 7, 2016.
[2] “Full text of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030,” Saudi Gazette (Riyadh), Apr. 26, 2016.
[3] Gassan al-Kibsi, et al., “Moving Saudi Arabia’s economy beyond oil,” McKinsey & Company, McKinsey Global Institute, New York, Dec. 2015.
[4] Arab News (Jeddah), May 26, 2016.
[5] John Edwards, “Vision 2030 (part 1): Saudi Arabia’s Bold Reinvention Plan,” The Interpreter, Lowy Institute for International Policy, Square NSW, Australia, May 19, 2016.
[6] “Can Saudi Vision 2030 save the Kingdom from a probable economic collapse?” Sasa Post (Mount Edgecombe, S. Africa), Apr. 26, 2016.
[7] Edwards, “Vision 2030 (part 1).”
[8] Upadhyay, “How Realistic Is Saudi Arabia’s $2 Trillion Sovereign Wealth Fund?”
[9] John Edwards, “Vision 2030 (part 2): Saudi Arabia’s Bold Reinvention Plan,” The Interpreter, May 20, 2016.
[10] Kibsi, et al., “Moving Saudi Arabia’s economy beyond oil.”
[11] Ibid.
[12] “Full text of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030.”
[13] Saudi Gazette, Mar. 24, 2016.
[14] Deutsche Welle Arabic (Bonn), June 5, 2016.
[15] Al-Arabiya News Channel (Dubai), Apr. 26, 2016.
[16] Vahan Zanoyan, “After the Oil Boom: The Holiday Ends in the Gulf,” Foreign Affairs, Nov./Dec. 1995.
[17] Al-Qabas (Kuwait City), May 23, 2016.
[18] Edwards, “Vision 2030 (part 1).”
[19] Arab News, Apr. 27, 2016.
[20] The Telegraph (London), May 18, 2016.
[21] Graham Peebles, “Killed Beaten Raped: Migrant Workers in Saudi Arabia,” Countercurrents.org, Kerala, India, Dec. 8, 2013; BBC News (London), Sept. 1, 2015; Daniel Pipes, “Saudis Import Slaves to America,” The New York Sun, June 16, 2005.
[22] Al-Arabiya News Channel, June 10, 2016.
[23] Edwards, “Vision 2030 (part 1).”
[24] Samar Fatany, “A Promising Start for Saudi Vision 2030,” Saudi Gazette, May 14, 2016.
[25] “Full text of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030.”
[26] Ibid.
[27] Al-Monitor (Washington, D.C.), May 2016.
[28] “Full text of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030.”
[29] Ibid.
[30] Adel Abdel Ghafer, “Saudi Arabia’s McKinsey Reshuffle,” Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., May 11, 2016.
[31] “IMF Staff Completes 2016 Article IV Mission to Saudi Arabia,” The International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C., May 19, 2016.
[32] Forbes Middle East (Dubai), May 1, 2016.
[33] As-Safir (Beirut), May 20, 2016.
[34] The National (Abu Dhabi), June 6, 2016.
[35] Al-Riyadh, Mar. 4, 2016.
[36] Kamran Bokhari, “Saudi Arabia’s Risky Reform Project,” Geopolitical Futures (Austin, Tex.), Apr. 26, 2016.
[37] “What Will Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 mean for its citizens?” The Conversation (Boston), May 3, 2016.
[38] Ibid.
[39] As-Safir, May 20, 2016.
[40] Madawi al-Rasheed, “Saudi king’s cabinet reshuffle may ‘rattle many royal spines,'” al-Monitor, May 10, 2016.
[41] See, for example, Business Insider International (New York), Apr. 26, 2016.
[42] Raymond Hinnebusch, “Syria: From ‘Authoritarianism Upgrading’ to Revolution?” International Affairs, Jan. 2012, p. 95.

The most desperate migrants seek help from smugglers and attract global sympathy – a dilemma for governments.

By Joseph Chamie*

Smuggling is a ruthless crime for governments, but for millions of people it’s regarded as an invaluable service. More than a decade ago, governments collectively adopted an international protocol to prevent and combat smuggling of migrants by land, sea and air. Nevertheless, people continue to rely on human smuggling as a means to improve their own personal lives as well as those of families and friends.

Certainly, human smugglers can be ruthless and unscrupulous, and smuggled migrants are vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Still, asylum seekers and unauthorized migrants desire the service and are willing to pay. For many unauthorized migrants, smugglers are freedom facilitators.

Human smuggling is not a new phenomenon. In the distant past, many including religious luminaries, minorities, slaves, iconoclastic thinkers and political dissidents relied on smugglers to escape abuse, persecution and bondage. In more recent times such smuggling has expanded to include men, women and children fleeing poverty, unemployment, tyranny, violence, conflict, natural disasters and environmental degradation as well as simply seeking reunions with families.

Human smuggling is proving to be an attractive and profitable business often operated by organized criminal networks. The smuggling of migrants on two main routes – Africa to Europe and South America to North America – generates no less than an estimated $7 billion a year in revenue.

Under international law human smuggling is a crime defined as “the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a State of which the person is not a national or a permanent resident.” The term “illegal entry” is defined as “crossing borders without complying with the necessary requirements for legal entry into the receiving State.”

Human smuggling and human trafficking are crimes with some similarities and three major differences: First, human smuggling involves the migrant’s consent of the migrant. A trafficking victim has either never consented or, if initially consenting, that is rendered meaningless by coercion, deception or abuse. Second, smuggling generally ends with the migrants’ arrival at their destination whereas trafficking involves continued exploitation. And third, while smuggling profits are derived from the transportation and facilitation of the illegal entry into another county, trafficking profits are derived from exploitation of the trafficked person.

Comprehensive data on the number of smuggled migrants are not readily available. While globally approximately 50 million people are estimated to be unauthorized migrants, many were not smuggled, but simply overstayed short-term visas. In the United States, for example, those overstaying exceeded the number who entered without authorization across the southern land border for each year from 2008 to 2012.

In contrast, more than 90 percent of the unauthorized migrants arriving in the European Union, peaking in excess of 1 million in 2015, were facilitated mostly by criminal smuggling networks. Most originated primarily from Syria, 40 percent; Afghanistan, 19 percent; Iraq, 8 percent; and Pakistan, 4 percent. Close to 90 percent of the unauthorized migrants are males, predominately aged 18 to 34 years.

Desperate escape: More than 90 percent of the unauthorized migrants arriving to the European Union are helped by smugglers, and most come areas of conflict (Source: Eurostat)

The supply of potential migrants wishing to go abroad exceeds the demand for migrants in immigrant-receiving countries. Moreover, most would-be migrants do not qualify for the limited legal immigration because they lack desired skills, education and training.

Some argue that issuing more immigration visas would go a long way in combating human smuggling. However, even doubling the number of visas currently issued would not come close to satisfying the demand, especially among developing countries with growing populations.

Enhanced border security is another proposal.  However, enhanced border enforcement has a limited impact and instead contributes to enhanced smuggling efforts, more perilous journeys and higher fees. Some even claim that the walls, fences and barriers help the smuggling business by forcing migrants to rely on smugglers.

A related border measure employed by the EU is to blow up ships used to transport unauthorized migrants. Smugglers, in response, have relied on unseaworthy dinghies and inflatable rafts and even alert European patrol boats about migrants in need of rescue. The EU’s Frontex border agency reports a record 27,500 migrants rescued and brought to Italy in October 2016, the highest monthly total on record in the central Mediterranean.

Some analysts contend the establishment of open borders, permitting people to move freely across international borders, could end smuggling, but others reject this as bad policy, especially for countries with comparatively small populations, such as Bahamas, Bhutan, Israel, Kuwait, Singapore and Switzerland, whose demographic compositions would be drastically altered by open borders.

The smugglers are difficult to identify and prosecute. They are not generally known to the migrants or readily traceable. They utilize rental vehicles and change phones regularly. In addition, the smuggled migrants fear authorities and resist reporting abuses and exploitation.

Smuggling is a costly service and entails a range of facilitation services including transportation, accommodations, fraudulent documents and strategic information. While smuggling across a single border may cost several thousand dollars, smuggler fees involving long distances, multiple borders, fake documents and payoffs can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Governments confront numerous challenges in preventing human smuggling.

More than likely, no current eco-friendly tax credit plans are on the chopping block. At worst, they will expire without being renewed or replaced, at least at a federal level. The majority of current credit programs are set to expire in 2019-2022.

State and region sponsored tax credits will remain as healthy as ever. They will continue to be few and far between but will, most likely, still be there. In the meantime, take advantage of every credit you can as you are able since most credit can be carried forward as long as the initial claim is before the program’s expiration date.

The Energy Industry Isn’t Threatened

It may be true that the new president-elect isn’t a believer when it comes to global warming or any climate crisis. He does, however, profess to believe in strengthening our economy. Renewable energy is perfect for our country’s bottom line as well as job creation. Investments in renewable energy help create nearly twice as many jobs as investments in fossil fuel extraction as the latter is becoming highly automated. If anything, that might prove enough of a reason to keep these programs going.

Renewable and otherwise, the energy industry itself will remain robust throughout the Trump presidency. From what he is saying now and in the past, he’s not at war with sustainable energy itself and will make no effort to inhibit its production. The only thing he has said he is against is regulations- specifically those levied against coal, oil, and natural gas.

A Trump presidency won’t doom renewable energy plans. It will only level the energy industry’s playing field. State and local governments will have a say, too. While this doesn’t hold well with environmentalists- it’s not the worst thing.

Hope in the Form of Ivanka Trump, “Functional First Lady”

If the economic factors aren’t enough to sway policymakers opinions, perhaps Ivanka Trump will. With a history of supporting climate change advocates and issues, it is unclear how much of a political role she will choose to take on. Her responsibilities regarding the family business have already increased exponentially recently, not to mention her affairs.

If Ivanka Trump does choose to get involved will it create a divisive atmosphere or merely temper the attitude toward the elimination of all climate regulations? It won’t be an easy role to take on but many hope she will.

What It Means for Individuals

Most eco-friendly tax credits are single use. You still have a few years to take advantage of the current federal programs. If you wait, you will most likely lose the opportunity.

As things stand, the renewable energy industry is doing well enough that it can thrive without tax credits or subsidies for itself or consumers. Most “eco-friendly substitutes” have been designed to be plainly more efficient than other options- this applies to everything from cars to building materials and major appliances. Increased efficiency results in savings.

Ongoing Tax Credits

There are plenty of other ways to save money on your taxes, green or not. No matter which credits and deductions you choose to take, you can always decide to use that money to make green or clean energy investments.

To find out more about eco-friendly tax credits for homeowners, tax tips for drivers, or search tax credits by the state– follow these links.

Environmentalists: Vote with Your Wallet

If your primary interest in eco-friendly tax benefits is less financial and more ethical consider these two top concerns: “How do we keep progressing in environmentally conscious ways?” and “How do we mitigate the damage that undoing current regulations will do?”

The answer to the first concern, experts say, is to invest in research. More than anything else, the research into better clean energy production and storage systems will take a hit. With a lack of funding, American progress will slow. However, the research isn’t wholly dependent on the federal government. State governments, as well as private companies and individuals, are investing in this area already. You can get involved, too.

The latter has a similar answer. Support renewable energy solutions by switching to them for your power source, or by remaining an advocate of these solutions.

Estimated Net Change to Your Tax Plans – Little to None

Even with a Trump presidency, the House and Senate are unlikely to eliminate current eco-friendly tax credits due to their positive economic impact. If they are unable to renew them due to executive branch intervention, by the time they expire we may have a new president in office. If not, there are plenty of other tax credits available at the state level.

*James Ruhle is an online marketing entrepreneur.

I started writing about geopolitics in South Asia and MENA about five years back. The objective was to share my views with global readers, particularly the Think Tanks operating in the US. Most of the topics I picked up over the years were: 1) proxy wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, 2) imposition of economic sanctions on Iran for decades, 3) use of crude oil as weapon, 4) melodramas in the name of change of regime, 5) creations of phantoms like Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS and 6) dishonest western media.

The title of my second blog article written 2012 was, Will US pull its troops out of Afghanistan in 2014? Despite having little knowledge about international relations or geopolitics at that time, my conclusion was that the US will never pull its troops out of Afghanistan.

My conclusion was based on the fact that presence of the US troops in Afghanistan provides it a safe haven for undertaking cross border actions in Pakistan, Iran, China and some of the energy rich Central Asian countries.

I had deliberately avoided mentioning drugs as one of the prime reasons for the US troops for occupying Afghanistan, but one of the readers was prompt in raising this point. If one thinks with a cool head this may be a key reason because it gives control over the drug trade and also the money to be paid to militants for killing the innocents ruthlessly and to keep the world permanently under fear.

It may also be said that Afghanistan has become a nursery for growing mercenaries and people from around the world to get training in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan. They are also paid from the money earned from cultivation of poppies.

Having been born and grown up in war-ridden Afghanistan, the locals have become ‘blood thirsty’ and suffer from restlessness. Ironically they not only kill their own countrymen, but also go to places where conflicts have been created by the super powers to satisfy their lust.

After fighting two world wars, the super power have decided to fight proxy wars, sell arms to the governments where rebel groups have been created by them, and use the income from drugs and oil for buying arms. The job becomes easier through the propagation of regime change mantra.

These super powers are among the sponsors of the UN, created for restoring peace in the world. However, now the only role of Security Council is to grant permission for attacking a country chosen for the proxy war. Two of the worst examples are Afghanistan and Iraq. All too often military dictators are made head sof state and often the drama of sham democracy is staged.

By Deepak Sinha

On the hotly-debated issue of selection of the Chief of Army Staff, let there be no doubt that hypocrisy and selective use of facts seem to be the norm on both sides of the fence. At the outset, in the 21st century, Service chiefs have been reduced to pygmies by successive Governments over the years. They are no longer the divine entities to the rank and file that they were in the past. Social media and the Internet has put paid to that. Their inability over the years, to either influence policy or ensure that the military is appropriately treated along with blatant acts of partiality and unethical behaviour on the part of some incumbents, has also seen to that.

There are three major issues that have come to the fore in this debate over suitability of a particular individual to hold that appointment. To suggest that this is an issue of merit versus seniority, as some have attempted to do, is a non sequitur, given that all those who reach the rank of Army commander or equivalent after 36 years or so of service, are obviously at par, though each has his own strengths and weaknesses. The difference in seniority and experience is only either in months or just ranking within the batch on commissioning and means little at this rank, except purely in bureaucratic terms.

The most important argument made against supersession of the senior-most candidates is that it may lead to politicising of the military because future Army Commanders, vying to become the chief, may end up cozying the politicians and doing them favours. This argument is self-defeating because if the moral and ethical foundation of our Army Commanders is so shaky, then they have no business to hold such important posts, and the Ministry and service headquarters need to carry out deep soul searching of the existing selection process. That apart, it isn’t as if some officers do not cozy up to politicians or that political influence does not count.

Moreover, politics is not a game that is restricted to politicians only and is undeniably at play within the organisation at higher levels. We should not be surprised to know that in ensuring a ‘line of succession’, based on seniority, subterfuge and subversion are routinely resorted to by the serving incumbent and other senior commanders and bureaucrats in the Ministry. Sudden changes in promotion criteria, delay in conduct or promulgation of selection boards and dishing out of awards, details of which are not easily available in public domain, but clearly known to all within the organisation, clearly points to this unhealthy practice. Supersession upsets the elaborate planning process by introducing a degree of uncertainty, disliked by all participants of this game.

There is an element of farce in the argument being made to rubbish the Government’s apparent partiality to the fact that the officer selected has comparatively more experience in counter-insurgency at the ground level than those senior to him and the fact that this aspect has been given over-riding importance. It is being suggested that we are playing into Pakistan’s hands because we are giving undue importance to the proxy war that it is waging in Jammu & Kashmir and ruling out offensive operations in the plains and deserts in any future conflict.

The truth, whether we wish to accept it or not, is that given the nuclear capabilities of our adversary, conventional war is an undesirable venture and we have very limited options in the heartland of Punjab, despite our very potent capability to implement the ‘Cold Start’ doctrine that has been enunciated. Unless circumstances otherwise dictate, no mature political leader will ever approve plans that push the dagger into the heart of Pakistan and could, therefore, lead to an escalation of conflict into the nuclear realm, however unlikely that may be.

In our context, the Line of Control is where any future conflict is likely to be restricted to, and we have little choice but to robustly counter Pakistan’s proxy war in that theatre through force and other means. Also, given China’s ever increasing attempts at dominating the region, the mountains and those with the experience, ground knowledge and skill-sets to fight in that terrain have become increasingly important and occupy crucial positions within the hierarchy. Similarly, there was a time, a few decades ago, when the plains and desert sectors were of immense importance and our forces were biased towards conduct of mechanised warfare.

Consequently, those with the requisite expertise, had the edge when it came to selection for higher ranks. The fact is more than any element of bias or partiality, time and circumstances appear to have played a crucial role in selection of the chief and politicisation of the issue is best avoided. We must not forget that the previous regime too had superseded a flag officer while appointing Admiral Robin K Dhowan as the last Naval chief for reasons that it felt were indisputable.

Having said this, it appears that the present Modi Government has missed an ideal opportunity to have set in motion the restructuring of our defence establishment by appointing a Chief of Defence Staff or Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff. This has become a dire necessity and cannot be delayed or wished away without deleterious consequences to our national security establishment and environment. By appointing the senior most to that post, much of this present controversy could have been avoided or side-stepped, which would have been to everybody’s benefit. One can only hope that better sense prevails and it does so even at this belated stage.

This article originally appeared in The Pioneer.

It is a cynical obfuscation and hypocritical false equivalence to equate the Middle East now with Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution before and during the Second World War. It is a ploy, one carefully constructed to hammer the reasoned arguments against mass-migration from the Middle East and endless military intervention into submission.

The latest in this long rhetorical trope was written by Rula Jebreal, in Foreign Policy. In an article predictably overdosing on appeals to emotion, she starts off by proclaiming that she’s reporting from the Syrian-Lebanese border, “a mere 150 KMs from Aleppo”. (That’s almost like being in Belgrade and reporting about Srebrenica, if you get what I mean). She then continues to hand-wring about how terrible Assad is and ends with this curious statement:

Our generation looks back today and asks how the world could have allowed the horrors of the Nazis. In Syria, we have found the answer, and history will judge us harshly for it.

Well, no. History, will judge a handful of career pundits, falsely equivocating on human tragedies and advocating perpetual war.

She isn’t the only one, though. Similar arguments can be heard from “analysts” like Hend Amry, or Iyad el-Baghdadi. The Economist, once a proud bastion of truth telling, poignantly declares, “when interests triumph over values terrible things can happen“.

As opposed to what, wars that promote values, like Iraq and Libya? How many died in those wars and what state are the countries in now?

When reasoned arguments don’t cut it, people tend to use Argumenta Ad Passiones. This incessant war mongering against Assad has never convinced the Western public, as repeated PEW surveys showing that the majority in both Europe and US are opposed to further military involvement in Middle East. Those who would be the cheerleaders for more Arab adventures and the worthless cause of solving cultural conflicts in toxic regions beset with medieval feuds tend to fall back on predictable emotion-laden appeals.

I wasn’t alive during the 1930s obviously, but I am not convinced that the people who’re fighting Assad are in any way comparable to Jews fleeing Europe. No Jewish 12 year old boy ever tried to plant a bomb in a Christmas fair in their host country, like one that ironically happened around the same time Jebreal published her despatch. Jewish 17 year olds didn’t rape and murder teenage aid workers. Aid agencies didn’t act in collusion with people smugglers during the 1930s. (And those news stories are just from last month).

As Peter Hitchens has pointed out, there were no western journalists who were in Aleppo during Assad’s assault. Therefore all the news about Assad’s atrocities were essentially the data that was parroted by journalists who got their information from anti-Assad bloggers and social media professionals. These professionals are able to have enough time to make properly edited videos and vlogs, amidst incessant bombardment — for some reason. Because it is generally a one sided narrative, it is therefore prudent to treat news about the situation with a certain cautious skepticism.

The people who were leading the defense of Aleppo, were from Jaish Al Fatah, a group of people who are ideologically aligned to Bin Laden and Al Nusra. I don’t speak for everyone out there, but to me a good Al Nusra is a dead Al Nusra. Stalin’s forces massacred Nazis, after being massacred by them. Allies burned Dresden to crisps. Thousands of German civilians suffered in the process and no one shed tears then. It’s war, there’s isn’t any good side.

In the last couple of days “moderate rebels” burned busses which were supposed to evacuate civilians from Aleppo siege zones. After some were liberated, they went on camera and complained to Reuters, about how rebel group Jaish Al Islam stored all the available food for themselves — and didn’t let a single piece of bread pass to civilians. And the Western media wants us to side with these guys.

Nassim Taleb wrote a brilliant blog post on why this equivalence between Assad and the rebels is a false narrative being fed to us by ideological journalists and Gulf funded think tanks. The fact that there is no single narrow overwhelming interest for the West to go to war in the Middle East has also been charted masterfully by John Allen Gay, as well as by Professor Steven Simon, and Jonathan Stevenson, in the New York Times. More broadly Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, Micah Zenko and countless other academics have all warned against more engagement in the Middle East.

What is baffling however, is the constant comparison of Syrians with Jews escaping Nazis. The Jews in 1930s Europe didn’t possess weapons funded by external powers, to start a subversive revolt against a corrupt but overall stable and secular leadership. The Jews of one sect weren’t locked in a deadly battle with Jews of other sects, both funded by external powers in a deadly game of geopolitics. They were not pawns in a great game of chess between two religiously similar but sectarian rival powers. The Jews were not fragmented within themselves when it came to being persecuted as they were  being uniformly persecuted all across Europe.

And, most importantly, the Jews also didn’t bear any hatred for the new world where they moved to flee persecution. They did not harbour any ill will against their host civilisation and countries. And were more than willing to change and assimilate to fit into their host cultures, and didn’t expect their hosts to accommodate their needs.

These historical facts are wilfully neglected in comparisons with Syria, exposing the ideological tilt of the false prophets of humanitarianism. Middle Eastern sectarian civil wars are caused by medieval cultural and social constructs — unlike the one sided persecution of Jews in Europe 80 years back. It is the structural problem of the region, exacerbated  by regional geopolitics, and to be solved by the local regional powers. The Western public understands that. Barack Obama, for all his faults, and to his credit, partly understood that, as does Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.

If one genuinely cares about the civilians who are suffering, they would want to stop the war at any cost, rather than fan the flames further. That would mean coercing their own sides to also lay down arms, and come to the negotiation table. Either they are willing or incapable of doing that, in which case the war is doomed to carry on, to its bitter end.

I am no Putin apologist, and a cursory glance at my research papers and published articles would prove that. But it is as illogical, unrealistic, and frankly puerile to expect Assad and Putin to give up without fighting against foreign funded Islamist revolt. If any pundit is not pointing out this simple fact, they are lying to the public, and should be called out at once.

And let’s stop with the Nazi equivalence. It is morally wrong, ethically dishonest and intellectually indefensible. And denigrates the 6 million Holocaust victims who perished under actual, systematic, mechanised, state orchestrated Nazi tyranny.

This article was published by Quillette

George Santayana presciently said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The only difference between the Afghan jihad back in the ‘80s, that spawned the Islamic jihadists like the Taliban and al Qaeda for the first time in history, and the Libyan and Syrian civil wars, 2011-onward, is that the Afghan jihad was an overt jihad: back then the Western political establishments and their mouthpiece, the mainstream media, used to openly brag that the CIA provides all those AK-47s, RPGs and stingers to the Pakistani intelligence agencies, which then distributes those deadly weapons among the Afghan mujahideen (freedom fighters) to combat the Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

After the 9/11 tragedy, however, the Western political establishments and corporate media have become a lot more circumspect, therefore, this time around, they have waged covert jihads against the Arab-nationalist Gaddafi regime in Libya and the anti-Zionist Assad regime in Syria, in which the Islamic jihadists (aka terrorists) have been sold as “moderate rebels,” with secular and nationalist ambitions, to the Western audience.

Since the regime change objective in those hapless countries went against the mainstream narrative of ostensibly fighting a war against terror, therefore, the Western political establishments and the mainstream media are now trying to muddle the reality by offering color-coded schemes to identify myriads of militant and terrorist outfits that are operating in those countries: such as, the red militants of the Islamic State, which the Western powers want to eliminate; the yellow Islamic jihadists, like Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham, with whom the Western powers can collaborate under desperate circumstances; and the green militants of the Free Syria Army (FSA) and a few other inconsequential outfits, which together comprise the so-called “moderate” Syrian opposition.

It’s an incontrovertible fact that more than 90% of militants that are operating in Syria are either the Islamic jihadists or the armed tribesmen, and less than 10% are those who have defected from the Syrian army or otherwise have secular and nationalist goals.

As far as the infinitesimally small secular and liberal elite of the developing countries is concerned, such privileged classes can’t even cook breakfasts for themselves if their servants are on a holiday and the corporate media had us believing that the majority of the Syrian militants are “moderate rebels” who constitute the vanguard of the Syrian opposition against the Syrian regime in a brutal civil war and who believe in the principles of democracy, rule of law and liberal values as their cherished goals?

In political science the devil always lies in the definitions of the terms that we employ. For instance: how do you define a terrorist or a militant? In order to understand this, we need to identify the core of a “militant,” that what essential feature distinguishes him from the rest? A militant is basically an armed and violent individual who carries out subversive acts against the state.

That being understood, we now need to examine the concept of “violence.” Is it violence per se that is wrong, or does some kind of justifiable violence exists? I take the view, on empirical grounds, that all kinds of violence are essentially wrong; because the goals for which such violence is often employed are seldom right and elusive at best. Though democracy and liberal ideals are cherished goals but such goals can only be accomplished through peaceful means; expecting from the armed and violent thugs to bring about democratic reform is incredibly preposterous.

The Western mainstream media and its credulous neoliberal constituents, however, take a different view. According to them, there are two kinds of violence: justifiable and unjustifiable. When a militant resorts to violence for secular and nationalist goals, such as “bringing democracy” to Libya and Syria, the blindfolded liberal interventionists enthusiastically exhort such form of violence; however, if such militants later turn out to be Islamic jihadists, like the Misrata militia in Libya or the Islamic State and al-Nusra Front in Syria, the gullible neoliberals, who have been duped by the mainstream narrative, promptly make a volte-face and label them as “terrorists.”

Notwithstanding, on the subject of the supposed “powerlessness” of the US in the global affairs, the Western think tanks and the corporate media’s spin-doctors generally claim that Pakistan deceived the US in Afghanistan by providing clandestine support to the Taliban and the Haqqani network; Turkey hoodwinked the US in Syria by using the war against the Islamic State as a pretext for cracking down on Kurds; Saudi Arabia and UAE betrayed the US in Yemen by mounting airstrikes against the Houthis and Saleh’s loyalists; and once again Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt went against the “ostensible” policy of the US in Libya by conducting airstrikes against the Tripoli-based government, even though Khalifa Haftar, the military commander of the armed forces in eastern Libya, lived next door to the CIA’s headquarter in Langley, Virginia, for more than two decades.

If the US policymakers are so powerless and naïve then how come they still control the global economic order? This perennial whining attitude of the Western corporate media, that such and such regional actors betrayed them otherwise they were on the top of their game, is actually a clever stratagem that has been deliberately designed by the spin-doctors to cast the Western powers in a positive light and to demonize the adversaries, even if the latter are their tactical allies in some of the regional conflicts.

Fighting wars through proxies allows the international power brokers the luxury of taking the plea of “plausible deniability” in their defense and at the same time they can shift all the blame for wrongdoing on the minor regional players.

Regardless, back in the ‘80s, the Afghan so-called “freedom fighters” did not spring up spontaneously out of nowhere, some powers funded, trained, armed and internationally legitimized those militants; how else could such ragtag militants had beaten back the super power of its time?

Then in 2011, in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings in Libya, those same powers once again financed, trained, armed and internationally legitimized the Libyan militants by calling them pro-democracy, “armed” activists against the supposedly “brutal and tyrannical” rule of Gaddafi regime.

Similarly, in Syria, those very same powers once again had the audacity to fund, train, arm and internationally legitimize the Syrian militants; how else could such peaceful and democratic protests have mutated into a full-blown armed insurrection?

And even if those protests did mutate into an armed rebellion, left to their own resources, the best such civilian protestors could have mustered was to get a few pistols, shotguns and rifles; where did they get all those machine gun-mounted pick-up trucks, rocket-propelled grenades and the US-made TOW antitank missiles?

You don’t have to be a military strategist to understand a simple fact that unarmed civilian population, and even the ragtag militant outfits, lack the wherewithal to fight against the organized and professional armed forces of a country that are equipped with artillery, armored vehicles, air force and navy.

Leaving the funding, training and arming aspects of the insurgencies aside, but especially pertaining to conferring international legitimacy to an armed insurgency, like the Afghan so-called “freedom struggle” of the Cold War, or the supposedly “moderate and democratic” Libyan and Syrian insurgencies of today, it is simply beyond the power of minor regional players and their nascent media, which has a geographically and linguistically limited audience, to cast such heavily armed and brutal insurrections in a positive light in order to internationally legitimize them; only the Western mainstream media, that has a global audience and which serves as the mouthpiece of the Western political establishments, has perfected this game of legitimizing the absurd and selling the Satans as saviors.

Notwithstanding, for the whole of the last five years of the Syrian proxy war, the focal point of the Western policy has been that “Assad must go!” But what difference would it make to the lives of the ordinary Syrians even if the regime is replaced now when the civil war has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, created millions of refugees, displaced half of the population and reduced the whole country of 22 million people to rubble? I do concede that Libya and Syria were not democratic states under Gaddafi and Assad, respectively; however, both of those countries were at least functioning states.

Gaddafi was ousted from power in September 2011; five years later, Tripoli is ruled by the Misrata militia, Benghazi is under the control of Khalifa Haftar, who is nothing more than the stooge of Egypt and UAE, and the heavily armed militants are having a field day all over Libya. It will now take decades, not years, to restore even a semblance of stability in Libya and Syria; remember that the proxy war in Afghanistan was originally fought in the ‘80s and today, 35 years later, Afghanistan is still in the midst of perpetual anarchy, lawlessness and an unrelenting Taliban insurgency.

If we were to draw parallels between the Soviet-Afghan jihad of the ‘80s and the Syrian civil war of today, the Western powers used the training camps located in the Af-Pak border regions to train and arm the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan with the help of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies.

Similarly, the training camps located in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan are being used to provide training and arms to the Syrian militants in order to battle the Syrian regime with the support of Turkish, Jordanian and Saudi intelligence agencies.

During the Afghan jihad, it is a known historical fact, that the bulk of the so-called “freedom fighters” was comprised of Pashtun Islamic jihadists, such as the factions of Jalaluddin Haqqani, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Abdul Rab Rasul Sayyaf and scores of others, some of whom later coalesced together to form the Taliban movement.

Similarly, in Syria, the bulk of the so-called “moderate opposition” is comprised of Islamic jihadists, like the Islamic State, al-Nusra Front, Jaysh al-Islam, Ahrar al-Sham and myriads of other militant groups, including a small portion of defected Syrian soldiers who go by the name of the Free Syria Army (FSA.)

Moreover, apart from Pashtun Islamic jihadists, the various factions of the Northern Alliance of Tajiks and Uzbeks constituted the relatively “moderate” segment of the Afghan rebellion, though those “moderate” warlords, like Ahmad Shah Massoud and Abul Rashid Dostum, were more ethnic and tribal in their character than secular or nationalist, as such.

Similarly, the Kurds of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces can be compared with the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan. The socialist PYD/YPG Kurds of Syria, however, had been allied with the Shi’a regime against the Sunni Arab jihadists for the first three years of the Syrian civil war, i.e. from August 2011 to August 2014.

At the behest of the American stooge in Iraqi Kurdistan, Massoud Barzani, the Syrian Kurds have switched sides in the last couple of years after the United States’ policy reversal and declaration of war against one faction of the Syrian opposition, the Islamic State, when the latter overstepped its mandate in Syria and overran Mosul and Anbar in Iraq in June 2014.

It’s very unfortunate that the haughty and myopic politicians and diplomats do not learn any lessons from history, otherwise all the telltale signs are there that Syria has become the Afghanistan of the Middle East and its repercussions on the stability of the energy-rich region and the security threat that the Syrian militants pose to the rest of the world will have far reaching consequences for many decades to come.

India conducted it’s first nuclear test in May, 1974 and prompted the seven most powerful nations of the world, i.e. US, UK, Germany, France, Canada, Japan and Soviet Union, to regulate the export of nuclear material meant for peaceful purposes.

It is pertinent to mention here that plutonium that was used in the said nuclear test was produced by India in a reactor that was supplied by the US and Canada. The plutonium used in the Indian test had been produced in a reactor supplied by the US and Canada on the assumption that it would be used only for civilian purposes. Although, India termed the said nuclear test as Peaceful One, but it was suspected that India was maintaining a nuclear weapon program.

It was in the wake of the above-said incident that constitution of such a group was felt necessary that could control the export of such material and technology that could be used in building of nuclear weapons; therefore, the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) was formed. The members of NSG aim to facilitate only the export of such nuclear material and technology that is intended for peaceful purposes. It is worth mentioning that NSG’s export control regime is not based on any treaty, rather it is politically binding. Its activities mainly revolve around the coordination of national export controls based on appropriate guidelines. Member states of NSG also exchange information related to enforcement of export controls.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is also a point of reference for NSG’s work, which on one hand permits the peaceful use of nuclear energy, but on the other restricts and prohibits such support to non-nuclear weapon states that could help them in building a nuclear weapon. Member states of NSG consider NPT as its strength.

Member states of NSG are also endeavoring to expand its membership. It has been seen that India is trying its best to join the group, despite the fact that it is not a signatory. If India is granted entry to join the group, it would definitely change the nature of NSG. It is for this reason that the membership of India is being considered as a test case for the members of NSG, and would settle the question over whether NSG would remain an international group that is committed to adhere to the goals of NSG or it is a mere group of states that are engaged in the export of nuclear materials.

Entry of a country into NSG depends upon the following five factors, i.e., capability of a country to supply the goods enumerated in the guidelines of NSG, demonstration of willingness of a country to apply guidelines of NSG, existence and proper implementation of legally binding national export control regime in line with the rules of NSG, membership of NPT or comparable regional treaty and adherence to its rules and manifestation of willingness to support international efforts of non-proliferation of WMDs. Apart from the factors as aforementioned, certain other elements such as prestige, economic aspects and matters of nuclear safety and security are also considered while granting entry to a country to NSG.

There are a lot of questions regarding the membership of India in this group. It is believed that granting entry to India would be tantamount to separating NPT from NSG, and if India is granted entry into NSG, despite the fact that it is a nuclear armed state and is not a signatory of NPT, it would create more resentment among states that consider NSG an illegal instrument of the developed and industrialized countries, and an attempt on their part to refuse less developed countries the significant technologies.

The said argument advanced by these countries seems reasonable as, repeatedly, statements have been given on behalf of NSG that NPT is the point of reference for the export control activities of the group. Extending membership to India would, therefore, definitely lose the credibility of the group, because it would contradict the consistence stance maintained by the group since its creation.

There are also a number of factors that are likely to reduce the credibility of group, if India is granted entry into it. For example, India is continuously producing (and would continue to produce) fissile material unlike US, UK, France and Russia as it has not yet signed (and does not seem willing to sign) the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Further, it also appears that India would not contribute to strengthen the export control guidelines, if granted entry into the group. From the above, it can be concluded that the credibility acquired by the group for past few decades would be lost, if India is given a chance to enter into the group in violation of criteria so established by the group. Therefore, members of the group should stick firmly to the criteria of NPT while considering entry of India into NSG, and the question of membership must be based on consistent criteria to maintain the credibility of the group.

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

Cities are the monsters of civilization, the accrual of various factors of organisation that stress development and advancement.  The latter two terms are often impossible to gauge except by comparison with other cities or States. We are left with the consequences of these thanatic drives, where life will itself suffer because the better variant of it is supposedly around the corner.

This means the pollution of waterways from the belching efforts of progress. It means dangerously high levels of invasive, cardiovascular threatening dust particles. It means a thriving industry of masks, and a city populace looking distinctly like platoons of bacteriological weapons inspectors. These problems are merely the new, grander manifestations of old.

The human species has been rather expert in the business of pollution for millennia, the epitome of which is the centralising, toxic spilling city.  In May this year, the World Health Organisation released data showing that more than 80 per cent of cities across the globe face prohibitively unhealthy air.  Levels of ultra-fine particles of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5s) were found to be highest in India, a country having 16 of the world’s 30 most polluted cities.[

For all that, the traditional assumption that Homo sapiens only became industrially rapacious to the environment after the nineteenth century, leaving the earth’s atmosphere to its gradual doom, is a neat fallacy. Much of a head start was already being given in the days of antiquity.

Célia Sapart of Utrecht University, along with a team of researchers from the US and Europe numbering 15, found in 2012 that a two-hundred year period between the zenith of the Roman Empire and China’s Han dynasty saw much earlier contributions to greenhouse cases than thought.  In the scheme of things, these anthropogenic stabs at the environment were on a pygmy scale to what took place after 1750 – but the aspiration was already there.

As the team contribution to the journal Nature observed, “Atmospheric methane concentrations have varied on a number of timescales in the past, but what has caused these variations is not always understood.”

What the researchers found in examining 1,600 foot-long ice cores taken from Greenland was that two civilizations were particularly busy on the score of pollutants, with methane being the notable culprit. Large-scale agriculture, and extensive metallurgy around 100 B.C., made their fair share.

As Sapart explained, “The ice core data show that as far back as the time of the Roman Empire, human [activities] emitted enough methane gas to have an impact on the methane signature of the entire atmosphere.”

The Romans of antiquity kept methane producing livestock (goats, sheep, cows) in decent number; the Chinese of the Han period engaged in an expansion of rice production, a process also responsible for the production of methane.

Rates of deforestation “show a decrease around AD 200, which is related to drastic population declines in China and Europe following the fall of the Han Dynasty and the decline of the Roman Empire.”  When human populations fall off, environments, sadly, improve.

No country illustrates these problems better than China. China, assemblage of miracles, growth and the desire to outpace rivals; where things are done to gargantuan scale, often with selective environmental oversight.  The cost to citizens, not to mention their environs, has become telling.

As Greenpeace East Asia notes through the toxic cloud darkly, “Millions of people in China are breathing a hazardous cocktail of chemicals everyday.  These chemicals are caused by coal-fired power plants, factories and vehicles, and are responsible for heart disease, stroke, respiratory illnesses, birth defects and cancer.”

Despite the seemingly dreary nature of the observation, attempts have been made in China to rein in the problem.  Again, treating it as much as a competition as a matter of civic duty, the authorities managed to push numerous cities out of the top 30. The country now only claims to have five in the list.

Well and good, which is what made this month rather jarring.  Stifling, lethal smog engulfed Beijing, and good deal of northern China.  Images of the cities proved to be post-apocalyptic.  Flights were cancelled, highways shut.

In a recent study by researchers at Nanjing University noted in the South China Morning Post, covering 74 cities and the deaths of 3.03 million people recorded in 2013, a staggering 31.8 per cent were attributable to smog.  China’s cities have become death catchments.

The response to this toxic mayhem?  The levying of environmental protection taxes on industry, to commence in 2018.  “Tax revenue,” came the dry statement from the Finance Ministry, “is an important economic means to promote environmental protection.”

The rates, outlined by Reuters, will entail 1.2 yuan ($0.17) per unit of atmospheric pollution, with 1.4 yuan per unit of water pollution, and 5 yuan per tonne of coal waste.  “Hazardous waste” will attract a tax of 1,000 yuan per tonne.

These amounts, or details of the new law, are hardly being delivered from a unified front.  The bureaucrats are fighting acrimonious turf wars, from the State Taxation Administration to the Ministry of Environmental protection.  In this age, it will take far more than levies to reduce the pollution of cities, a problem that was even faced, albeit unsatisfactorily, in Han China and ancient Rome.

The world’s fastest land animal, the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), is sprinting towards the edge of extinction and could soon be lost forever unless urgent, landscape-wide conservation action is taken, according to a study published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Led by Zoological Society of London (ZSL), Panthera and Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), the study reveals that just 7,100 cheetahs remain globally, representing the best available estimate for the species to date. Furthermore, the cheetah has been driven out of 91% of its historic range. Asiatic cheetah populations have been hit hardest, with fewer than 50 individuals remaining in one isolated pocket of Iran.

Due to the species’ dramatic decline, the study’s authors are calling for the cheetah to be up-listed from ‘Vulnerable’ to ‘Endangered’ on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Typically, greater international conservation support, prioritization and attention are granted to wildlife classified as ‘Endangered’, in efforts to stave off impending extinction.

Dr. Sarah Durant, ZSL/WCS lead author and Project Leader for the Rangewide Conservation Program for Cheetah and African Wild Dog, said: “This study represents the most comprehensive analysis of cheetah status to date. Given the secretive nature of this elusive cat, it has been difficult to gather hard information on the species, leading to its plight being overlooked. Our findings show that the large space requirements for cheetah, coupled with the complex range of threats faced by the species in the wild, mean that it is likely to be much more vulnerable to extinction than was previously thought.”

Durant continued, “We have worked with range state governments and the cheetah conservation community to put in place comprehensive frameworks for action to save the species, but funds and resources are needed to implement them. The recent decisions made at the CITES CoP17 meeting in Johannesburg represent a significant breakthrough particularly in terms of stemming the illegal flow of live cats trafficked out of the Horn of Africa region. However, concerted action is needed to reverse ongoing declines in the face of accelerating land use changes across the continent.”

While renowned for its speed and spots, the degree of persecution cheetahs face both inside and outside of protected areas is largely unrecognized. Even within guarded parks and reserves, cheetahs rarely escape the pervasive threats of human-wildlife conflict, prey loss due to overhunting by people, habitat loss and the illegal trafficking of cheetah parts and trade as exotic pets.

To make matters worse, as one of the world’s most wide-ranging carnivores, 77% of the cheetah’s habitat falls outside of protected areas. Unrestricted by boundaries, the species’ wide-ranging movements weaken law enforcement protection and greatly amplify its vulnerability to human pressures. Indeed, largely due to pressures on wildlife and their habitat outside of protected areas, Zimbabwe’s cheetah population has plummeted from 1,200 to a maximum of 170 animals in just 16 years – representing an astonishing loss of 85% of the country’s cheetahs.

Scientists are now calling for an urgent paradigm shift in cheetah conservation, towards landscape-level efforts that transcend national borders and are coordinated by existing regional conservation strategies for the species. A holistic conservation approach, which incentivises protection of cheetahs by local communities and trans-national governments, alongside sustainable human-wildlife coexistence is paramount to the survival of the species.

Panthera’s Cheetah Program Director, Dr. Kim Young-Overton, shared, “We’ve just hit the reset button in our understanding of how close cheetahs are to extinction. The take-away from this pinnacle study is that securing protected areas alone is not enough. We must think bigger, conserving across the mosaic of protected and unprotected landscapes that these far-ranging cats inhabit, if we are to avert the otherwise certain loss of the cheetah forever.”

The methodology used for this study will also be relevant to other species, such as African wild dogs, which also require large areas of land to prosper and are therefore similarly vulnerable to increasing threats outside designated protected areas.s

Researchers from The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston have developed a vaccine against salmonella poisoning designed to be taken by mouth. The findings are detailed in an article published in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.

In earlier studies, the UTMB researchers developed potential vaccines from three genetically mutated versions of the salmonella bacteria, that is Salmonella Typhimurium, that were shown to protect mice against a lethal dose of salmonella. In these studies, the vaccines were given as an injection.

However, oral vaccination is simplest and least invasive way to protect people against salmonella infection. Taking this vaccine by mouth also has the added advantage of using the same pathway that salmonella uses to wreak havoc on the digestive system.

“In the current study, we analyzed the immune responses of mice that received the vaccination by mouth as well as how they responded to a lethal dose of salmonella, said Ashok Chopra, UTMB professor of microbiology and immunology. “We found that the orally administered vaccines produced strong immunity against salmonella, showing their potential for future use in people.”

There is no vaccine currently available for salmonella poisoning. Antibiotics are the first choice in treating salmonella infections, but the fact that some strains of salmonella are quickly developing antibiotic resistance is a serious concern. Another dangerous aspect of salmonella is that it can be used as a bioweapon — this happened in Oregon when a religious cult intentionally contaminated restaurant salad bars and sickened 1,000 people.

Salmonella is responsible for one of the most common food-borne illnesses in the world. In the US alone, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that there are about 1.4 million cases with 15,000 hospitalizations and 400 deaths each year. It is thought that for every reported case, there are approximately 39 undiagnosed infections. Overall, the number of salmonella cases in the US has not changed since 1996.

Salmonella infection in people with compromised immune systems and children under the age of three are at increased risk of invasive non-typhoidal salmonellosis, which causes systemic infection. There are about one million cases globally per year, with a 25 percent fatality rate.

A Salesian priest kidnapped in Yemen on March 4 personally appealed for Pope Francis’ help in a video posted to YouTube Dec. 26.

“Dear Pope Francis…as a father, please take care of my life,” Father Tom Uzhunnalil said. “My health is deteriorating; I am in need of hospitalization soon. Please come to my help quickly.”

The priest also urged the Church and government in his home nation of India to come to his aid.

“Several months have gone by and my captors have made many contacts with the government of India to get me released,” the priest said. “I am very sad that nothing has been done seriously in my regard.

The five-minute video was the first communication from Fr. Tom since his abduction March 4 during an armed attack on a Missionaries of Charity-run retirement home in Aden, the provincial capital of Yemen. The priest had overgrown hair and spoke slowly from a prepared script.

“I request also the other bishops all over the world to come to my help to save my life,” Fr. Tom said. “I very much depressed. I request also my fellow human beings of different governments to consider me as a human person and come to my help on a humanitarian level to get me released and save my life.”

“I need your help. Please help me.”

Pope Francis did appeal for the priest’s release April 10 after his Sunday Regina Caeli address in St. Peter’s Square.

“I renew my appeal for the freeing of all kidnapped persons in armed conflict zones,” the Pope said. “In particular, I wish to remember Salesian priest Tom Uzhunnalil, who was abducted in Aden, Yemen last March 4.”

No one has claimed responsibility for the kidnapping. The Indian government has reportedly had difficulty brokering for the priest’s release because of political instability in Yemen.

Fr. Tom garnered international attention last spring when rumors spread that he was to be crucified on Good Friday. Those rumors were later discredited.

Yemen has been embroiled in civil war since March of 2015, when Shia rebels attempted to oust Yemen’s Sunni-led government. Saudi Arabia has led a pro-government coalition. Both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State have set up strongholds in the country amid the power vacuum. More than 6,000 people have been killed in the conflict, according to the United Nations.

The Apostolic Vicariate of Southern Arabia urged Christians to pray for Fr. Tom in a Sept. 2 interview with CNA.

“Fr. Tom…had returned to Yemen, asking me and the provincial for permission,” Bishop Paul Hinder told CNA. “I told him: ‘If you want, I will help you enter my country.’ Certainly today it’s painful to think about.”

“But I am still convinced it was right,” Bishop Hinder said. “In war you can never predict what happens.”

Pakistan’s defense minister issued a warning about its nuclear strength apparently in response to a fake news article where Israel warned Pakistan about meddling in Israel.

“Israeli def min threatens nuclear retaliation presuming pak role in Syria against Daesh. Israel forgets Pakistan is a Nuclear state too,” Pakistan’s Khawaja Muhammad Asif tweeted Friday.

Asif was responding to a fake news story on the website AWDnews.com in which Israel falsely responded to a Pakistani promise to send troops to Syria with a threat of nuclear attack.

The Israeli Ministry of Defense replied with a tweet of its own pointing out the reports are “completely false.”

The story attributes the threat to Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, who left the Defense Ministry in May and was replaced by Avigdor Liberman.

Ya’alon is even quoted: “If, by misfortune, they arrive in Syria… we will destroy them with a nuclear attack.”

Israel is widely believed to have an unofficial stockpile of nuclear weapons though it will not confirm or deny it.

Pakistan is one of nine states officially considered to possess nuclear weapons, becoming a nuclear power in 1998.

In September, Asif threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons against arch-enemy India.

Pakistan has placed itself on the side of the Syrian government regime and Pakistani Foreign Affairs Adviser Sartaj Aziz said his nation is “against foreign military intervention in Syria.”

Original source

By Tushar Ranjan Mohanty*

Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) General Qamar Javed Bajwa confirmed the death sentences of 13 ‘hardcore terrorists’ on December 16, 2016. These 13 were involved in heinous offences related to terrorism, including the slaughter of innocent civilians, officials of law enforcement agencies and the armed forces, an Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) press release said. According to ISPR, the convicted terrorists were involved in the planning and execution of the Bacha Khan, Parade Lane mosque, Marriott Hotel and World Vision NGO attacks, as well as an attack on an educational institution at Nawagai, Buner. “On the whole, they were involved in killing 325 persons and in causing injuries to 366 others. Firearms and explosives were also recovered from their possession. These convicts were tried by military courts,” the statement added.

On November 22, 2016, then CoAS General Raheel Sharif had confirmed death sentences awarded to another 10 terrorists. These terrorists were involved in a number of killings of civilians as well as the slaughtering of Captain Junaid Khan, Captain Najam Riaz Raja, Naik Shahid Rasool and Lance Naik Shakeel Ahmed of the Special Services Group (SSG). They planned and executed attacks on Armed Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies, resulting in the death and wounding of several soldiers. They were also involved in destruction of educational institutions and communication infrastructure, according to ISPR.

On November 7, 2016, then CoAS General Raheel Sharif confirmed the death sentences awarded to another nine hardcore terrorists, who were involved the killing of innocent civilians, slaughtering of Levies officials and attacking Armed Forces personnel. These terrorist also include those who fired at a Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) plane landing at Peshawar Airport, which resulted in the death of a woman and injuries to two other passengers. They were also involved in cutting off the hands of four Police personnels.

It has been two years since the Government lifted the moratorium on the death penalty following the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) attack on the Army Public School (APS) in Peshawar, the provincial capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), on December 16, 2014, in which 148 persons, including 135 children, were killed. Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif had then addressed the nation and announced a 20-point National Action Plan (NAP), of which the execution of convicted terrorists was the first point. The seven-year moratorium on executions was then lifted on December 17, 2014. The resumption of executions was justified as a necessary measure to deal with terrorism. While lifting the moratorium, the Federal Minister of Defence Khwaja Asif stated, on December 19, 2014, that the carrying out of the death penalty against terrorists would begin soon.

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) data on the execution of terrorists showed that, from December 2014 to November 2016, just 29 out of 426 executions had been under the Anti Terrorism Act (ATC). The vast majority (93 per cent) of the 426 executions has been for crimes unrelated to terrorism.

In 2014, seven persons were hanged. All of them were executed on terrorism charges. Three of them were involved in an attack on former President General Parvez Musharraf. Further, Aqeel Ahmed aka Dr. Usman aka Kamran aka Nazir Ahmed and three other persons were accused of the General Headquarters (GHQ) Rawalpindi attack.

333 people were hanged in 2015, of which 15 were executed on charges of terrorism, among those three were executed for the attempt on Musharraf’s life. Three were charged for highjacking a PIA plane, and four for the attack on APS Peshawar. The remaining 318 were hanged on murder charges unrelated to terrorism.

From January to November 2016, 86 persons have been executed, of which just seven were charged with terrorism.

More than 90 per cent of the executions occurred in jails in Punjab Province. According to Justice Project Pakistan (JPP) data, 46 persons were hanged in Faisalabad, 39 in Rawalpindi, 52 in Lahore, 10 in Karachi, 25 in Multan, 31 in Sahiwal, 33 in Bahawalpur, four in Mirpur, nine in Jhang, two in Peshawar, six in Jhelum, seven in Haripur, five in Sukkur, one in Larkana, 14 in Gujranwala, 13 in Sargodha, 19 in Attock, six in Toba Tek Singh, 17 in Mianwali, seven in Machh, 16 in Gujrat, nine in Vehari, 17 in Sialkot, two in Hyderabad, nine in Dera Ghazi Khan, six in Kasur, 11 in Kohat and one in Timergara.

According to JPP data, after China and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan has become the third ranking country in terms of executions. There is no exact data on executions in China but these believed to number in the thousands each year; 93 persons were executed in Saudi Arabia and 86 in Pakistan in 2016. The data further shows that, till 2013, Pakistan had the largest death row population in the world – 8,568 were awaiting execution. Out of these 8,568 persons, 800 were tried in terrorism related cases; of these 800 cases, 88 per cent have no link to anything reasonably defined as ‘terrorism’ according to JPP. However, terrorism linked cases have now risen to 30 per cent, and in Sindh Province, account for as much as 40 per cent of all death row inmates. Significantly, there are currently over 17,000 pending ‘terrorism’ cases in Pakistan.

Barrister Sarah Belal, Director, JPP, lamented, on December 18, 2015, “Lifting the moratorium is a knee-jerk reaction. Our research shows that the government is clueless on who is an actual terrorist on death row and who isn’t. Keeping that in mind, we’re going to see some gross violations of rights.” According to the report, 80 per cent of those on death row have not committed acts of terror, but were wrongly convicted. Belal added,

They have the wrong people and terrorists roam free… Our criminal justice system is full of problems. We have problems in investigation system; there is capacity problem in our police department whereas bribery and political pressures further add to the miseries of the people. How can we execute a person when the criminal justice system is problematic? Therefore first we need to take measures to improve the system and then think about executing the criminals.

Wrongful executions in Pakistan have come to light in several cases, including the case of two brothers, Ghulam Qadir and Ghulam Sarwar, of Bahawalpur who had spent 11 years on death row and were hanged on October 13, 2015, only to be acquitted by the Supreme Court on October 20, 2016.

Another disgrace was when, on September 26, 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty against a mentally ill man, Imdad Ali, convicted of murder, overturning a previous appeal and a court decision staying his execution. Imdad Ali, who is diagnosed with schizophrenia, has been on death row since he was convicted in 2001. According to the Reprieve Group, an anti-death penalty team, Ali’s execution would be a violation of both Pakistani and international laws.

While, the actual target of NAP, the terrorists, often roam free, the problem is compounded further by the fact that several terrorist organizations in Pakistan continue to enjoy state support, creating systemic biases against a non-discriminatory policy of executing terrorists on death row. In a recent assertion, the Federal Minister for Interior Chaudhary Nisar Ali Khan defended the terrorist Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JuD) on the floor of the Senate (Upper House of Parliament), arguing that it was involved in ‘charitable works’. On July 7, 2015, he argued, “Presently, JuD is engaged in charity and social work, operating hospitals, clinics, schools, ambulance service and religious institutions.” He went on to add that that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had listed JuD as a resurrection of LeT, but no ‘supporting evidence’ was shared with Pakistan to establish such a connection. The JuD, a front of Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), is led by Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the mastermind of the November 26, 2008 (26/11) Mumbai (India) terror attacks. The US has declared a reward of USD 10 million against him.

Though the Government and the all-powerful military in Pakistan remain in denial, the Supreme Court, on July 2, 2015, asked the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) why no action was being taken against terrorist organisations. Justice Jawad S. Khawaja remarked,

You have an action plan [National Action Plan (NAP)], then why it is not being implemented? Why terrorist organisations are overlooked by them? Action should be taken against them as well. Governments should do their job. The Court will issue no directive. No one can heave a sigh of relief. Every day a terror incident is published in newspapers. This is the level of seriousness of governments that terror incidents are taking place every day. Tell us, what the government has done within six months and six days (sic).

The press release issued by JPP on December 18, 2016, stated that there was a need to “revamp and reform Pakistan’s criminal justice system”. However no significant efforts had been made in this direction, so far.

On the other hand the Pakistan Government has a totally different perspective on the death penalty. They claim that the policy of execution has proven effective as a deterrent against terrorism.

* Tushar Ranjan Mohanty
Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management