Scientists from MIPT, the Institute for Nuclear Research (INR) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and Novosibirsk State University (NSU) have discovered that the proportion of unstable particles in the composition of dark matter in the days immediately after the Big Bang was no more than 2%-5%. Their study has been published in Physical Review D.

“The discrepancy between the cosmological parameters in the modern Universe and the Universe shortly after the Big Bang can be explained by the fact that the proportion of dark matter has decreased. We have now, for the first time, been able to calculate how much dark matter could have been lost and what the corresponding size of the unstable component would be,” said co-author of the study academician Igor Tkachev, Head of the Department of Experimental Physics at INR and a lecturer at MIPT’s Department of Fundamental Interactions and Cosmology.

Astronomers first suspected that there was a large proportion of “hidden mass” in the Universe back in the 1930s, when Fritz Zwicky discovered “peculiarities” in a cluster of galaxies in the constellation Coma Berenices – the galaxies moved as if they were under the effect of gravity from an unseen source. This hidden mass that does not manifest itself in any way, except for a gravitational effect, was given the name dark matter. According to data from the Planck space telescope, the proportion of dark matter in the Universe is 26.8%, the rest is “ordinary” matter (4.9%) and dark energy (68.3%).

The nature of dark matter remains unknown, however, its properties could potentially help scientists to solve the problem that arose after studying observations from the Planck telescope. This device accurately measured the fluctuations in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation – the “echo” of the Big Bang. By measuring these fluctuations, the researchers were able to calculate key cosmological parameters using observations of the Universe in the recombination era – approximately 300,000 years after the Big Bang.

“However, it turned out that some of these parameters, namely the Hubble parameter, which describes the rate of expansion of the Universe, and also the parameter associated with the number of galaxies in clusters vary significantly with data that we obtain from observations of the modern Universe, by directly measuring the speed of expansion of galaxies and studying clusters. This variance was significantly more than margins of error and systematic errors known to us. Therefore we are either dealing with some kind of unknown error, or the composition of the ancient Universe is considerably different to the modern Universe,” said Tkachev.

The discrepancy can be explained by the decaying dark matter (DDM) hypothesis, which states that in the early Universe there was more dark matter, but then part of it decayed.

“Let us imagine that dark matter consists of several components, as in ordinary matter (protons, electrons, neutrons, neutrinos, photons). And one component consists of unstable particles with a rather long lifespan: in the era of the formation of hydrogen (hundreds of thousands of years after the Big Bang) they are still in the Universe, but by now (billions of years later) they have disappeared, having decayed into neutrinos or hypothetical relativistic particles. In that case, the amount of dark matter in the era of hydrogen formation and today will be different,” said the lead author of the research, Dmitry Gorbunov, a professor at MIPT and staff member at INR.

The authors of the study, Igor Tkachev, Dmitry Gorbunov, and Anton Chudaykin from IRN, MIPT and NSU analyzed Planck data and compared them with the DDM model and the standard ΛCDM (Lambda-Cold Dark Matter) model with stable dark matter. The comparison showed that the DDM model is more consistent with the observational data. However, the researchers found that the effect of gravitational lensing (the distortion of cosmic microwave background radiation by a gravitational field) greatly limits the proportion of decaying dark matter in the DDM model.

Using data from observations of various cosmological effects, the researchers were able to give an estimate of the relative concentration of the decaying components of dark matter in the region of 2% to 5%.

“This means that in today’s Universe there is 5% less dark matter than in the recombination era. We are not currently able to say how quickly this unstable part decayed; dark matter may still be disintegrating even now, although that would be a different and considerably more complex model,” said Tkachev.

Limiting temperature increases to 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels, as outlined in the Paris Agreement, will significantly minimize the impact of global warming on the catch potential of marine ecosystems and limit the turnover of harvested species, a new study reports.

The results highlight the urgent need for the global community to adhere to the recommended target of 1.5°C, since hitting temperature increases of 3.5°C could result in an additional three-fold decline in marine biomass for the fishing industry.

To better understand how different warming scenarios will impact marine ecosystems, William Cheung and colleagues analyzed data from 19 Earth system models, testing responses to situations where strong mitigation efforts are applied, or high emissions scenarios continue into the future.

They applied their model to 892 species of exploited marine fishes and invertebrates.

The results estimate that a warming increase of 3.5°C will decrease the maximum catch potential on a global level by 8%, compared to temperature increases of 1.5°C that will decrease maximum catch potential by 2.5%.

Some regions will be hit significantly harder under the more dramatic warming condition, however; for example, the maximum catch potential may decrease as much as 47% in the Indo-Pacific region, which includes the Bay of Bengal, Gulf of Thailand, South China Sea, and Sulu-Celebes Sea.

Species turnover can also vary depending on global temperatures changes, where, under 3.5°C increase conditions, species turnover is projected to be about 22% of the average species richness observed between 1950 and 1969, compared to 8% if warming is restricted to 1.5°C.

The authors also highlight other region-specific projections. They note a few assumptions in their model, but emphasize that these, if anything, mean that their projections are an underestimation.

By Ana Maria Touma

Romania’s President, Klaus Iohannis, on Tuesday rejected the Social Democrat Party’s proposal to name Sevil Shhaideh as Prime Minister-designate.

“I have carefully weighed the pros and cons and I have decided not to appoint Sevil Shhaideh,” Iohannis said.

“As a result, I am asking the PSD and ALDE [its coalition partner] to make a new proposal,” he added.

Romania’s Sevil Shhaideh. Photo Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, Wikipedia Commons.

The Social Democrats, PSD, had suggested the 52-year-old Muslim woman, who comes from Romania’s Tatar minority, and a close associate of PSD chair Liviu Dragnea, because he was barred from the job due to a suspended jail sentence for electoral fraud in the 2012 referendum.

Dragnea said he was surprised by the President’s decision and that neither he nor his fellow coalition members could find any constitutional reason for the President’s refusal to accept Shhaideh.

“This man wants to provoke a political crisis in Romania,” Dragnea said adding he would come up with a decision by Wednesday.

“It won’t be easy. We’ve received an avalanche of messages during the past few hours from people who demand that we suspend the President. It’s not an easy call.

“But if we conclude after a thorough analysis to suspend the President, I will not hesitate. I took into consideration forming a commission to analyze whether the president’s gesture is constitutional,” Dragnea said.

The PSD triumphed in the legislative elections on December 11 by a wide margin and has formed a coalition with the smaller Alliance of Liberals and Democrats, ALDE, to form a majority in parliament.

The PSD-ALDE coalition has 250 of the 465 seats in parliament and would easily be able to survive a vote of confidence and pass legislation. It would also make it possible for the PSD-ALDE coalition to impeach the President.

Beyond that fact that Dragnea and Shhaideh are close, the nomination of a Muslim for the PM’s post came as a surprise after the PSD ran an election campaign with a heavy nationalistic flavour under the slogans “proud to be Romanian” and “Dare to believe in Romania”.

The PSD, which also promised higher wages and pensions during the election, had hoped that Dragnea would become Prime Minister but Iohannis made clear he would reject any candidate with a criminal record.

Shhaideh has a BA a Computer Science and was little known to the public. Her only political responsibilities were a five-month post as Development Minister in 2015.

The opposition warned that she would be “Dragnea’s puppet”.

She also came under criticism because her husband, Syrian businessman Akram Shhaideh, served for 20 years in the Syrian Ministry of Agriculture, a position usually reserved for Assad regime supporters.

Investigative reports found that he had posted messages in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on his Facebook account.

Akram and Sevil Shhaideh married in 2011 and Dragnea was a witness at their wedding. Akram Shhaideh obtained Romanian citizenship in 2015.

“I don’t see how Shhaideh would get a certificate authorizing her access to classified information, especially when it comes to NATO documents,” former Justice Minister Catalin Predoiu commented.
– See more at: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/romanian-president-rejects-muslim-woman-as-pm-12-27-2016#sthash.tn1ZeUIf.dpuf

In an ominous sign of things to come, US President-elect Donald Trump has unleashed a fury of verbal assaults on the UN for daring to take action on Israel’s illegal settlement activities in the occupied territories.

Trump, who has yet no official capacity and ordinarily ought to wait until assuming office, has made it a top priority to target the UN both directly and indirectly, through his henchmen such as ultra-right John Bolton, who in an opinion column in Wall Street Journal, has called on the US to withdraw funding for the UN.

Clearly, consistent with the pre-election dire warnings about the calamitous potential of a Trump presidency, Mr. Trump is in a big rush to dismantle the pillars of global peace and his anti-UN verbiage in a series of tweets clearly illuminates the dangers that lurk ahead for global peace and security, in light of his related call for a big push for US’s nuclear arsenal for the purpose of “outmatching” the rivals, i.e., Russia and China.

This, of course, means an accelerated nuclear arms race, siphoning off precious resources and fueling global proliferation, notwithstanding US’s nuclear strategy that allows for the use of nukes even in conventional theaters.

With respect to the UN Security Council Resolution condemning Israel’s relentless annexation of Palestinian land, which is long-over due, the UN’s principled stance is consistent with international law, which Trump and his crew apparently have little use of, thus reminding us of the “rogue superpower” of the Bush era.

As expected, the pro-Israel media in US has not even bothered to delve into the scope of land annexations in the West Bank triggering the UN resolution, with so many US pundits banding with Trump, even on the website of CNN, lambasting the UN, perhaps in a post-election rush to mend ties with Trump. This atrocious anti-Palestinian bias in mainstream US media is, of course, old story, given the nearly total absence of any decent coverage of the systematic Israeli efforts at illegal settlements, displacement of Palestinians, and the like.

Of course, the rest of the international community is fully aware of the on-going atrocities perpetrated against the Palestinians, who are entitled to their own independent state and, yet, find the US superpower consistently paying lip service to their cause, to the point that during the 8 years of Obama administration, there was a complete lack of any US backlashes against Israel’s land grab in the West Bank and, instead, Obama is actually distinguished by making substantial increases in US aid to Israel.

Still, Obama’s ‘last hurrah’ in abstaining from the vote on Israel at the Security Council is praiseworthy as a belated corrective step, that ought to translate into new pressures on Israel to curb its insatiable land grab. Certainly, Obama will leave office with a mixed legacy on the Palestinian issue, rightly blamed for sidestepping the Palestinian rights during his two terms in office.

Meanwhile, the UN-bashing Trump is gearing up to launch fresh attacks on the UN, accused by him of being a useless shop talk, when in fact UN performs crucial service for the cause of global peace and security, as well as a host of other issues including human rights, climate, development, refugees, children, health, etc. UN’s peacekeeping operations around the world are absolutely vital for global crisis-management and without the UN’s blue helmets on the ground in some two dozen hotspots around the world, it would be a much more chaotic and dangerous planet.

Trump’s unprincipled attack on the UN as a prelude for his coming efforts to weaken the preeminent world organization is, indeed, bad news for the world community, just as Trump’s racist and Islamophobic agenda is bound to aggravate the socalled ‘clashing civilizations’.

In turn, Trump’s threats to the UN and, with it, to the international community, ought to raise alarms and mobilize the global peace forces in a pitched battle to save the UN from Trump(ism), which evinces signs of new militarism and warmongering.

The new UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, has a big task ahead of him to galanize the world community on UN’s behalf, to safeguard the precious UN sources in defense of Palestinians confronted with the systematic evaporation of their historic dream for statehood due to Israel’s expansionism, and, as stated by this author in a previous piece, the contrasts between the anti-globalization Trump and the internationalist Guterres could not be any more pronounced.

But, of course, the UN is vital for US’ own global preeminence and it would be fool hardy for Trump and his aids to overlook UN’s crucial contributions to US’s own foreign policy interests. Trump’s irrationality in attacking the UN in fact consists of overlooking this very important yet delicate factor.

American President-elect Donald J. Trump called President Nursultan Nazarbayev to congratulate Kazakhstan on 25 years of independence. There is still some uncertainty about what was actually said during the call.

According to the Kazakhstan read out of the message the word “miracle” was used to describe Kazakhstan’s economic success citing reporting from American political news site, Politico. The main point of the phone call was to strengthen the partnership between Kazakhstan and the U.S. Trump never mentioned Kazakhstan in his foreign policy.

Many were puzzled by Trump’s outreach as Kazakhstan is ruled by an authoritarian dictator, is not a democracy, does not champion or guarantee basic democratic rights such as freedom of speech and press, and is known more for its human rights abuses than its partnership with the U.S. Trump’s nascent and unpublicized nuclear policy is the opposite of Kazakhstan’s nuclear efforts and can impact the blossoming and important partnership.

Trump’s comments about nuclear weapons have many puzzled, horrified, and left many wondering what to think about the former candidate’s now President elect’s statements and if they should take them seriously.

Kazakhstan has been a reliable partner in the Former Soviet Union space in the realm of non-proliferation and nuclear weapons cooperation. According to research conducted for this analysis, no reactions were identified from Kazakhstan about President-to-be Trump’s comments on shifts in U.S. nuclear policy.

Mr. Donald Trump, using the social media tool, Twitter, called for expanding the U.S.’ nuclear capability. Mr. Trump throughout the 2016 Presidential campaign never provided a clear nuclear policy but using rhetoric he has hinted at severe policy changes. On 23 December, Trump told American news channel MSNBC: “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.” Many pundits jumped to the conclusion that Trump was reversing decades of policy of nuclear arms by undermining progress, igniting an arms race, and instigating our enemies with the threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Whether or not Mr. Trump was truthful in his statement (as he uses shock statements), the statement demonstrates his lack of global affairs knowledge, arms controls knowledge, U.S. diplomatic history, and the ramifications and implications of his random statements. Trump’s call for nuclear weapons is unclear, but is worrisome and can endanger diplomatic relations with other countries. Russian President Vladimir Putin ignored the comments suggesting it was a publicity stunt rather than a policy stance. Outgoing President Barack Obama spoke to Nazarbayev in 2015 and stressed the issue of counter proliferation.

Trump’s statement are incongruent with Kazakhstan’s policies on nuclear weapons, counter-proliferation, and nuclear disarmament. Kazakhstan was once a nuclear power under the Soviet Union and had 1,410 nuclear weapons and an undisclosed number of nuclear tactical weapons according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative organization. All of Kazakhstan’s Soviet Union era weapons were transferred back to the Russian Federation in April 1995 under the Lisbon Protocol (May 1992), a protocol to the START-1 treaty. As part of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program, the U.S. assisted Kazakhstan with sealing 18 bore holes and 181 tunnels at the main test site in Kazakhstan, Semipalatinsk-21; the site closed in 1991. Semipalatinsk is now the town Semey and was the location of the first Soviet Union nuclear weapons test.

Since 2004, under the CTR Program (Nunn-Lugar CTR), Russia, the U.S., and Kazakhstan and implemented numerous programs at the Semipalatinsk site according to a press statement from the U.S. White House. With the support of the U.S. Department of Energy, which oversees the U.S. nuclear arsenal and other nuclear-related programs, spent fuel of the fast breeder reactor BN-350 reactor of Mangistau Nuclear Power Combinate, Aktau in Western Kazakhstan, was transferred for safe and secure storage in Kazakhstan’s northeastern city of Kurchatov in 2010. The transfer took 12 months and 12 shipments over 3,000 kilometers to complete.

Kazakhstan won a seat on the United Nations Security Council in late June 2016 and takes their seat in 2017. At the forefront of Kazakhstan’s concerns are nuclear disarmament and weapons proliferation reflecting Kazakhstan’s global and security priorities.

In June 2015, Kazakhstan and the watchdog International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) agreed to create a low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel bank to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The fuel bank “would provide countries barred from international markets with reliable access to fuel for their nuclear energy plants” and “be a major step toward realizing the vision, embodied in the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of a world in which all states are able to take advantage of the peaceful benefits of nuclear technology without simultaneously risking the spread of nuclear weapons.”

The LEU fuel bank will be hosted at the Ulba Metallurgical Plant in Oskemen (Ust-Kamegorsk) in northeastern Kazakhstan and is owned by state-run Kazatomprom, according to the IAEA. The fuel bank was also designed to deter countries from building up their own domestic infrastructure and prevent countries from developing technology to aid in nuclear weapons development which would curb vulnerabilities such as fissile material theft and would increase security as there are less sites to secure. The fuel bank will be a test in multi-lateral assistance and in determining the use of fuel. Many countries do lack the ability to develop civilian nuclear technology and access to civilian nuclear technology can help a country develop key sectors and have a ripple effect in creating employment and diversification of economic sectors. The bank also takes into account financial market disruptions as many fuel arrangements are susceptible to politics according to NTI.

Kazakhstan also takes a humanitarian stance on the issue taking the lead by initiating an International Day Against Nuclear Tests at the United Nations in support of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and has been recognized since 2010. Kazakhstan established the Atom Project in 2012, which calls for an end of nuclear weapons testing. The Atom Project homepage quotes President Nazarbayev: “We must adopt a world without nuclear weapons as the main goal of humanity in the 21st century.” Kazakhstan is also committed to the Austria-led Humanitarian Initiative (December 2014) also known as the Humanitarian Pledge which addresses the needs and rights of victims of nuclear weapons; immediate, mid-term, and long-term consequences of a nuclear explosion(s); effects on physical infrastructure and populations; and ethics surrounding the use of nuclear weapons. Kazakhstan initiated the UN Resolution, Universal Declaration for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World (A/RES/70/57),  adopted by the United Nations in December 2015. This concept also have been a theme and was the subject of the Astana Vision developed at the Building a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World Conference, August 2016.

In Kazakhstan, 1.5 million people have died pre-maturely and suffered from devastating and horrific health effects from exposure to nuclear-related materials according to health statistics. Reporting from Radio Free Europe in 2011 detailed that radiation is 10 times higher than normal in villages surrounding the test site. Village residents were knowingly exposed to nuclear radiation. The morality rate of residents around the test site—which were kept secret at time—is 60 years of age and cancer and congenital deformities among the population are normal. There are studies investigating the impact of radiation on future generations to determine if genetic modification (or anomalies) resulted from high and low dose exposure to nuclear radiation.

Regionally, there is the Central Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone which was established in September 2006 and the treaty entered into force in March 2009. The CANWFZ was ratified by Kazakhstan in February 2009. The U.S. signed the Protocol to the Treaty in May 2014, but has yet to ratify the treaty. The Protocol, according to the U.S. Department of State (DoS), “will advance important U.S. nonproliferation objectives and make clear the security benefits available to states that comply fully with their obligations under” the Non-Proliferation Treaty and will strengthen security assurance. According to the U.S. DoS: “the Treaty obligates the five Central Asian States not to conduct research on, develop, manufacture, stockpile, or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over any nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device by any means anywhere, not to seek or receive assistance in these activities, and not to assist or encourage such activities.”

Analysis of the CANWFZ Protocol states that the U.S. will not use any nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear weapons country in Central Asia. This ensures proportionality and matched capabilities during time of warfare and reinforces the U.S. policy of No First Use and exhausting all diplomatic channels and mechanisms before military force—a hallmark of U.S. foreign policy and global conflict negotiations. This also highlights the partnerships between the U.S. and the Central Asian states. CANWFZ contributes to counter-proliferation and does not interfere with current U.S. military policy, installations, and efforts in the region. At the time of U.S. signature, Central Asia’s location played a crucial role in U.S. anti-terror operations in Afghanistan.

Kazakhstan can be a great benefit to the U.S. using Kazakhstan as a middleman to improve U.S.-Russia relations, targeting extremism in the region and taking advantage of regional partnerships that target extremism in this restive and vulnerable region.

The ignition of an arms race is highly unlikely. The U.S. has helped other countries besides Kazakhstan in arms reduction and curbing nuclear capability. Ratifying relevant treaties, which is also unlikely, will undermine future efforts. A compromise would be to garner U.S. support for the fuel bank, strengthen efforts to prevent nuclear materials trafficking, anti-proliferation campaigns and to continue joint partnerships between Kazakhstan and the U.S. The U.S. can assist Kazakhstan is striking a balance between its burgeoning energy sector and nuclear energy. Non-governmental organizations in Kazakhstan such as the Union for Nuclear Test Victims (also known as IRIS) can further commitment to arms reduction and nuclear security in the country.

As Trump tries to use Kazakhstan as a “back door” to Russia, there will be low-level policy conflicts regarding nuclear weapons are anticipated. Kazakhstan strives to move forward the issue of nuclear disarmament. The U.S.’ commitment to global nuclear arms reduction will remain largely a concrete policy for many countries who have suffered because of nuclear weapons testing. As Kazakhstan aspires to be the mediator for regional conflicts such as Iran and Syria (including upcoming talks), the U.S. nuclear policy will become more relevant in the U.S.-Kazakhstan relationship. Mr. Trump’s policies will hinder any desired progress with Kazakhstan: developing a closer and more strategic relationship with Vladimir Putin and Russia, gaining rights to Kazakhstan’s large oil reserves and access to the energy sector, or to grow closer to China through regional organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The U.S. should continue to pressure Kazakhstan to improve its human rights situation and its response to extremism.

*Samantha Brletich is a freelance writer and research on the region of Central Asia. She focuses on extremism and terrorism, governance, and multi-lateral policy in the region. She has a Master’s in Peace Operations Policy from George Mason University in the United States.

Russo-Japanese ties have been gaining traction since the spring of 2016 after over two years of marked stagnation brought on by the Ukrainian crisis, culminating in Vladimir Putin’s visit to Japan on December 15-16 2016.

While there are few, if any, palpable achievements to be presented by Abe on the Russian vector of his diplomacy, a Russo-Japanese rapprochement is clearly taking shape, and the prime minister’s strategy towards Moscow becomes discernible. Not fased by stirring discord in the G7’s Russia policy and effectively breaking the anti-Putin sanctions regime, Abe seems bent on presiding over a resolution of the decades-old territorial row. Amid the current Russia-Japan honeymoon of sorts, however, he should not lose sight of the perils inherent in his charm offensive towards Moscow, especially in the wake of Donald Trump’s recent upset victory in the US presidential election.

In May 2016, Abe and Putin announced that they were planning to tackle the Northern Territories dispute based on an undisclosed new approach. Abe also unveiled an 8-point plan of economic cooperation, including joint projects in the Russian Far East.

While it has not been officially confirmed, there is evidence to suggest the two announcements are directly connected, with tightened economic cooperation serving as the cornerstone of the new approach with regard to the disputed islands. It is likely that Abe intends to use closer economic relations as a means to sway Russia towards relaxing its hard-line stance on the Northern Territories.

At the same time, Abe realizes that merely giving to Russia without asking for anything in return would take a toll on his public support, and the longer he plays the game on Moscow’s terms, the bigger hit his popularity is going to take. Therefore, he strives to achieve some tangible progress and strike an islands deal at any cost even disregarding the potential short-term political fallout. Abe hopes that the diverse economic cooperation plans he has proposed to Russia would hasten the resolution of the dispute.

However, such optimism on Abe’s part seems unwarranted. Putin’s recent visit to Japan which predictably ended with further economic agreements but no resolution of the island dispute in sight seems to have confirmed that. This is mainly for two reasons – Russia having the upper hand vis-a-vis Japan, thus being able to dictate the terms of the bilateral relations, and the discrepancy between such a pragmatic approach and the purportedly “values-oriented” nature of Japan’s diplomacy under Abe.

While Japan has already played its best cards – approaching Russia when no other G7 country would and offering many lucrative economic deals – Moscow has not signalled in any way that it is about to compromise on its position regarding the disputed territories. During an interview before his Japan visit, Putin told  the press that Russia does not in fact have a territorial problem with Japan, and it is only Japan that believes so, highlighting how much more important the issue is to Tokyo than to Moscow.

Even a deal involving Russia transferring to Japan just two out of four islands in accordance with the 1956 Soviet-Japanese Declaration currently looks bleak. With Russia enjoying a stronger hand in the negotiations, there are no reasons for the Kremlin to rush the signing of any agreement when instead it can simply reap  the fruits of strengthened economic partnership without providing anything in return other than noncommittal promises to continue bilateral talks.

Furthermore, Abe’s foreign policy strategy, especially towards China, is underpinned by an ideologically-driven notion of “values-oriented” diplomacy, emphasising the necessity for Japan to work with and assist like-minded countries which share universal values like democracy, human rights, and rule of law.

The more confrontational nature of Japan’s China policy under the Abe administration stems in part from the idea that China is a renegade state that ignores these values and disregards international law. A question arises then of how to rationalise Japan’s overtures towards Russia given that it should instead be ostracised by Tokyo based on the premises of its own diplomatic doctrine. By opting for pragmatism towards Moscow, Japan puts into doubt its traditional identity of a “reactive” state and a responsible member of the international community.

Moreover, such approach effectively normalises Russia’s annexation of Crimea which represents precisely the approach – changing territorial status quo by military force – that Japan rails against when dealing with China.

Yet another danger lies in Donald Trump’s shocking victory in the US presidential election. While it is yet unclear whether Trump’s Russia policy will be as accommodating as it seemed on the campaign trail, a Russia-US détente is clearly possible. Trump’s emphatic denial  of the possibility of the Kremlin interfering in the US election; his Chief of Staff Reince Priebus’ refusal to commit to keeping the sanctions regime; as well as Trump’s pick of Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State all suggest that his administration is likely going to adopt a softer approach towards Moscow. In that event, Japan’s unique position as the sole Russia-friendly G7 state will be essentially negated, making the Kremlin even less inclined to reach a deal on the disputed islands as its attention would be diverted to normalising ties with the US.

With precious few diplomatic achievements to show to the Japanese public since the start of his premiership, Abe is understandably intent on reaching a historic deal with Russia and consigning the long-standing territorial row to history. However, his desire to leave a legacy looks set on collision course with the harsh reality of Russo-Japanese relations, and his overtly approach towards Moscow seems misplaced. He still has enough time as prime minister to avoid damage being done to Japan’s international standing and take a more measured, principled stance on Russia. Otherwise, all of his investments, literal and figurative, in reaching a territorial deal with Moscow are unlikely to ever pay off.

*Dmitry Filippov is a PhD candidate at the School of East Asian Studies, the University of Sheffield; and a fellow at the Metropolitan Society for International Affairs

Dozens of Jewish settlers on Wednesday forced their way into East Jerusalem’s flashpoint Al-Aqsa Mosque compound where they tried to perform Talmudic rituals, a Palestinian official said.

“Some 176 settlers, backed by Israeli special forces, stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound since this morning,” Al-Aqsa Mosque Director Sheikh Omar al-Qiswani told Anadolu Agency.

The Jewish settlers tried to perform Talmudic rituals near the Al-Qibali mosque and the Dome of the Rock but they were prevented from doing so by Muslim worshipers and the mosque guards,” he said.
blank

Al-Qiswani added that the Israeli police arrested one of the mosque’s guards and took him to the detention center in the old city.

For Muslims, Al-Aqsa represents the world’s third holiest site. Jews, for their part, refer to the area as the “Temple Mount,” claiming it was the site of two Jewish temples in ancient times.

Israel occupied East Jerusalem during the 1967 Middle East War. It later annexed the city in 1980, claiming it as the capital of the Jewish state in a move never recognized by the international community.

By Anees Barghouti, original source

Through its authorities under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Executive Order (E.O.) 13224, the US State Department announced Wednesday the amendment of the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity designations of Lashkar e-Tayyiba (LeT) to include the alias Al-Muhammadia Students (AMS).

Lashkar e-Tayyiba, often translated as the Army of the Righteous, primarily operates out of Pakistan, and is one of the most active terrorist organizations in South Asia. LeT, was created in 1987 in Afghanistan by Hafiz Saeed, Abdullah Azzam and Zafar Iqbal with funding by Osama bin Laden, and currently has headquarters in Muridke, near Lahore, and operates several training camps in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

In December 2001, the US State Department designated LeT as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Since the original designation occurred, LeT has repeatedly changed its name and created front organizations in an effort to avoid sanctions. To that effect, Al-Muhammadia Students is the student wing of LeT.

Founded in 2009, AMS is a subsidiary of LeT and has worked with LeT senior leaders to organize recruiting courses and other activities for youth, the State Department said.

According to the US State Department, the consequences of Wednesday’s designations include a prohibition against knowingly providing, or attempting or conspiring to provide, material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with Al-Muhammadia Students (and LeT), and the blocking of all property and interests in property of designated persons subject to US jurisdiction.

The State Department said it took these actions in consultation with the US Departments of Justice and the Treasury. This designation is being timed in coordination with today’s Treasury designation of two LeT senior leaders, Muhammad Sarwar and Shahid Mahmood.

Brazil successfully hosted the 2016 Summer Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro and other cities from Aug. 5-21.

With 46 gold, 37 silver and 38 bronze medals, the US topped the medal tally. Great Britain came second with 27 gold medals and China took third position with 26 golds.

So how did the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) perform in the Rio Games?

As in previous Olympics, OIC member countries performed poorly in Rio. Eighteen members won medals, with only nine countries — Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan — winning a total of 16 out of the 307 gold medals at stake. Uzbekistan topped the list with four golds.

Another 29 silver and 44 bronze medals were also won. Kuwaiti shooters, competing under the IOC banner, meanwhile, won one gold and one bronze medal.

Although the 57 OIC members have been participating in the Olympic Games for many decades, 33 countries have never won a gold medal, with 20 never winning any medals at all!

We have around 2 billion Muslims worldwide and they constitute 25 percent of the world’s 7 billion people, but their role in the world sports arena is a very small one.

What is wrong with Muslims and OIC member states in the field of sports? Look at the top-three winners at the Rio Olympics — the US, Great Britain and China — and consider the major factors behind their success.

Believe it or not, women have been the key to success in the Olympics for many decades. More than 50 percent of all medals won by the top-three winners in the London Olympics were won by female athletes. American sportswomen, for example, contributed 28 of the country’s 46 gold medals.

Only two women athletes from OIC countries — Bahrain’s Jebet Ruth (in the women’s 3,000-meter steeplechase) and Indonesia’s Liliyana Natsir (badminton) — won gold medals this year.

In the Rio Olympics, the US fielded a large contingent of 550 athletes, including 292 women. In the US Olympic team, hijab-wearing Muslim woman fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad won a bronze medal.

Although women constitute almost 50 percent of their populations, Muslim countries send very few female athletes to the Olympics. Twelve countries sent only one female athlete to Brazil, 15 countries sent two each, and seven countries three each. Iraq, meanwhile, did not send a single woman to Rio.

The achievements of women athletes from Muslim countries were outstanding in the Rio Games, Maljinda Kelmindi, a judo athlete from Kosovo, won the first-ever Olympic gold medal for her country. Likewise Bahrain’s Ruth created history by winning the first-ever gold medal for her country in Rio. Shuttler Susi Susanti won the first-ever Olympic gold medal for Indonesia in Barcelona in 1992.

The first female Muslim athlete to take part in the Olympic Games — in Berlin in 1936 — was Turkish fencer Halet Cambel. Morocco’s Nawal El Moutawakel was the first Muslim woman to win an Olympic gold medal (in the 400-meters hurdle) in Los Angeles in 1984.

Women in many Muslim countries face discrimination as well as harassment over their choice of sportswear and discouragement in the fields of sports, arts, education and culture, despite the fact that Islam encourages men and women to acquire knowledge, to be healthy and to stay fit.

“Their [Muslim women’s] biggest hurdle preventing girls from taking up sports is religious extremism, particularly for those living in conservative Muslim countries. Although there is nothing in the Quran forbidding women and girls from exercising and playing sports, religious scholars are making Islam more restrictive than it should be through misinterpretations,” said noted women’s rights activist Shaista Gohir on the Huffington Post website recently.

In an effort to encourage sports among Muslims, the OIC established the Islamic Sports Federation to conduct the Islamic Solidarity Games. The first Games were held in 2005 in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia hosted the third Games in Palembang in 2013. The next Games will be held in Baku in 2017. However, the standards at these Games still remain relatively low.

Another big mistake that OIC members make is poor selection of sports and strategy. Learning from leading sports nations, it is clear they focus too much on multi-medal events rather than concentrating on more specialized events that offer fewer medals.

With a greater focus on women athletes and better strategies, hopefully OIC member states will shine in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

This article was published in the OIC Journal August-November 2016 (latest issue) Page 41, and is reprinted with permission.

From the outset human beings have struggled to adopt a diversified environment deeply related to their lifestyle. Culture is the cumulative knowledge about the various aspects of life of a group of people or community. Cultural diplomacy, in others words, is a deep study of humankind’s social behavior and  intellectual achievements.

Culture is the social behavior of a society and diplomacy is the action and skill to manage the social contacts in very sophisticated manners. As such, culture and diplomacy are both interrelated.

We can understand cultural diplomacy through its eight developmental factors that are closely interconnected with human social, cultural and national interests. Cultural diffusion, relativism, appropriation, competence, diversity, identity, imperialism and capital are the eight factors that determine the cultural diplomacy of a particular community or nation.

Such factors clearly describe the cultural spread, adoption, use, beliefs, behavior of one person to another person’s culture or activities from group to another. So the integration of world cultures through different ethnicities, religions and nationalities or principle of regarding the beliefs, values, behaviors, attitudes, policies and practices of a culture from the viewpoint of that culture itself has increased with highly developed communication, transportation, technology, and industry that determines the direction of both economic and social progress of that particular nation.

Cultural diplomacy is the practice of spreading the culture of that nation to another through communication skills and activities. Cultural diplomacy decides the specific ways of cooperation among nations. It helps a country to develop cordial and fruitful relationships with other countries. It promotes peace oriented ideas and new thoughts while  bringing together the people from different cultures and generations and civilization backgrounds.

Culture and its factors are the tools for innovation in political actions, strategy, planning, marketing and promoting contacts among nations and continents. It provides a platform for every nation to share its culture, values, beliefs, behavior and civilization with other nations for better development and progress. It is the symbol of peace and harmony among nations.

The most important thing is to remember that all human beings are part of the big family of Adam, which demonstrate and share common features of culture as humanity.

If we examine the historical background of cultural diplomacy since World War II there have been many incidents that represent the successful practices of diplomacy and working as a catalyst to create harmony and peace among nations, as well as in international relations through different aspects.

We can say cultural diplomacy acts as contractor of global human rights. It talks about the rights of humanity. Cultural diplomacy is an effective instrument that plays a central role in developing relations among states in contemporary international relations. It is a channel to enhance the exchange of ideas, culture among nations in difficult times for mutual understanding.

Culture plays a vital role in international relations and diplomacy. In this interdependent world cultural diplomacy plays a role in the unity of people and nations.

The biggest practice of cultural diplomacy was the United Nations, which was established in 1945 after World War II by the unity of 51 countries to maintain international peace and security, as well as to develop amiable relations among nations and to promote social progress and human rights. The United Nations represents an evolution in the history of nations by building various specific agencies to fulfill international needs. With time, those different international organizations have adopted cultural diplomacy to unite the nations on various aspects and needs of life. As such, United Nations agencies are playing a specific role in their respective objectives and mission.

All these international and inter-governmental organizations are based on cultural diplomacy uniting the nations economically, financially, socially, educationally and politically to build unity, peace and harmony globally. The basic principles of cultural diplomacy such as respect for cultural diversity, worldwide intercultural dialogue, justice, equality and interdependence, the safety of international human rights, global peace and stability are the motto of these international organizations and every diplomatic mission of a nation to other nations that is based on international unity.

By nature, a person cannot live alone in this world. In a community, people are interdependent with each other. Communities make a nation that has its own identity, culture, religion, language and values, but is interdependent with other nations for development in politics, trade, commerce, communication, education, health, security, peace, harmony and stability. Still, there is a need for the international cooperation to make the progress of every nation in every field. In this modern world nations are interconnected and united to fulfill their national interests.

Culture is the only source of attraction for any nation. Cultural diplomacy creates interest and unity in people of that nation and other nations. It is a source of inspiration to know about the different cultures of world. Culture can provide the people a platform to sit together and discuss their shared values and common grounds for mutual understanding.

Unity in diversity is an integrative approach to intercultural relations. Social and intercultural interactions among communities and nations are necessary for international unity. Unity has become a major challenge among nations, which is only inevitable through cultural diplomacy. Culture of any nation promotes love, peace and harmony among people.

Cultural diplomacy is a systematic approach to resolve the conflicting political and economic interests of any nation. Multicultural dialogue and cultural diversity has become the need of time. Dialogue among cultures, civilizations, traditions, and inter-faith organizations can promotes unity.

In short, unity is absolutely essential. Every government and nation must be united towards common needs. Cultural diplomacy uses the formula of one people and one world. When all countries unite and work together then there will be a significant improvement in the state of the world. A wise leadership can build unity among nations through cultural diplomacy, which is the surety to end the majority of the world’s problems.

*Tariq Khan, Chairman, PINPOINT institute,research based think tank, Islamabad

In a heroic gesture of complete and total decisive power, President Barack Obama has restored balance to the Force and order to the Universe.

He has, in one single swoop, restored honor, dignity, and justice to the long suffering Palestinians, while smiting down the evil perpetrated by the ultra extreme Zionist Israelis since 1967.

By engineering the United Nations Security Resolution 2334 reiterating its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, President Obama has rectified a long existent evil.

The vote was 14 in favor, with one abstention (United States).

The Security Council reaffirmed that Israel’s establishment of settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, constituted a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the vision of two States living side-by-side in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders, and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.

“The resolution is a significant step, demonstrating the Council’s much needed leadership and the international community’s collective efforts to reconfirm that the vision of two States is still achievable,” the UN chief’s spokesperson said in a statement.

“The Secretary-General takes this opportunity to encourage Israeli and Palestinian leaders to work with the international community to create a conducive environment for a return to meaningful negotiations,” the spokesperson added. “The United Nations stands ready to support all concerned parties in achieving this goal.”

The 15-member Council adopted the resolution by a vote of 14 in favor and with one abstention – the United States abstained from the vote. The resolution had been put forward by Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal, and Venezuela.

In the resolution, the Council reiterated its demand that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard.”

The Council also underlined that it will not recognize any changes to the June 4, 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.

The resolution called for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, and for accountability in that regard, as well as for both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and previous agreements and obligations, “to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric.”

It further called for compliance with obligations under international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of terrorism.

The Council also urged for intensification and acceleration of international and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967.

Coupled with Barack Obama’s brokering of the Iran Nuclear deal, thereby preventing World War 3, he has reinstated the international balance of power to keep nations honest, with respect for one another, with no one nation being able to trample over or steamroll anyone else.

(Civil.Ge) — Georgia’s former Republican Party MP Vakhtang Khmaladze said at his press conference on December 27, that Davit Usupashvili, former parliamentary speaker and the leader of the Republican Party, might launch a new political party in February, 2017.

Speaking on the plans of Davit Usupashvili and other former members of the Republican Party, Khmaladze noted that “a statement will be made, probably in February.” “[The new party will gather] those who quit the Republican Party, … as well as other people,” Khmaladze explained.

Khmaladze, who is a member of the Constitutional Reform Commission as an expert, added that he will not enter the party until he takes the current position. “Before I am in the Constitutional Commission, I will try not to pursue active political activities,” Khmaladze explained. The commission is tasked to table the constitutional amendments before April 30, 2017.

The Republican Party, junior member in the ruling Georgian Dream coalition in 2012-2016, ran independently in 2016 Parliamentary Elections and failed to enter the parliament with just 1.55 percent of nationwide votes.

Davit Usupashvili quit the Republican Party soon after the parliamentary elections citing “political, value-based, and tactical” disagreements within the party leadership regarding the political future of the Republican Party. Speaking at his special briefing on October 29, Usupashvili pledged to remain “very active in the opposition political field”.

Several other leading members have followed the suit and parted ways with the Republican party, including Vakhtang Khmaladze.

The world is entering a new period of political uncertainty amid a popular backlash against globalisation. People feel dislocated in their own societies and want to reclaim their identity. This search for identity is what causes many conflicts and will make for a more disruptive future.

By Han Fook Kwang*

If you cannot wait to see the end of 2016, you are probably not alone. It has been a year of surprises, disappointments and shocks. The Brexit vote in Britain, Donald Trump’s election victory in the United States, the spate of terrorist attacks in Europe including the latest in Munich, the continuing instability in the Middle East all point towards an uncertain future with many more upheavals to come.

On the economic front, growth has not returned in many countries with too many people unemployed, wage levels stagnating, and the gap between the rich and poor widening. There is popular revolt in many places against the ill-effects of globalisation which is seen by many to benefit mainly the elite.

Political Backlash

The political backlash has upended the established order in the US, the United Kingdom and threatens to do so in several other European countries facing important elections next year. The European Union’s future is now more uncertain than it has ever been, but even more unknown is what will take its place. US-China relations look like entering a new period of uncertainty following Mr Trump’s election.

It is possible to conclude from all this that the world is heading towards some calamitous end and to wish for the return of saner times. Be careful though what you wish for. For all the perplexing turns and unpredictability, the changes taking place today and the upheavals they bring are nowhere near those that have taken place the last century.

Two world wars have been fought killing up to 100 million people and destroying entire cities, including two in Japan that were devastated by atomic bombs. There were other wars that not only brought more deaths and destruction but also changed the geopolitical landscape dramatically: the civil war in China, in the Korean peninsula, in Vietnam, and the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union.

Disruptive Ideas and the Digital Revolution

As for disruptive ideas that threaten to change our lives for better or worse, today’s list — globalisation, the fourth industrial revolution, extremist Islamist ideology, to name a few — doesn’t look as game-changing as the grand ideas of the past century that did change the world: The rise of communism in Russia and China, the anti-colonialist nationalist movements in China, India and Southeast Asia, the trade union movement of the 20th century which entrenched workers’ rights and the suffrage and feminist movements.

These were historical events which overturned the established political and social order, liberating millions of people, sometimes from physical oppression, but mostly in the way they changed human thinking and how people saw the world and their future.

On the technology front, today’s digital revolution has been truly amazing but there have been equally revolutionary inventions in the past including the discovery of electricity and the invention of the motor car and the internal combustion engine, airplanes and nuclear energy.

Can we really say the world we are living in today is more disruptive and unpredictable than those in the past? As we review the year and ponder what is in store the next, it is useful to do so taking a wider perspective and longer time horizon, and not be overwhelmed by the hype and exaggeration of the moment.

Issue of Identity

This isn’t the most foreboding period in human history — not by a long shot. But there are worrying trends common to many of the recent events that are worth watching because they will shape the course of human history. Of these, one of the most important concerns the issue of identity.

Every individual, nation and society seeks to identify itself in some way that sets it apart from another. For countries, this national identity is shaped by its history, the culture and tradition of its people, and their hopes and aspirations for the future.

But the speed of change in the modern world has disrupted the formation of these identities, changing or replacing them with new ones. This is disruptive because the old identities formed along traditional lines of culture, religion and language existed for long periods, resulting in stable and strong societies.

But globalisation and the digitally connected world fragmented these societies enabling many people to identify with others inside and outside their countries with similar interests, setting them apart from others. They take on multiple identities which might strengthen or weaken their attachment to their own national identity. Many commentators, for example, have pointed out that America is a divided country with many white voters in the recent election identifying with President-elect Trump while large numbers of non-white and urban voters are opposed to him.

Who You Are Determines Your Way Forward

Pro-Trump voters want to reclaim the identity they believe has been lost because of the actions and policies of the elites in Washington and want to “make America great again”. You could say the same for Britons who voted for the county to leave the European Union. They too seek an identity that isn’t shaped by bureaucrats in Brussels.

One outcome of the dislocation felt by many people as a result of their fragmented societies is to seek refuge in an earlier identity often along race and religious lines. Extremist Islamist terrorists exploit this, propagating their form of violent identity, to differentiate themselves from moderate Muslims and what they see as the decadence of the western world.

The crisis of identity experienced by so many people and countries is a signature theme of the post-modern world. Everywhere, people are seeking answers to the questions: Who are we and where do we want to go? They have to answer the first question first before they can answer the second.

Who you are determines where you want to go. National identity isn’t a static concept but changes continuously, and, according to many sociologists, is always contested, constructed and re-constructed. That’s a recipe for more disruptions.

*Han Fook Kwang is Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Christians following the Gregorian calendar are getting busy to celebrate Christmas, but the business of diplomacy continued in the United Nations. In the Security Council, anticipation about a particular resolution was greater than usual.

On Friday, interest was piqued by what the Obama administration’s representative, Samantha Power, would do about a particular resolution that had riled Israeli politicians, US president-elect Donald Trump, and various members of the US Congress.

Resolution 2334, as worded, demanded that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem” claiming that the establishment of Israeli settlements had “no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”

The resolution further reiterated that no recognition would be afforded to “any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.” States were also “to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.

The resolution had already danced a jig into hasty retreat after Egypt expressed second thoughts on whether it should go head. On Thursday, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, breathed a sigh of relief at Cairo’s change of heart – momentarily. “The delaying of the vote is an important step. However, we realize that this issue is not yet resolved.”

On that score, Israeli pressure had proven to be effective, mounted aggressively by Netanyahu, the Foreign Ministry and the National Security Council. Donald Trump’s huffing had also convinced the Egypt to desist, though the exact form of that persuasion is unclear. It was left to New Zealand, Malaysia, Venezuela and Senegal to take the wheels of the resolution and drive it to a vote.

Would traditional US form prevail? The traditionalists, initially taken off guard, thought so. (In 2011, the Obama administration used its veto against a similar resolution.) Trump certainly hoped so. “As the United States has long maintained,” claimed the president-elect in a statement on Thursday, “peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United Nations.”

For Trump, mounting the soapbox in favour of such a position was prejudicial – to Israel. “This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely unfair to all Israelis.” Trump had already signalled his position on Israeli affairs with his nomination for the post of US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman.

Friedman’s record behind encouraging the settlement program is known. He rejects any notion that a two-state solution is viable and has suggested that Israel fob off all international criticism and annex part of the West Bank. He has excoriated morally troubled Jews supporting a two-state solution as “kapos,” the dark term used to describe Jews dragooned into assisting the extermination of their own people by the Nazis. In some instances, his views make those of Netanyahu moderate.

An answer finally came: an abstention by the US was registered, meaning that it passed with 14 votes. Power’s statement suggested that the goals of continuing settlement programs being pursued by Israel, and the negotiations on a two-state solution, were mutually exclusive.

“One cannot simultaneously champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict.” The choice had to be made “between settlements and separation.”

This stark view was not one shared by such pro-Israeli stalwarts as Republican Senator John McCain. In these circles, Israel remains the perennial, noble victim, permanently at the mercy of forces it needs to control, and even repel.

Noble victims, armed to the teeth with the most modern of weaponry and nuclear weapons, indifferent to thieves masquerading as squatters, tend to spout gibberish before the canons of international law. “By voting yes in favour of this resolution,” claimed Danon, “you have in fact voted no. You voted no to negotiation, you voted no to progress and a chance for better lives for Israelis and Palestinians, and you voted no to the possibility of peace.” Bully knows best.

In abstaining, the United States marked “a troubling departure from our nation’s long, bipartisan history of defending our ally Israel in the United States.” A defence was always to be mounted for that beleaguered state, right or wrong.

The office of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised in rejecting “this shameful anti-Israel resolution at the UN” that it would “not abide by its terms”. Asserting a sacred proprietary lease, if not right, on US political good will, Netanyahu’s office also looked “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.”

That stance has been a long standing one: legal writ, ill-fitting for Israel’s foreign and domestic policy, will be disregarded. Washington’s buffering support can be counted upon. With a Trump presidency, support for such a stance will be forthcoming – in bucket loads.

Oman has joined the Saudi-led coalition of Muslim countries to fight terrorism, Saudi News Agency (SPA) said in a statement Wednesday quoting a Saudi official.

Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, second deputy premier and defense minister, has received a letter from his Omani counterpart Sayyid Badr bin Saud Al-Busaidi, Minister Responsible for Defense Affairs, announcing Oman’s decision to join the Islamic military alliance to combat terrorism, according to the statement.

Oman is now the 41st country to join the coalition, which was unveiled by Riyadh in December 2015.

Prince Mohammed bin Salman expressed the Kingdom’s appreciation to Oman’s leadership for its support for Saudi Arabia’s efforts in combating terrorism.

The letter was conveyed to the defense minister by Ahmad Hilal Al-Busaidi, Omani ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Previously, Mohammed bin Salman said that the alliance would operate on UN and OIC provisions on terrorism, which affirms the “right of states to self-defense.”

“We have a number of countries suffering from terrorism, including Syria, Iraq, Sinai, Yemen, Libya, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and this requires very strong efforts to fight it. Undoubtedly through this alliance, there will be coordination to fight it …” the deputy crown prince said as he announced the formation of the coalition last year.

He said that the alliance would not focus only on certain groups such as Daesh, known also as the Islamic State, but confront terrorist operators across the world.

He said that operations in Syria would “obviously” not be carried out without working with legitimate groups and the international community.

Despite criticism from all sectors, the Legislature-Parliament a few weeks ago, endorsed a bill to effect a whopping 42 per cent increment in pay for lawmakers, officials and others – this at a time when over sixty per cent of our population is living in poverty, when earthquake victims are still forced to sleep under the open sky, and when people in many parts of the country, especially in the remote part, are living in hunger.

Parliamentarians even prioritised endorsement of this legislation to serve their own sick interests by delaying other crucial matters including the impeachment motion against Lok Man Singh Karki, the constitutional amendment process and the completion of the transitional justice process in the country. An even bigger surprise to all was the fact that the bill to increase pay was endorsed within just five days of it being tabled in the House. The long-term effect will be disastrous. How can our government and politicians even begin to justify their action?

While the country is on the brink of economic and political collapse and many parts have suffered hunger for decades, the new bill will cost the treasury a huge additional amount annually. What is the meaning of this huge increment for the privileged in the present circumstances? Where is the moral authority of our parliamentarians and politicians? Have they not been elected to serve the people? How can they continue to enjoy their good salaries, pensions and other facilities at taxpayers’ expense while millions of people are forced to survive with little or no food, medicine or other basic necessities? Many questions must be asked today: Where are the voices of the so-called civil society and the media? Maybe they are all influenced by partisan interests that blind them to the values, traditions and established social norms of our country. However, the bill indicates more things than that.

Firstly, it is a mockery of democratic values and traditions, and it is also illegal, unconstitutional and an extreme act of immorality. The action of the politicians poses a serious threat to the democratic interest and, most importantly, to parliamentary democracy itself. For our politicians, it proves that democracy means little more than loot and monopoly over the affairs of state. I see this bill as amounting to open and fearless corruption. It generates also crises for governance, for the rule of law and for the values that we wish to maintain. Good governance requires that the government should be subject to the law, but there seems nothing and nobody to answer for our politicians. This is the most unfortunate act by our parliamentarians so far. It is a great mockery of humanity, of moral authority, and it amounts to an extreme act of greed.

Of 195 independent countries in the world, Nepal is only 20 places above the very poorest. Why does our country always seem to be so helpless? There has to be a very simple answer: politicians and public institutions are not accountable to the people despite laws to regulate their conduct. Where is the human right of the poorest of our citizens to live in fairness and dignity? Politicians are elected to serve the interests of the general public and not act on their own petty desires. Why are they cheating the people? Why are they misusing their power constantly to serve their own vested interests?

Secondly, politics is supposed to provide service, but it has become a profession – and a lucratively paid one at that. Politics should be a job of selfless service towards society, to make society better and, most importantly, to transform society towards greater goodness. In our context, it appears that politics means getting rich overnight and grabbing more and more. As such it has become a job that is no different from working for a huge company or an NGO/INGO with attractive income, bonuses and expenses.

The new bill is thus the greatest insult to the poorest in our country, to the tax-payers and to common people in general. It gives the impression that our country is being run as a mafia state controlled by corrupted politicians, businessmen, and dalal-broker criminals. The politicians use poverty eradication only as propaganda in order to win votes. I strongly believe that while over 60 percent of our population is forced to live below the poverty line, this bill to increase VIP salaries and other facilities runs against the mandate of the people and amounts to a total misuse of authority and power. It is the most shameful act ever undertaken by our so-called representatives of the people. It is a pure criminal act in the name of the majority in the House and is a prime example of cronyism. The rule of law and constitutionalism, which are the principal pillars of a democracy, are being severely shaken by the actions of our so-called parliamentarians.

Finally, the bill indicates that this country appears to have entered an era of unprecedented corruption at the top such that Nepal could well claim to be the most corrupted spot on the whole planet. I believe that this constitutes a new form of terror and brutality against the inner soul of ordinary citizens. It is an act of large-scale legalised loot of public property and a misuse of public funds: most importantly it is a gross misuse of tax payers’ hard-earned money paid to the state by some of the poorest in the country. It proves that our politicians and parliamentarians are most undemocratic, unethical and selfish in their deeds and manners. When are they going to learn to adopt a more democratic culture and show a little more sincerity towards the people of the nation?

I strongly believe that the bill that serves only the petty interests of politicians and VIPs should be taken as a wake-up call for all of us. It is a symptom of a failed system of governance and of the rule of law. It is a monopoly by a few individuals over the resources of the state, and most importantly it is an extreme act of immorality. Our politicians have abandoned humanity, the very purpose of democracy and common sense, and the country has lost its direction.

Open corruption and the loot of public money must be halted. The politicians and public institutions must be held more accountable to the people and more responsible for their actions and omissions. Reform can only be achieved by public resistance, but how can that be done and who can do it? Real reform should destroy the systemic corruption on which politico-economic interests seem to rely. It requires the changing of institutions and mind-sets and the making of meaningful policies and programmes. Most importantly, we must enforce laws more effectively, and state institutions must be freed from the political parties.

Bangladesh, one of the densest countries in terms of population with about 1000 people living per square kilometre, has always been under huge pressure to feed its growing population. Intensive agricultural practice, which involves mono-cropping and use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, helped boost productivity initially. However, these approaches involved little or no replenishments of used up organic matter and so generations of unsustainable farming methods have resulted in deterioration of soil quality.

A recent research article that appears on Bangladesh Journals Online, established with support from INASP, shows that giving up unsustainable farming and adopting methods of conservation agriculture is beneficial both for the environment and the farmer’s livelihood.

The research on Conservation agriculture practice and its impact on farmers’ livelihood status in Bangladesh conducted in Mymensingh, Bogra, Tangail, Sherpur and Jamalpur districts by M. T. Uddin and A. R. Dhar of the Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Bangladesh found a remarkable improvement in crop production and livelihood of farmers after adopting conservation agriculture practice. The cost had gone down, and production risen resulting in an increased profit.

According to the research article, conservation agriculture is the practice of applying resource-saving techniques ensuring minimum mechanical soil disturbance, permanent organic soil cover and diversified crop rotations to achieve optimum profit from minimum possible cultivation cost while conserving the environment at the same time.

Despite the benefits of conservation agriculture like increased productivity and income, reduced working time, high water and energy efficiency, and conservation of the natural environment only a small proportion (8-10%) of global farmers follow this practice.

In the study conducted among 300 farmers of the region to assess the livelihoods of farmers practising conservation agriculture against those not practising it, 50 farmers practising conservation agriculture (focal farmers) were found have significantly increased their income and improved livelihood compared to the 150 (control group) farmers who did not adopt conservation agriculture. The livelihood and production of the 100 farmers (proximal) living nearby the focal group and thereby learning and adopting conservation agriculture practices partially had better livelihood and production than the control group, but not as good as that of the focal group.

“Cost of crop production was relatively lower and return from production was comparatively higher in conservation agriculture practice than conventional agriculture practice,” reports the research article. “Farmers’ income was increased and expenditure was decreased through adopting conservation agriculture practice.”

The research showed that focal group farmers had followed the three main principles of conservation agriculture – minimum tillage, retaining crop residue and practicing crop rotation.

The focal group farmers had also followed other principles of conservation agriculture such as using compost manure, vermi-compost, cow dung, bio-slurry and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) technology. They did not use any synthetic pesticides and herbicides and kept the use of synthetic fertilizers to a minimum.

Proximal farmers had practised some of these techniques, while the control group farmers did not practise any of the conservation agriculture techniques and instead used synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and medicine.

The research findings show that conservation practice is the best approach to follow for both soil and environment conservation and poverty reduction. The practice is also suitable because most of the farmers in Bangladesh are small holder farmers with landholding of less than a hectare.

According to the research article, “poverty in terms of deprivation of health, education and living standards was decreased; and overall livelihood circumstances were improved adopting conservation agriculture practice”.

The farmers not only increased their production but also fetched better prices at the market as their products were chemical free. The authors have made some policy recommendations including input support, motivation and extension services from the government to raise awareness about practising conservation agriculture.

“Also, initiative for scientific and technical training programmes should be arranged by different government and non-government organizations to enrich the knowledge of the farmers on conservation agriculture practice,” recommends the article.

Energy crowdfunding platforms and investors currently experience many problems if they want to finance projects that cross the legal boundaries between the EU member states. International experts are striving to harmonize to European regulations in the sector

Renewable energy crowdfunding involves three different parties: the fundraising platform, the investors who generally expect a return, and project developers needing money. They may come from different nations. And that is surely a complication, since there isn’t one legislative framework for this business sector, nor one that is so recent and linked to the use of the web.

This challenge has been under the lens of international lawyers, such as Osborn Clarke legal practice, who has produced a lot of relevant material. In the release named Crowdfunding crossing borders, they observe that if a platform aims to expand its business into other EU member states, it will need legal advice in those countries. And an investor wishing to invest in a cross border project listed on a foreign platform, should be aware of how the law differs from his or her home country. The same applies if the investment is related to a project owner abroad.

According to Thorge Drefke, an Osborne Clarke associate in Köln, Germany, already in late 2014 the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published its opinion/advice on investment-based crowdfunding, which clarifies how crowdfunding models fit within existing EU legislation such as MiFID, Prospectus Directive, AIFMD and other financial regulations.

ESMA affirms that, where crowdfunding platforms operate within MiFID (the “Markets in Financial Instruments Directive” has been in force since 2007. It will be updated in 2018 to increase transparency across the EU financial markets), the current EU regime provides a reasonable degree of risk mitigation, due to disclosure requirements and classification of risk profiles of the investors. But for platforms operating outside MiFID, investor protection could be mitigated by measures at local level as national legislation doesn’t require compliance with the directive.

Regarding the Prospectus Directive, it stipulates that producing a prospectus is not mandatory if the amount payable for all shares offered over a period of 12 months in aggregate across all Member States, is less than €5 million. But EU countries have chosen different thresholds under national law for the minimum size of offers for which a prospectus must be produced.

ESMA assumes that the strong incentives for project sizes to be kept below the relevant offer size threshold, imposed under national regimes, pose challenges to the viability of the crowdfunding platform business model. Some platforms could limit the type or the number of investors in projects in order to benefit from one of the exemptions set out in the Prospectus Directive (which is currently under review and should increase the size limit to €8 million).

In 2016, for the first time, the European Parliament asked the European Commission to present an initiative to regulate and harmonize crowdfunding practices across the EU.

“The main issue for platforms is that they cannot actively market investment opportunities across different member states without complying with each country’s requirements,” said Oliver Gajda, executive director of the European Crowdfunding Network (ECN).

Alex Raguet, founder of the French crowdfunding platform Lumo, confirms that few players have licenses for crossing borders. “We are only regulated for France. I can’t translate my site into English, but we have a lot of English people living in France and we would like them to invest in our platform,” he said.

To find solutions to such issues, ECN and Lumo have joined the international network of the European project CrowdFundRES, which aims to unleash the potential of crowdfunding for financing renewable energy projects.

The European Commission published a report on crowdfunding in May 2016. “This report gives a detailed description of the regulatory environment of crowdfunding in the EU,” said Drefke, “But the EC states that currently, as crowdfunding remains largely local and the sector is changing rapidly, there is no strong case for a EU level framework. However, the EC will keep developments in the sector under close review, and meet twice per year with regulators and the sector”.

Which legislation could be a benchmark for harmonizing the regulatory situation?

“According to our experience, for example, Austria and the UK have crowdfunding regulations which could be called advanced,” Drefke pointed out.

Austria has a specific Crowdinvesting act, called Alternativfinanzierungsgesetz, providing for a legal framework for crowdfunding platforms. In the UK the specific regulations are left to administrative provisions published by the Financial Conduct Authority – FCA, which allows for a flexible response to economic or social developments of crowdfunding business.

“In France you can’t do nothing for two years while you wait for inspections and authorisations. In London small frameworks are required to let business start,” Raguet said.

Bearing in mind that 81% of the whole European crowdfunding market volume in 2015(including any types of crowdfunding such as peer-to-peer, equity or lending or reward donation crowdfunding etc.) is generated in the UK, the liberal British legislation playing a role in this strong market position.

By Michael Lelyveld

Promises of production cuts have stirred up the world oil market this month, but the turnaround in coal prices may be the biggest energy and environmental story for China in the past year.

After a prolonged slump in prices and output since 2013, China’s coal mines bounced back with a surge in production and profits in the second half of 2016, thanks in part to government miscalculations and market controls.

Prices for steam coal at China’s Qinhuangdao Port distribution center jumped more than 48 percent between January and September to 550 yuan (U.S. $79.16) per metric ton, the official English-language China Daily reported.

In mid-November, spot market prices were reported as high as 750 yuan (U.S. $107.95) per ton, The Australian Financial Review said.

The increases came despite continuing declines in Chinese coal demand over the past three years, according to official reports, leading the government to order cuts in production overcapacity.

But by the end of 2016, China’s miners were scrambling to replenish low stockpiles at the country’s power plants, while the government struggled to keep prices and pollution under control.

The effects of the sudden shortages in China have been felt in coal markets around the world, said Keisuke Sadamori, head of the International Energy Agency (IEA) directorate of energy markets and security.

“There is no doubt that the main development in 2016 was the price increase, unexpected by many and triggered by Chinese policies to curb the oversupply and exacerbated by some disruptions in Australia, Indonesia and China,” Sadamori said at a Paris press conference to preview the IEA’s medium-term coal market forecast.

The stage was set for the turnaround in February when the government told coal mines and steel mills to slash surplus production capacity after years of international pressure over low prices and job losses abroad.

The government’s top planning agency ordered the coal industry to eliminate 500 million tons of excess capacity by 2020 and consolidate another 500 million tons under more efficient operators.

China accounts for about half the world’s coal and steel output, but its coal production capacity has been estimated to outstrip annual demand by as much as 2 billion tons.

‘Progress faster than expected’

For 2016, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) targeted a capacity cut of 250 million tons, a reduction that was met “ahead of schedule” in late November, according to a statement by the cabinet-level State Council.

“Progress came faster than expected,” the official Xinhua news agency said in a year-end report.

What the report did not say is that the NDRC repeatedly warned the industry through much of the year that it was not cutting capacity fast enough.

By the end of June, mining companies had achieved just 29 percent of the 2016 target. By August, they had met only 60 percent of the goal, the NDRC said.

At the same time, the government was trying to spur the economy with infrastructure projects that accelerated steel demand, driving up prices and reactivating mills that were supposed to be closed.

Demand for smog-producing coal spiked in the third quarter as prices began climbing and power companies complained that their inventories had dropped below 20 days of supplies.

Logistical snarls and fears of winter shortages added to the crisis, putting the government in the contradictory position of claiming that it was reducing production capacity while pushing the mines to boost output and days of operation.

Ironically, the government has taken credit in the past month for positive reports on industrial output and profits that rely in part on increases from steel and coal producers that were ordered to make cuts.

Last month, the NDRC tried to cool off the coal market by calling on mines to sign mid- and longer-term supply contracts with power producers at prices below market rates.

The tactic may have temporarily succeeded in keeping prices from climbing even higher, but the effect on supplies and shortages remains unclear.

Recent official reports for November paint an ambiguous picture.

According to the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), coal production in November rose 9 percent from October to 308.1 million tons but lagged year-earlier output by 5.1 percent, Reuters said.

The results contradicted a statement one day earlier from a senior industry official that production had increased both month-on-month and year-on-year after emergency measures to ease shortages, the news agency reported.

Further efforts to increase production have faced delays, said Jiang Zhimin, vice president of the China Coal Industry Association (CISA) in a briefing on Dec. 12.

“Most of the mines in China are underground. It takes time for them to restart production and increase (the number of) workers,” said Jiang.

“Some smaller coal mines have ramped up output illegally,” Reuters quoted Jiang as saying.

‘Very slow decline’ in demand

In the meantime, the government’s claims of capacity cutting appear to clash with a surge in reported mining accidents and smog alerts in urban centers and industrial areas.

Last week, the consequences of coal burning descended on China in the dirtiest smog attack of the past year as Beijing and at least 23 other cities posted their highest-level red alerts, closing highways, airports and schools.

Concentrations of fine soot particles known as PM 2.5 soared above 1,000 micrograms per cubic meter at one monitoring station in Shijiazhuang, the capital of northern Hebei province, Xinhua reported.

The reading is 40 times higher than safe levels established by the World Health Organization.

Industry and environmental analysts cited increased output from coal-burning steel mills as a “likely contributor” to the red-alert smog, China Daily said.

In its Medium-Term Coal Market Report released this month, the IEA continued to forecast a “very slow decline” in China’s coal demand over the next five years, reaching a level in 2021 slightly lower than the estimated peak in 2013.

But the study sounded a note of caution.

“Regardless of whether its demand has peaked or not, China will be the largest user of coal by far through the outlook period,” the report said.

The question of whether China’s coal demand has started growing again is central to forecasts of climate change.

In 2014, the country’s coal demand accounted for 51.6 percent of the global total, while coal was responsible for 83 percent of the world’s energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, according to calculations based on data from the IEA’s annual World Energy Outlook.

“In the matter of the price spike this year, I don’t think this is going to reframe the structural reforms of the coal sector in China in the coming years,” said Carlos Fernandez Alvarez, acting head of the IEA’s gas, coal and power markets division, in response to a question from RFA.

But the uneven pace of rebalancing between supply and demand, disrupted by frequent government interventions, may result in further volatility for coal prices in the coming year, said Philip Andrews-Speed, a China energy expert at National University of Singapore.

“I think the combined unpredictability of international coal markets, coal demand in China, net coal mine closure, mine output in China and government price controls will necessarily lead to greater volatility, not least as actors seek to game the system,” Andrews-Speed said by email.

By Rakesh Sood

On January 20, next year, Donald Trump will take over as the 45th President of the United States of America, at a time when the U.S. remains engaged in the longest war in its history — the war in Afghanistan. He will be the third President to deal with the war launched in 2001 by U.S. President George Bush and sought to be brought to a conclusion by his successor U.S. President Barack Obama.

Even though ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ ended on December 28, 2014 implying an end to formal combat operations by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) forces, the U.S. still maintains approximately 9,800 troops as part of the international troop presence numbering over 12,000 under ‘Operation Resolute Support’. Primary responsibility for fighting the insurgency was transferred to the Afghan National Security Forces (consisting of the military and the police) two years ago but U.S. presence is essential to provide critical domain awareness, intelligence and surveillance support, air power and special forces.

For Mr. Bush, the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was an integral part of his “war on terror”, launched on September 20, 2001. The U.S.-led effort enjoyed broad international support which continued even after Mr. Bush’s ill-conceived invasion in Iraq in 2003 in search of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq invasion however diluted Washington’s focus on the challenges it faced in Afghanistan.

In 2009, Mr. Obama drew a clear distinction between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, describing the latter as “a war of necessity”, a “war that we (USA) have to win”. He ordered a troop surge in 2009 while simultaneously announcing the date for withdrawal of the U.S. from combat operations. This flawed decision may have been the result of domestic compulsions but it breathed fresh life into the insurgency.

Gains and losses

Much blood and treasure has been expended in Afghanistan. The U.S. alone has spent more than $800 billion in Afghanistan, of which $115 billion has been spent on reconstruction; more than the inflation adjusted expenditure under the Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe after World War II at $105 billion! The ISAF (consisting of over 40 countries) suffered 3,500 fatal casualties during the last 15 years, with the U.S. bearing the largest loss at 2,400 lives. At the NATO summit in Warsaw earlier this year, it was agreed to maintain the current international troop presence till 2020 while providing annual financial support of $4.5 billion for the Afghan security forces.

It is clear that this is unlikely to bring about a material change in the situation in Afghanistan. In fact, casualties among the Afghan forces and civilians have risen rapidly in recent years. The total civilian casualties are estimated at 31,000; this year witnessed a spike. The Afghan security forces have suffered significant casualties, rising from 21,000 in 2014 to about 30,000 today.

Out of 408 districts, the government writ holds in 258 while 33 have come under the control of the insurgents, largely in the south. The remaining 116 districts are contested zones.

It is true that some progress has been registered. Life expectancy has gone up from 40 years in 2002 to 62 years today. From 9,00,000 boys in school then, the number of children in school is now more than 8 million, more than a third are girls. Literacy figures have gone up from 12 per cent to 34 per cent in 15 years. Today, with a median age of 18 years, Afghanistan has one of the youngest populations with 60 per cent of the population below 21 years of age. This progress can be sustained only if peace can be restored.

Different political approaches

Former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai realised early on that the key to restoring peace and stability in Afghanistan lay in Pakistan. He described the Taliban as “Pashtun brothers” and tried to improve relations with Pakistan. In many of his speeches, Mr. Karzai referred to India “as an old friend” and Pakistan as “a brother and conjoined twin”. The metaphor may not be apt — because half the conjoined twins are stillborn and an additional one-third die within 24 hours — but it does capture Pakistan’s critical role. Eventually, he became exasperated with Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s rebuffs and tried, unsuccessfully, to open up his own channels for dialogue with the Quetta Shura, first with Mullah Obaidullah and then with Mullah Baradar, only to have them successively neutralised by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Mr. Ghani went a step further. Having witnessed Mr. Karzai’s doomed efforts and conscious of the political fragility of his National Unity Government, he swallowed his pride and even called on the Pakistani Army chief, Gen. Raheel Sharif, at the GHQ, in Rawalpindi in 2014, a departure from protocol that raised many eyebrows. He tacitly accepted Pakistan’s demand that Afghanistan diminish the salience of its relationship with India, in the expectation that Pakistan would play a positive role to ensure political reconciliation. A new track was opened with the Quadrilateral Coordination Group consisting of Afghanistan, Pakistan, China and the U.S. However, Mr. Ghani too felt betrayed when he learnt that the myth of Mullah Omar had been sustained for at least two years and despite his pleading, the ISI went ahead with the anointment of Mullah Mansour as the new Taliban leader. As insurgency grew, he publicly blamed Pakistan of sending “a message of war” when he had held out a hand of peace.

In their own fashion, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama saw the Pakistan problem but were content to manage the situation rather than push for a solution. Mr. Bush ensured the first round of peaceful elections in Afghanistan by laying down clear redlines for Gen. Musharraf but during his second term, he was preoccupied with Iraq. Mr. Obama tried diplomacy by appointing the high profile U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke as Special Representative for AfPak but eventually decided that the best way for the U.S. to address the issue was to reduce its role and presence in Afghanistan. The Kerry-Lugar assistance package for Pakistan turned out to be more carrot than stick.

Pakistan’s overreach

Given a porous border with Afghanistan with tribal linkages cutting across the Durand Line, Pakistan’s legitimate interests can be understood as also the fact that it is critical to any political reconciliation in Afghanistan. However, what Pakistan has been seeking is to exercise a veto over Kabul’s relations with Delhi which the Afghans are unwilling to concede.

Pakistan’s policies towards both India and Afghanistan are determined primarily by the Army which sees India as an existential threat. Looking at its relations with Afghanistan through the India prism makes it inevitable that Pakistan can only have a relationship with Afghanistan that is mired in mistrust, suspicion and hostility. Since relations with India are unlikely to normalise in the foreseeable future, the only way out for Pakistan to play a constructive role in Afghanistan is to accept the idea of Afghan sovereignty and autonomy and refrain from making it a zone of India-Pakistan rivalry.

Unless Pakistan changes its attitude, political reconciliation in Afghanistan will remain unlikely. The Taliban today is a fractured lot, neither a Vietcong nor even a Hezbollah. Its fragmentation does not affect its ability to launch terrorist attacks in Afghanistan but certainly makes it more difficult to get it to the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, the National Unity Government in Kabul is not a strong and united entity thereby reducing its negotiating space. All this diminishes Pakistan’s ability to deliver the Taliban too; it can ensure presence for a one-off meeting but lacks the political capital needed to underwrite the reconciliation process.

The challenge for Kabul is that it has to engage in multiple reconciliation processes — with the Taliban and with the Pakistani army. The hardline Taliban represented by the Haqqani network is determined to continue the fight militarily. However, even the more moderate who are willing to talk demand the exit of all foreign forces from Afghanistan. Not only could this bring about a collapse of the fragile coalition in Kabul but it would also reduce the international financial support which is critical to keep the government machinery working. Power sharing can be worked out, as demonstrated recently in the accord with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, but no government in Kabul can accept this Taliban redline.

The India factor

India has had the most effective economic cooperation programme, having spent more than $2 billion and committed another billion dollars earlier this year. Indians have also lost lives in deliberate attacks linked to the Haqqani group and the Lashkar-e-Taiban but this has not diminished the Indian role. It has only cemented Afghan-Indian relations which are now developing a military dimension. Never again will India be forced to close down its embassy in Kabul as it happened during the Taliban regime.

When President-elect Donald Trump takes charge, he will find that he has little choice in the matter. A complete withdrawal is out of question. His challenge will be to change the calculus of the Pakistani establishment, increase capabilities of the Afghan security forces to inflict attrition on the insurgents, and, in 2019, support an election in Afghanistan that brings about a more cohesive government. In all this, he will find the Narendra Modi government to be a reliable and trusted partner.

This article originally appeared in The Hindu.