US President-elect Donald Trump uses the mantle of unpredictability to disguise his foreign policy intentions. However behind his missteps the incoming Trump administration has no consistent worldview from which to fashion a coherent strategy. It is more prudent to expect US foreign policy to be reactive, piecemeal, and improvised.

By Harry Sa*

With just weeks before the start of Donald Trump’s presidency one thing has become abundantly clear: American foreign policy is going to experience a dramatic but unpredictable shift. From NATO to Israel, policies that were once inviolate seem more pliable than ever. A Trumpian foreign policy will be one of surprises, uncertainty, and volatility, expected of a man who embraces unpredictability as a virtue.

Because he has been careful to cultivate the image of a man playing his cards close to his chest, some experts and analysts have ascribed to Trump some sort of vague Machiavellian quality to make sense of his decision-making. His phone call with President Tsai Ing-wen has been rationalised as playing some sort of a Taiwan card. However, there is a much simpler explanation: President-elect Donald Trump and his administration have no consistent worldview to formulate a coherent foreign policy.

America’s Next Top Diplomat, Season 1

One of the earliest signs of the Trump administration’s lack of vision for the world was its frantic search for the country’s top diplomat. It was more reminiscent of Trump’s beauty pageants and reality TV shows. The country was captivated as the pool of candidates ballooned to ten names, all with dissimilar backgrounds, qualifications, and values. To complicate the situation further, the candidates’ policy stances often deviated from Trump’s campaign pledges.

For example, former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton was a committed interventionist despite Trump’s penchant for isolationism. Senator Bob Corker is a strong supporter of the Iran nuclear deal which Trump disses. Governor Mitt Romney would have been a relatively reasonable choice, but is an embodiment of the establishment that Trump so vehemently opposed.

One could blame political infighting, mistrust, or inexperience as the culprits for this fiasco, but the real reason is likely that Trump had no concrete idea of how to approach this world, much less find the right individual to represent his administration’s policies. Finally, the search ended, not with a bang, but with a whimper as Trump tapped an unknown, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, based on recommendations of former Bush officials.

The First 50 Days

Even before 2016 was in the history books, the president-elect has already been tested numerous times on the world stage. The first round of tests came immediately after his surprise victory in November. After spending the entire campaign railing against the expense of protecting Asian allies, Trump called South Korean President Park Geun-hye and reaffirmed the alliance and the US’ commitment to the Korean peninsula.

A week later, Trump personally met with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and reportedly had a productive and cordial meeting. Prime Minister Abe left New York “convinced Mr. Trump is a leader in whom I can have great confidence”. A few days after, the president-elect announced his plans to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a huge blow to Abe’s political standing in Japan.

The phone conversation with Pakistani Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif was also unexpected given Trump’s views on Islam and terrorism. A readout of the call from the Prime Minister’s office shows Donald Trump waxing poetic about Pakistan’s potential and that Trump is “ready and willing to play any role” required of him to reach that potential. Gone are any concerns over Pakistan providing a haven for Al Qaeda and consistently being accused of training Islamist militants to attack India. This is also amid rising tensions between the two South Asian nuclear powers and a budding relationship between India and the US.

In a departure from decades of presidential protocol, Trump startled the world by accepting a phone call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. While Vice President-elect Mike Pence described it as a simple and routine congratulatory call, staff-members of both presidents said this was a call that was mutually agreed upon. Despite the Vice President-elect’s assurances, there was nothing routine about this call. Instead, it was meant to send a clear and obvious message: Donald Trump is going to shake things up. Then, the question is just how will he do this?

Trump’s only consistent foreign policy stance, his admiration for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, is also the most perplexing. The latest test of Trump’s diplomatic nous is the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the US by outgoing President Obama for their alleged involvement in the November elections which Moscow has denied and for which President Putin has refrained from any retaliation pending Trump’s taking office.

Interpreting Trump’s Foreign Policy

Instead of suggesting the direction of Donald Trump’s foreign policy, these early tests have only compounded the confusion. There is no pattern, vision, or grand strategy. He has proved time and time again that his campaign speeches are unreliable indicators. Now, with only a few weeks left until Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 45th President of the United States, observers are still struggling to understand what his foreign policy will look like: A very alarming state.

At least for the first few phases of his presidency, given his lack of experience, Trump will take a “learn on the job” approach. During this period, the US will undoubtedly be tested by other powers. The Trump Doctrine will consist of dealing with these contingencies on a piecemeal and ad-hoc basis. Until the Trump administration formulates a coherent strategy, American foreign policy will become more reactive. The number of tense situations and political gaffes are expected to rise, especially if President Trump is allowed continued use of his Twitter account.

Partners and allies can rely on institutional inertia to maintain some of their ties with the US. However, even the most intimate relationships will be tested, and for the time being, will be forced to wait for a genuine foreign policy to emerge. This will be an ideal time for those partners and allies to diversify their security and economic relations. Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines have already exhibited signs of doing so. The international system is not so easily changed, which will provide some semblance of continuity. Nevertheless, judging from Trump’s first 50 days, we are headed towards unpredictable and vexing times.

*Harry Sa is a Research Analyst with the United States Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Thai Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan said on Wednesday, January 4 a general election will be held this year after doubts were raised by a member of the national legislative assembly, Reuters reports.

Thailand’s next polls will restore civilian rule following a 2014 coup, and will be the first under a new constitution, approved in a referendum last year, that critics say will ensure military oversight of elected governments.

“We can’t move it. It has its time frame. What the National Legislative Assembly has said is their problem,” Prawit, who is also defense minister, told reporters in Bangkok.

A member of the military-appointed National Legislative Assembly said on Monday the election would have to be delayed until 2018 to allow time to pass laws needed to hold it.

Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, a former army chief who led the 2014 overthrow of the last elected government, has sought to dispel concern his military government might delay the restoration of democracy, dismissing talk among politicians that the vote would be delayed.

“In terms of the roadmap, you mustn’t heed what anyone else says,” Prayuth told reporters in Bangkok.

The army said the 2014 coup, the second takeover in six years, was necessary to restore stability after months of sometimes deadly street protests against the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

Some Western governments have pressed for a swift return to democracy.

The junta has struggled to kick-start a lackluster economy which, after years of impressive growth, is struggling amid high household debt and low consumer confidence.

The next step in the transition back to civilian rule is for new King Maha Vajiralongkorn to endorse the new constitution.

The king, who came to the throne following the death of his father, King Bhumibol Adulyadej in October, has until next month to do so.

Critics say certain elements of the constitution could stifle democracy including a provision establishing an appointed upper house Senate with seats reserved for military commanders.

Some politicians have suggested that the election should be postponed until 2018 because this year, the country will be focusing on preparations for the cremation of the late king and the subsequent coronation of the new one.

Amnuay Klangpa, a former lawmaker from Yingluck’s party, urged Prayuth to stick to his word on the election timing.

“I hope the prime minister keeps his word and holds elections according to the government’s roadmap at the end of this year,” he said.

The perception that e-cigarettes are less harmful than regular cigarettes fell between 2012 and 2014, a sign that fewer people see them as a safe alternative to smoking tobacco, a new study led by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health suggests.

In 2012, the study found, half of those surveyed thought e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes. By 2014, the number had dropped to 43 percent. During this period, advertisers often represented e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes, the researchers note. E-cigarettes are battery-operated devices that convert liquid containing nicotine into vapor that consumers inhale.

The study was based on the Health Information National Trends Surveys conducted by the National Cancer Institute. The nationally representative sample included smokers, former smokers and non-smokers. The study appears online in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

The researchers were surprised by the findings, given the mixed assessments of e-cigarettes’ risk compared to traditional tobacco products. Since they were introduced to the U.S. market in 2007, the devices have been pitched to consumers as potentially safer alternatives to cigarettes, or even a harmless way to stop smoking, given that e-cigarettes contain no tobacco, a known carcinogen that also causes pulmonary and heart disease.

On the other hand, some in public health fear that e-cigarettes could become a gateway to smoking tobacco for young people. Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the world.

“It’s a good thing that information about e-cigarettes’ possible adverse health effects has gotten out there, especially considering there wasn’t a government or public health push during the study years,” said study leader Eric W. Ford, PhD, MPH, a professor in the Bloomberg School’s Department of Health Policy and Management. “When misinformation about health effects about any substances becomes widespread, it is usually very hard to reverse the trend. That somehow happened here.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3.7 percent of U.S. adults were using e-cigarettes in 2014. E-cigarettes were more likely to be used by current cigarette smokers and former smokers who quit smoking within the past year than former smokers who quit smoking more than 1 year ago and those who had never smoked.

There is no overriding consensus among researchers about whether e-cigarettes are indeed harmful to human health. There are, Ford explains, two research knowns. On the one hand, e-cigarettes eliminate many of the carcinogenic elements associated with smoking tobacco. On the other hand, e-cigarettes may include flavorings and other ingredients containing the chemical diacetyl, which can cause bronchiolitis obliterans, or “popcorn lung,” the thickening and narrowing of the airways due to scarring of the lung’s air sacs. (The condition was so named because diacetyl was once used as a butter flavoring for microwavable popcorn.)

Earlier this year, in a much-anticipated move, the Food and Drug Administration announced that it would start regulating e-cigarettes the same way it regulates cigarettes – including banning their sale to anyone under age 18. The FDA has not yet proposed additional regulations around e-cigarettes. Earlier this month, in the government’s strongest warning to date, the U.S. Surgeon General urged young people to avoid e-cigarettes altogether, calling them “unsafe.” Among children, teens and young adults, e-cigarettes are the most commonly used nicotine product.

For the study, the researchers combined three “cycles” of data from the 2012, 2013 and 2014 Health Information National Trends Survey, an annual survey of U.S. households sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. The surveys, which included 3,630 respondents in 2012, 3,185 in 2013 and 3,677 in 2014, were made up of about 60 percent non-smokers, 20 percent former smokers and 20 percent current smokers. The study also found that awareness of e-cigarettes jumped from 77.1 percent in 2012 to 94.3 percent in 2014.

The researchers also looked at whether awareness of e-cigarettes among current smokers influenced their attempts at quitting or intention to quit. They found no association. While some smokers may independently use e-cigarettes to try and quit, doctors are not advising patients to do so. They typically suggest trying nicotine patches or chewing gum.

Smokers who perceived e-cigarettes as less harmful than traditional cigarettes were less likely to have attempted to quit in the previous year.

Sugar-free and “diet” drinks are often seen as the healthier option – but researchers from Imperial College London have argued that they are no more helpful for maintaining a healthy weight than their full-sugar versions.

In a commentary on current research and policy into sweetened drinks, academics from Imperial College London and two Brazilian universities (University of Sao Paulo and Federal University of Pelotas) argued that sugar-free versions of drinks may be no better for weight loss or preventing weight gain than their full sugar counterparts, and may also be detrimental to the environment.

Artificially-sweetened beverages (ASBs) are alternatives to full-sugared drinks. They contain no sugar and are sweetened with artificial sweeteners instead. ASBs are often known as “diet” versions of soft drinks, and may be perceived by consumers as the healthier option for those who want to lose weight or reduce their sugar intake. However, there is no solid evidence to support the claims that they are any better for health or prevent obesity and obesity related diseases such as type 2 diabetes.

Professor Christopher Millett, senior investigator from Imperial’s School of Public Health, said, “A common perception, which may be influenced by industry marketing, is that because ‘diet’ drinks have no sugar, they must be healthier and aid weight loss when used as a substitute for full sugar versions. However we found no solid evidence to support this.”

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) such as soft drinks, fruit-flavoured drinks, and sports drinks, make up a third of UK teenagers’ sugar intake, and nearly half of all sugar intake in the US. SSBs provide many calories but very few essential nutrients, and their consumption is a major cause of increasing rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

ASBs currently comprise a quarter of the global sweetened beverages market, but they are not taxed or regulated to the same extent as SSBs – perhaps due to their perceived harmlessness, say the researchers.

Despite having no or very little energy content, there is a concern that ASBs might trigger compensatory food intake by stimulating sweet taste receptors. This, together with the consumers’ awareness of the low-calorie content of ASBs, may result in overconsumption of other foods, thus contributing to obesity, type 2 diabetes and other obesity-related health problems.

Professor Millett and colleagues outlined current evidence of the health effects of consuming ASBs. Although there was no direct evidence for a role of ASBs in weight gain, they found that there was no evidence that ASBs aid weight loss or prevent weight gain compared with the full sugar versions.

In addition, the production of ASBs has negative consequences for the environment, with up to 300 litres of water required to produce a 0.5 L plastic bottle of carbonated soft drink.

Dr Maria Carolina Borges, first author of the study from the Federal University of Pelotas in Brazil added: “The lack of solid evidence on the health effects of ASBs and the potential influence of bias from industry funded studies should be taken seriously when discussing whether ASBs are adequate alternatives to SSBs.”

Professor Carlos Monteiro, co-author from the University of Sao Paulo, said: “Taxes and regulation on SBS and not ASBs will ultimately promote the consumption of diet drinks rather than plain water – the desirable source of hydration for everyone.”

The authors added: “Far from helping to solve the global obesity crisis, ASBs may be contributing to the problem and should not be promoted as part of a healthy diet.”

A smartphone app that could help smokers stick to New Year’s resolutions to quit by playing games to combat cravings has been developed by academics at Kingston University London and Queen Mary University of London (QMUL).

Cigbreak Free was the brainchild of games creation processes lecturer Hope Caton, from Kingston University London’s School of Computer Science and Mathematics, and Robert Walton, Professor of Primary Medical Care at QMUL.

Ms Caton – who has extensive experience in video games, having worked on global hit TombRaider IV: The Last Revelation – teamed up with Professor Walton to see if they could combine a fun gaming experience with educational health messages to help smokers fight the urge to light up.

The result of the collaboration between the two universities was an app that works like a regular smartphone game, with players having to complete tasks to progress through levels, gaining rewards and gold stars along the way. However, it also incorporates a combination of some 37 behavioural change techniques – theory-based methods for changing behaviour – selected by QMUL health psychologists to help smokers quit, Ms Caton explained. “People think games are frivolous but we learn a lot through play,” she said. “The good thing about a smartphone gaming app is that you can play it anywhere.

“Craving is a short-term thing, so if you get a craving at 11am, you can play the game in the warm until it passes, rather than going out into the cold for a cigarette. You’ve also got something to do with your hands other than smoke.”

In the game, players have to swipe a certain number of cigarettes to break them within a time limit. As well as progressing through levels, the app includes a quit journal where users can calculate how much money they are saving. There are also mini-games where players have to clear smoke from a room to reveal a health message.

The app has now been commissioned for use by five London boroughs – Kingston, Kensington and Chelsea, Hammersmith and Fulham, Tower Hamlets and the City of Westminster – as part of their public health smoking cessation services. Residents can download it, enter their postcode and use the app for free, with several hundred people having downloaded Cigbreak Free so far.

Ms Caton and Professor Walton were authors of a recent research study published in the British Medical Journal, which analysed the use of behaviour change techniques and game-like elements in health apps currently on the market. They found that very few of the health apps they looked at were using games to help people make positive health changes.

The development of the app was inspired by a desire to exploit the latest trends in gaming to help improve people’s health, according to Professor Walton, from QMUL. “Some of the health messages and behaviour change techniques we have used in the game are based on our previous research and include showing players the health consequences of a behaviour, gaining points for grabbing healthy items, or providing virtual financial incentives.

“We’re essentially trying to ‘gamify’ these messages and techniques as a way of embedding them in a person’s mind, in the hope that they will then be able to quit smoking.”

Rewards in the game were a way of giving smokers instant positive feedback, Ms Caton added. “When you’re trying to quit smoking you don’t get much instant feedback except desire. Your health is better but somehow it doesn’t have the same effect as being told you’re winning or getting a gold star,” she explained.

“We had to find subtle ways to include health messages so they don’t turn people off from playing, so the medical team ran 10 focus groups with 120 people to find out what worked and what didn’t.”

The team’s research is now being incorporated within teaching at Kingston University London, as part of digital smoking cessation intervention work led by associate professor Dr Darrel Greenhill. Students on the University’s postgraduate game development courses are helping build the next upgrade for the app, using analytics gathered from users to inform improvements to gameplay – with the aim of providing more personalised support to help smokers quit.

“It’s really good experience for our Masters students to be able to work together on projects such as this as part of their digital studio practice module,” said Dr Greenhill, course director for the University’s game development programmes. “Our courses have been developed in consultation with representatives from the likes of Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe and Telefonica Europe. This insight, along with the opportunity to work with clients on real-world game development, helps provide them with the vital skills needed when seeking employment in the digital media industry.”

In January – a key time for smokers to make the resolution to quit – the team will begin a three-month pilot study with app users to evaluate its effectiveness. “The next step for us is to prove quit rates,” Ms Caton said. “We’ve had people smoking 25 cigarettes a day quit, some who’ve gone from 25 to four. It shows it can be effective but we need to get the analytics into the app to get more data and that’s something we’re working on now.”

By Thomas J. Shattuck*

(FPRI) — On January 7, President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan will embark on a trip to the United States—not to visit President Barack Obama or President-elect Donald Trump, but to refuel her plane, rest, and conduct some meetings before moving on to Central America. This type of visit has become routine in U.S.-Taiwan relations and is nothing new or particularly special, so why is this trip so controversial?

Tsai is stopping in the US en route to state visits to some of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, specifically Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador. News outlets have covered this trip not because these countries are four on a list of only twenty-one states with formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan or because Sao Tome and Pincipe recently switched its recognition from Taiwan to China (a long and growing list), but because Tsai will stop in Houston and San Francisco briefly during transit. Since 1994, every president of Taiwan has landed in the United States while en route to visit diplomatic allies. These visits have ranged from a few hours to a few days—depending upon the state of U.S.-Taiwan relations.

The president of Taiwan must receive special permission from the U.S. government to land or to stay in the country for any amount of time. This rule was established to ease the minds of the Chinese who are suspicious of any interactions between the U.S. and Taiwan that hints of any kind of diplomatic recognition. Since the U.S. severed ties with Taiwan in 1979, no president of Taiwan has participated in an official state visit in the U.S.—only brief stopovers and meetings with U.S. Congressmen and other people of note.

In a post-“Trump Call” world, China is on alert for any indications of a major change in U.S. policy toward Taiwan. As a result, the Chinese foreign ministry has been unusually quite vocal about the potential of a Tsai stopover in the U.S. When asked about Tsai’s visit, Hua Chunying, a Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said,

The one-China policy is a consensus shared by the international community, and also a principle of how we handle Taiwan’s engagement with foreign countries. We hope that relevant countries can carefully address Taiwan-related issues. As to the Taiwan leader’s transit in the US, I believe her real intention is clear to all. We hope that the US side can follow the one-China policy and the three joint communiques, disallow the Taiwan leader’s transit in the US, refrain from sending any wrong signal to the pro-independence force in Taiwan, and take concrete steps to uphold the overall interests of China-US relations and maintain peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

In early December 2016, another spokesman said that “the so-called transit diplomacy is only a petty trick played by the Taiwan leader, whose hidden political agenda should be clear to all.” Despite these protests, the U.S. granted Tsai approval, and she will be landing in Houston  on January 7 and departing for Honduras on January 8, and then she will land in San Francisco on January 13 and return to Taiwan on January 15. Previous presidents have stopped over in Los Angeles, New York, Austin, Miami, Honolulu, and Anchorage—with the final city being the unofficial stopover location when ties between the U.S. and Taiwan are less than stellar.

Tsai has a busy schedule for her visit to Central America: she is visiting Honduras after being invited by its president, Juan Orlando Hernandez; she will attend the inauguration of President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua; and she will visit Antigua in Guatemala to promote tourism between Taiwan and Guatemala. All of these visits and events are important for the continuation of relations between these countries and Taiwan, but the only feature of the trip extensively covered in the news is her stopover in the U.S. and China’s outrage over what had become routine.

The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) noted to Reuters the routine nature of these visits: “President Tsai’s transit through the United States is based on long-standing U.S. practice and is consistent with the unofficial nature of our relations with Taiwan.” No matter how much the media or China tries to play up the controversy of this stopover, it should not qualify as exceptionally newsworthy. China’s perception of possible changes in U.S. policy and U.S.-Taiwan relations has caused even the smallest bit of information to be blown out of proportion. Did China raise a stink when Secretary of State John Kerry met with James Soong, Taiwan’s representative to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in November 2016? How about when U.S. Ambassador Matthew J. Matthews, Deputy Assistant Secretary and U.S. Senior Official for APEC, visited Taiwan in early December 2016? No—because these visits are routine, nothing special, just like Tsai’s impending “visit.”

The one thing to look out for is who Tsai meets in San Francisco and Houston. During her visit stopover in Miami in June 2016, Tsai met with Senator Marco Rubio. Will anyone tapped to be in the Trump administration meet with her? If so, how senior of an official and from which department? The answers to these questions are important and could give a glimpse into how a Trump administration will handle the “Taiwan question” beyond the infamous phone call. The genuine issues at stake here are not a routine stopover, but the seemingly deteriorating relations between the U.S. and China, the apparent risks to cross-strait relations, and apprehensions about what the impending Trump administration will do come January 20, 2017 in regards to cross-strait relations and China policy.

About the author:
* Thomas J. Shattuck is the Assistant Editor and a Research Associate at FPRI. He received his BA in History and English from La Salle University in 2013 and his MA in International Studies from National Chengchi University in 2016. Thomas also received a Fulbright grant to teach English in Kinmen, Taiwan for the 2013-14 academic year.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

By Vijay Shankar*

If armed hostilities, for the initiator, has very little to do with military balance both conventional and nuclear; then it raises the prospect that balance may indeed be skewed against gravity.

The late Thomas Schelling remarking on how skewed a nuclear deterrent relationship could get, famously drew the analogy of “one driver in a game of chicken who tears out and brandishes his steering column.” Conventional wisdom suggests that nuclear brinkmanship is the deliberate creation of a recognisable risk, exposing adversaries to mutual intimidation. If that risk is slanted such as by tearing out the steering column, then the act has a high probability of unleashing a nuclear catastrophe. By tossing the steering wheel out, the reckless motorist assumes the other player will concede the tourney. But this is not necessarily so since removal of the steering wheel to the other may well constitute a breakdown in the deterrent relationship, releasing the latter from nuclear restraint that the relationship may have implied.

The Zhenbao Incident

On 2 March 1969, Chinese troops ambushed and killed a group of Soviet border guards on Zhenbao Island; one of the (then) disputed islands on the Ussuri River. As Sino-Soviet tensions heightened, ownership of these islands designated as a border by the 1860 Treaty of Peking, became a grave issue. To Moscow, the Treaty identified the boundary as running along the Chinese riverbank. China saw, in military action, resolve to deter future provocations partly aggravated by the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and further incited by the ‘Brezhnev Doctrine’ that gave rights to the Soviets to intervene in the affairs of Communist countries. Mao intended the limited attack to demonstrate that it could not be bullied. Moscow, however, interpreted China’s actions as aggressive and characteristic of a revisionist tendency. By end March, the battle escalated across a wider front.

On the diplomatic front, each armed escalation was paired with threats of increase in combat operations. So extensive was the intimidation that Mao feared a Soviet invasion preceded by a nuclear ‘first strike’. Behind the frontline, the USSR had requested US neutrality in the matter – the US had other intentions as diplomatic manoeuvres were afoot that sought China as a means of containing the Soviets. By August the USSR threatened to cross the nuclear Rubicon. For Beijing, the knowledge that Moscow had approached other countries to ascertain response to a nuclear strike greatly increased the credibility of the nuclear attack. However, Beijing’s perception of threat-reliability had unintended consequences that stoked the possibility of a nuclear exchange. China believed that negotiations were a mask for a nuclear “sneak attack.”

By October 1969, alarmed by an imminent Soviet nuclear strike, Chinese leadership evacuated Beijing, and placed its nuclear forces (stockpile of 60 to 80 warheads), on hair trigger alert. Had China wrenched out the steering column? There is much to suggest that it had. Kremlin, as recent reports testify, was stunned at the prospects of a people’s war under the overhang of a steering-less nuclear arsenal. It would appear that the Soviets had swerved out of the path of an uncontrolled Armageddon, and as in Schelling’s game of chicken, conceded the tourney. The two nations, by end October, were at the negotiation table.

Skewing Against Gravity

A central argument in contemporary deterrence literature is that nuclear weapons induce predictability in inter-state relations and prompt mirror imaging in policy-making; this in turn transforms national behaviour and reduces the likelihood of direct conflict between nuclear-armed states. Nuclear weapons, by this thinking, circumscribe the limits of conventional warfare. To the contrary, the Zhenbao war suggests that there can be armed conflicts that, for the initiator, have nothing to do with the military balance both conventional and nuclear. Critically it raises the prospect that balance may indeed be skewed against gravity. The India-Pakistan hostile correlation; China’s activities in the South China Sea, and the North Korea nuclear stand-off are stark reminders of this precept.

Differing Ideas of Deterrence

Strategic culture and the differing idea of deterrence characterise a key role in determining actions taken by international players. China’s traditional word for deterrence, weishe, means “to intimidate militarily” without nuances. While the Oxford English dictionary defines the verb “to deter” as to discourage or prevent, usually by instilling anxiety; from this is derived the accepted idea that essentially upholds the status quo. What Pakistan understands remains blurred: whether it is to discourage all forms of armed conflict against India or to provide an umbrella for non-state actors to bleed India is ambiguous. The introduction of jihadists and non-state actors is unique in that it delivers an asymmetricity that keeps the level of warfare well under the nuclear shadow, is deniable, and yet its impact can be as consequential as any act of war.

Indian strategic planners will do well to appreciate that the international nuclear milieu today is complex and multilateral in nature which increases the chances of strategic misunderstanding. The demand is for explicit credibility if deterrence is to be functional and exertive. In addition, the Zhenbao incident highlights an important dilemma: for deterrence to be effective, an opponent must fear the consequences of actions; however, excessive anxiety is also a potential peril, as it can lead to paranoia that ‘tears out the steering column’.

* Vijay Shankar
Former Commander-in-Chief, Strategic Forces Command of India

By Joyce Karam

With just two weeks left in office, US President Barack Obama is planning a final transfer of 19 detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, leaving behind 40 prisoners, a much smaller number than the 780 when the facility first opened in 2002.

But even with this number, experts agree that Obama will not be able to fulfill his 2008 campaign pledge of closing the military prison.

Instead, on Jan. 20 the current administration will likely be handing over the Guantanamo keys to President-elect Donald Trump, who has been opposed to its closure and has called for a freeze on the detainees’ transfers.

Obama’s final transfer

Three weeks after Trump’s win in the November election, the New York Times broke the news that the Obama administration is planning to transfer an additional 19 detainees from Guantanamo following consultations with Congress.
The 59 detainees remaining at Guantanamo are from Afghanistan (5), Saudi Arabia (6), Pakistan (6), Yemen (27), and 15 from other countries. According to the Washington Post, the final transfer would relocate 19 of those to “the United Arab Emirates and additional inmates to Oman, Saudi Arabia and, possibly, Italy.”

This move is expected to occur any day between now and Jan. 20, according to the White House, and despite objections from Trump.

The president-elect tweeted: “There should be no further releases from Gitmo. These are extremely dangerous people and should not be allowed back onto the battlefield.”

But even with this final push, and amid legal and political hurdles, Obama is expected to fall short on shutting down the facility, experts said.

“The major logistical challenge has always been where exactly do these people go and under what guarantees and conditions,” said Alberto Fernandez, vice-president of the Middle East Media Research Institute in Washington.

“As the number (of prisoners) gets smaller, it becomes harder to close Guantanamo because those remaining are more dangerous and hardcore,” Fernandez, a retired US ambassador, told Arab News.

Adding to the complexity of the debate is the finding that nearly a third of the 693 detainees who have been released from Gitmo returned to terrorist networks, according to data published by the Wall Street Journal.

Ken Gude, a senior fellow with the National Security Team at the Center for American Progress Action Fund policy institute, who has done extensive work on Guantanamo Bay, said the detention center “will not be closed by Obama.”

But other than the logistical hurdles of relocating the detainees, Gude told Arab News that “the real culprit is Congress, which consistently made it harder, if not impossible, to actually close it.”

Earlier last year, Obama proposed to Congress to transfer the eligible detainees, and then move the rest — between 30 and 60 people — to US prisons.

The plan was dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled Congress.

Obama has also emphasized the economic argument in favor of closing Guantanamo, with the total cost amounting to $5.6 billion since 2002, and a $6 million cost-per-detainee after the latest transfers, according to the US Defense Department.

Will Trump expand Gitmo?

During his election campaign, Trump not only promised to keep Gitmo open, but also spoke about adding detainees to the facility. He told an audience in Nevada that “we are keeping (Guantanamo) open… and we’re gonna load it up with some bad dudes, believe me, we’re gonna load it up.”

Fernandez said it is “too early to tell what Trump will do.” This is the same candidate who supported waterboarding during the campaign and abandoned the idea after being electing president. “But it is entirely possible that Trump will want to maintain the camp as an option in case high-level ISIS or Al-Qaeda prisoners are taken alive somewhere.” ISIS is another term for the Daesh terror group.

Such hypothesis, however, collides with changing realities of the counterterrorism operations, said Gude.

“The United States is simply not capturing that many suspected terrorists any more, certainly nothing on the scale of the early years of Guantanamo,” Gude said. “Any increase in the detainee population would be extremely harmful to the United States, but I do not expect to see substantial numbers of new detainees at Guantanamo during the Trump administration.”

While neither expert anticipated that Trump could close Guantanamo as a measure to cut cost, or improve the global standing of the US, Gude said that the Trump administration “will not be able to return to the worst practices of the George W. Bush administration and use it as a location for torture and other abuses outside the reach of law.”

He added: “Too many actions have been taken to make that much, much harder… and make 2017 just vastly different from 2002.”

The detainees now have habeas corpus rights, placing the burden of proof on those detaining them. And with a pre-existing ban on torture, it would be hard to make a return to the Bush era, according to Gude.

Fernandez said that while Guantanamo has “a lot of empty spaces now that could be used,” going back to the 2002 prison numbers, when most of the detainees came from Afghanistan, seems unrealistic and premature.

For Obama, while he will likely leave the White House with Guantanamo still open, rolling back the number of detainees at the facility to almost a quarter of what it was when he took office, is seen by his administration as a positive for his presidential legacy.

After the #SaveArash successful Twitter campaign in support of Arash Sadeghi, Iranians are now showing solidarity with Ali Shariati, a reformist political prisoner who is serving a five-year sentence for taking part in a protest apposing serial acid attacks against women in Isfahan, Iran.

#SoSAli is the new hashtag in support of Ali Shriati who has been on hunger strike for the past 65 days in Evin prison.

Shriati is objecting his five year sentence which he says is illegal. His demands are his right for visitation and he is also apposing discriminations against political prisoners in Iran.

Ali Shariati has been in and out of prison since the 2009 disputed presidential election in Iran but his most recent sentencing is related to a protest in front of the Iranian parliament in Oct 2014. The protest was an objection to a chain of acid attacks against women in Isfahan. Allegedly the perpetrators were only attacking women who were not wearing the strict Islamic hijab; wearing their veils loosely on their heads.

Shariati joined a crowd of hundreds who said the government is responsible for women’s safety in streets of Isfahan regardless of women’s choices of attire, and they demanded the arrest of the perpetrators.

After this protest Shariati was arrested and was initially sentenced to 12 years in prison. The appeals court reduced his sentence to 5 years finding him guilty of “assembly and collusion against national security.” His charges were directly related to the acid attack protests.

He is on hunger strike since 31 Oct 2016 demanding his acquittal; Ali Shariati says that protesting acid attacks should not be a crime.

Shariati refused food to demand a phone call with his family as of 31 Oct 2016. The prison has denied his visitation rights for weeks. He is continuing his strike and was taken to hospital on 9 December when his body shutdown and his heartbeat slowed significantly.

In the first three days of 2017, Iranians have come to twitter to take part in campaigns that are trending the demands of political prisoners, seven of whom are on hunger strike in Iranian prisons.

Arash Sadeghi, a political activist who was on hunger strike for 72 days became the world’s highest trending topic on Twitter on 30 Dec 2016 with hashtag #SaveArash. His demands were responded to on 3 Jan 2017 when Evin prison authorities granted a furlough to his wife Golrokh Ebrahimi Iraee. Arash was demanding a re-evaluation of his wife’s case by the courts; she has received a six year sentence for an unpublished short story on the subject of stoning women for adultery in Islamic jurisprudence.

Six other prisoners are still on hunger strike including Saeed Shirzad (29 days), Iranian-Turkish citizen Hassan Rastegari Majd (35 days), Lebanese IT specialist Nizar Zaka (16 days), a Shiite cleric Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Nekounam (14 days) and Mehdi Kukhyan (14 days).

By J Nastranis

A few days ahead of Kazakhstan joining the Security Council on January 1 as a non-permanent member for two years, President Nursultan Nazarbayev appointed the Central Asian republic’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Kairat Abdrakhmanov as new Foreign Minister.

On December 28 he replaced Erlan Idrissov (57) who held the post from 1999 to 2002 and 2012 to 2016. He takes over as Ambassador to the UK, a post he held from 2002 to 2007. He was then ambassador to the United States from 2007 to 2012.

Abdrakhmanov (52) had been serving as his country’s Permanent Representative in New York since 2013. During his tenure and Idrissov’s as Foreign Minister, Kazakhstan campaigned for and was elected as a non-permanent member of the Security Council for 2017-2018.

Prior to his appointment as Permanent Representative to the UN, Abdrakhmanov was Ambassador to Austria, where he also represented his country at the international organizations based in Vienna 2011 onwards. From 2008 until 2011, he was Kazakhstan’s Permanent Representative to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe ((OSCE), chairing its Permanent Council in 2010.

Abdrakhmanov served an earlier term as Ambassador to Austria and Permanent Representative to international organizations in Vienna, from 2007 to 2008. He was Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs from 2006 to 2007 and served a previous stint, between 1999 and 2001.

In a distinguished Foreign Service career, Abdrakhmanov served as Ambassador to Israel from 2003 to 2006, and as Deputy Chief of Mission and Minister-Counsellor in the United Kingdom, beginning in 2001.

He was Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Department of Bilateral Cooperation from 1998 to 1999, Deputy Chief and then Chief of the Asia Department between 1994 and 1998. During that period, he also served as Deputy Director of the Asia, Middle East and Africa Department, and Director of the Department of Europe and the Americas, having joined the Foreign Ministry in 1993 as a Third Secretary in the Europe Department.

Introducing newly appointed Foreign Minister Abdrakhmanov to the senior staff of the ministry, President Nazarbayev thanked Idrissov for his work as Foreign Minister over the past four years. He emphasised that in the face of perplexing global circumstances the foreign ministry faces new challenges that require new approaches.

Referring to the work in the Security Council, he said: “The fact that we were elected as its non-permanent member is a testament of respect from the global community towards our country. This is an important task that requires the global leadership of Kazakhstan in the movement for a nuclear weapons free world and other international issues.”

Analysing the reasons behind the reshuffle, Catherine Putz wrote in The Diplomat: “While Idrissov’s resume demonstrates a specialty in relations with Western powers, Abdrakhmanov’s background is rooted in international organizations.”

Putz added: “It may be that the switch reflects Kazakhstan’s emphasis on international organizations, rather than Western graces, to carry the country onward toward Nazarbayev’s lofty goals. Abdrakhmanov’s twin successes – scoring Astana the OSCE chairmanship in 2010 and the UNSC (Security Council) seat for 2017 – have elevated the country’s global standing.”

Within days of Abdrakhmanov’s appointment as Foreign Minister, the Security Council unanimously adopted on December 31 a resolution supporting a Russia-Turkey brokered truce in Syria and jump-starting a political process.

The resolution accepted Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev’s offer to host peace talks in the Kazakh capital between the conflicting parties in the Syrian conflict stating that it “looks forward to the meeting to be held in Astana”. These are expected to take place mid-January ahead of the resumption of negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations in Geneva on February 8.

The Council reiterated its call on parties to allow humanitarian agencies “rapid, safe and unhindered” access throughout Syria, repeating that the only sustainable solution to the crisis was an inclusive, Syrian-led political process, based on the 2012 Geneva communiqué.

In the ensuing debate, delegates welcomed the Council’s unanimous support for the ceasefire, stressing that it only increased the legitimacy of those efforts, and confidence in the Council’s own ability to make important decisions.

Some asked for details on the participation of opposition groups in Astana, humanitarian access and the United Nations role in the Astana political process, with several noting that the Special Envoy for Syria must play a key role in those efforts.

The U.S. supported the resolution because it struck the right balance between cautious optimism and a realistic need to see how it would be implemented but expressed regret that annexes to the agreement had not been made available, and concern over reports of both a regime offensive supported by Hizbullah in the Wadi Barada village north-west of Damascus, and differences between regime and delegation documents. The U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Michele Sison asked for an explanation of why those differences existed.

The United Kingdom’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Peter Wilson stressing that discrepancies between key texts must be resolved, said monitoring of the ceasefire would be crucial. Russia and Turkey must ensure any such measures were independent and coordinated with both the UN and the International Syria Support Group’s ceasefire task force.

On that point, France’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Alexis Lamek said the Russian-Turkish agreement contained a number of “grey areas”, including whether the regime was genuinely committed to the ceasefire. The Council had not received the list of groups included in the agreement, and the level of commitment of all parties remained uncertain. He also expressed concern over which groups would be designated as terrorist groups.

At the same time, said Egypt’s Permanent Representative Amr Abdellatif Aboulatta said it was critical to act rapidly and launch the diplomatic process. Real intentions focused on a final political solution were crucial. Military activity would never solve the crisis, he said, urging Syrian parties to act responsibly to find a Syrian solution, which would protect the country’s territorial integrity.

Broadly speaking, Russia’s Permanent Representative Vitaly Churkin said the resolution spoke to the need for a cessation of hostilities in Syria and a meeting in Astana where the Syrian Government and opposition would, for the first time, meet face-to-face.

“If you can’t help and if you don’t want to help, make sure you don’t complicate things,” he said. The international community must be guided by the goals of achieving a political settlement in 2017, respecting the interests of the Syrian people and fostering stability in the region.

President Nazarbayev emphasised in meeting with the Foreign Ministry’s senior staff on December 30 “the need for careful preparation for the upcoming talks on Syria in Astana”.

According to the President, an important task for the Foreign Ministry is to maintain its work on the Eurasian Economic Union, taking into account the country’s national interests.

“In the context of the global economic crisis, an economic dimension must remain the systemic element of paramount importance in the activity of the diplomatic service of the country. It’s necessary to deal with issues of attracting investments and export of domestic goods,” President Nazarbayev said.

He added: “In this regard, the work of the Foreign Ministry and embassies should be strengthened. Thorough work should be done on preparation of major international events scheduled next year in Astana – the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organisation] and the OIC [Organisation for Islamic Cooperation] summits.”

This New Year’s Eve, 750 heavy wooden crosses were distributed to a gathering of Chicagoans commemorating the victims of gun violence killed in 2016. Rev. Michael Pfleger and the Faith Community of St. Sabina Parish had issued a call to carry crosses constructed by Greg Zanis. The crosses, uniform in size, presented the name and age and, in many cases, a facial photo of the person killed. Some who carried the crosses were relatives of the people killed. As the group assembled, several sobbed upon finding the crosses that bore the names and photos of their loved ones.

Those carrying the heavy crosses along Chicago’s “Magnificent Mile” of high end shops and restaurants knew that other arms than theirs were aching…aching with longing for loved ones who would never return. In 2016, more people were killed in Chicago by gun violence than in New York City and Los Angeles combined. The number killed represented a 58% increase over the number killed in 2015.  “How could this happen?” – was the question asked on the front page of the Chicago Tribune.

It was a year of social service program shutdowns driven by the Governor’s office in Springfield.  The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King’s description of a triplet of giant evils, each insoluble in isolation from the others, helps us identify an answer to the Tribune’s question.  King spoke of the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism.  Training for, and the diversion of money to, wars overseas was a crisis inextricable from the race crisis at home, as were policies promoting radical wealth inequality. Representative Danny Davis, of Chicago, whose grandson was killed by gun violence in 2016, insists that “poverty was fueling the city’s bloodshed, and that Chicago needed to make investments ‘to revamp whole communities.’”

Poverty and racism clearly interact: Blacks and Latinos comprise 56% of the incarcerated population, yet only 30% of the U.S. population. A report documenting the rates of incarceration for whites, African Americans, and Hispanics in the Illinois state prison system notes that over half of this prison population is black. For every 100,000 people in the state, 1,533 black people are imprisoned as compared to 174 white people and 282 Hispanic people. The consequences of incarceration affect entire communities: former prisoners are restricted in terms of employment, their families are disrupted, housing becomes unstable, they become disenfranchised, and stigmas persist.

We must also consider gun violence in relation to U.S. militarism. Gun violence in Chicago is condemned, as it should be, and yet a message to every one of the 9,000 Chicago Public School children participating in U.S. military junior ROTC programs is that killing is acceptable if you are following orders. Killing of civilians by the U.S. military is considered regrettable but acceptable “collateral damage”. These killings eliminate “high value targets”. The mere suspicion of harboring a targeted person in a home, restaurant, or mosque becomes an excuse for an airborne drone attack to execute whole families or communities. Ironically, this policy enacts an airborne version of a drive-by shooting.

Soldiers who have seen combat are less likely to praise the virtues of military life. “The myth is that the military teaches discipline,” say the Chicago area Veterans for Peace, in their ‘education not militarization’ campaign. “The reality is that the military teaches children to follow orders without question and to use the military solution to conflict resolution – that is, death and destruction.”

President Obama had tears in his eyes in January, 2016, calling for relief from record breaking shootings and killings in the U.S. Yet 2016 became a record breaking year for U.S. export of weapons to other countries. The U.S. is responsible for nearly 33% of worldwide weapon exports—by far the top arms exporter on the planet.

“Arms deals are a way of life in Washington,” writes William Hartung. “From the president on down, significant parts of the government are intent on ensuring that American arms will flood the global market and companies like Lockheed and Boeing will live the good life. …American officials regularly act as salespeople for the arms firms. And the Pentagon is their enabler… In its first six years, team Obama entered into agreements to sell more weaponry than any administration since World War II.”

Carrying a cross along Michigan Avenue yesterday, I thought of the terrible slaughter in World War I that killed 38 million people. Elites, weapon makers, and war profiteers drove millions of men into the trenches to fight and die in the war that was to end all wars. In 1914, mired in mud, war-weary and miserable, troops on both sides took matters into their own hands. For a brief, yet magnificent time, they enabled the “Christmas truce”. One account relates how some German troops began singing one of their carols, and British and other troops then sang a carol from their side. As voices wafted across the no-man’s land, troops began calling out to one another.

“Time and again during the course of that day, the Eve of Christmas, there were wafted towards us from the trenches opposite the sounds of singing and merry-making, and occasionally the guttural tones of a German were to be heard shouting out lustily, ‘A happy Christmas to you Englishmen!’ Only too glad to show that the sentiments were reciprocated, back would go the response from a thick-set Clydesider, ‘Same to you, Fritz, but dinna o’er eat yourself wi’ they sausages!’”

“The high command on both sides took a dim view of the activities and orders were issued to stop the fraternizing with varying results. In some areas, the truce ended Christmas Day in others the following day and in others it extended into January.”

Dr. King said, “Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit, and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.”   The soldiers in those trenches went out into their no-man’s land and showed the world one way to end wars.   They should never have had to.  It was left to them to venture into the no-man’s land, risking exposure to the others’ fire and their generals’ punishment for disobeying orders.

No matter what gang is issuing the orders to kill, whether a massive military power or a smaller group that has acquired weapons, we can all claim our right not to develop, store, sell or use weapons. We can claim our right not to kill and not to live with the memory of having killed. “Declaring eternal hostility” to the fear, greed and hate which are our real enemies seems to be our true hope. We can lay aside forever the futility of killing. We can be hopeful and determined that our resources and ingenuity are directed toward meeting human needs.

Spain’s total number of recorded unemployed was 3,702,974 at the end of 2016, the lowest level in the last seven years, according to the Spanish government.

In seasonally-adjusted terms, unemployment fell in the month of December by 49,243 people.

Compared with December 2015, unemployment decreased by 390,534, the largest fall in a calendar year on record. The year-on-year decline in the unemployment rate stands at 9.54%, the fastest rate since 1999. Over the last four years, unemployment has fallen by more than 1 million people (1,145,749), according to government figures.

Unemployment for young people under the age of 25 has fallen over the last 12 months by 47,607, to post a year-on-year decline in youth unemployment of 13.9%, which is above the general average of 9.54%.

In terms of recorded unemployment by activity sector, this fell in services by 65,898 people (down 2.57%), and in agriculture and fisheries by 14,075 (down 7.67%). In contrast, it rose in the construction sector by 8,365 people (up 2.28%), and in industry by 2,785 (up 0.81%). Lastly, unemployment fell among first-time job seekers by 18,026 (down 5.43%).

Recorded unemployment fell in 13 autonomous regions, headed up by Andalusia (down 39,908), Madrid (down 11,298) and Catalonia (down 9,334). In contrast, it rose in the other four regions, mainly in Galicia (up 2,360) and Navarre (1,129).

By Sven Milekic

Despite media pressure, the Office of Croatian President Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic has supplied little information about the purpose of her visit to the US capital, Washington, fuelling speculation about the possible reasons.

The President is “on an official visit to the United States together with the head of the cabinet Natalija Hmelina. During her visit, the President will have meetings with representatives of political and social life and the non-governmental sector. The President travelled on a regular commercial flight,” the President’s office told the regional N1 network on Wednesday.

Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic – from the centre-right Croatian Democratic Union, HDZ, the party to which Grabar Kitarovic belonged before she became head of state – on Wednesday said she would have “important and useful talks”, also not specifying with whom or on what.

Her Office initially informed the public on Saturday that Grabar Kitarovic would visit the US from New Year until Thursday.

Three individuals reported her on Wednesday to Croatia’s commission on conflicts of interest, demanding to know whether the purpose of the trip was private or official and whether the law on the conflict had been breached.

Critics said that the President should have informed the public of her exact whereabouts as, among other things, her security is funded from the state budget, and that it should be clarified who financed her trip.

Controversially, she went to the US on December 29, 2015 at state expense even though her official visit did not start until January 4.

Her Office said at the time that “private celebrations of the President… aren’t within the competency of the Office of the President, nor are records made of them”.

The Croatian news site Index meanwhile reported on Thursday that US Republican Senator Marco Rubio had posted a picture of his meeting with Grabar Kitarovic on Twitter and said they had discussed “ways to deepen ties” between NATO allies.

The Croatian daily, 24 sata, published a photograph of Grabar Kitarovic arriving at the US Senate on Wednesday. The paper’s sources said she would meet members of incoming US President Donald Trump’s administration.

Although it is not advisory for foreign officials to meet members of the US President-elect’s administration before the inauguration, Croatian diplomats claim it is not uncommon.

The daily Jutarnji list reported on Thursday that she had met James Mattis, who is touted as as the likely new US Secretary of Defense.

Opposition MP Sinisa Hajdas Doncic took a critical line on Facebook on Thursday, accusing her of behaving with “harmful consequences for Croatia”.

“I saw she took a photo [earlier on] with Santa Claus. Who knows what she’s doing? Probably she has some private visits since she was Croatian Ambassador to the US,” Doncic said.

The Santa Claus remark referred to a photo greeting she posted on Facebook over the New Year taken in Zagreb’s main square.

Before becoming President in February 2015, Grabar Kitarovic was Minister for European Integration from 2003 to 2005, and then Foreign and European Integration Minister from 2005 until 2008.

Her ties with the US deepened after that. From 2008 to 2011, she was Croatian Ambassador to the US and then Assistant for Public Diplomacy to the NATO Secretary General until 2014.

That year, she entered the presidential race as the candidate of the HDZ and other parties on the right.

Media reports on Thursday, logging her various US visits since, claimed she had spent more than a month in the US during less than two years in office.

Her whereabouts – and apparent secretiveness – have caused other disputes at home, unrelated to visits to the US.

In 2015, questions about whether she had attended a private party with the controversial former president of Zagreb football club Dinamo, Zdravko Mamic, drew media scrutiny.

She denied attending the party he had organised for her birthday. Her Office claimed it had no record of her whereabouts that day.

But Mamic admitted in July 2016 that they were at the party together, and “had fun and haven’t seen each other since”.
– See more at: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/mystery-surrounds-croatian-president-s-visit-to-the-us-01-05-2017#sthash.1oC5QPUm.dpuf

In its contempt for things like evidence, justification and warrant, Trumpism has created a social condition in which virtually all the normal constraints on public speech and discourse no longer apply.

By Dr. Sam Ben-Meir*

Last month commemorated seventy-five years since the attack on Pearl Harbor by the forces of Imperial Japan – an attack in which 2,403 Americans were killed and directly led to the United States’ entry into World War II. By December 11th, the United States was officially at war with Japan, as well as Germany and Italy. The war lasted four years, and by the end over four hundred thousand Americans were killed – approximately sixty million people worldwide.

It is perhaps not an exaggeration at all to say that we are perceptibly succumbing – in word if not in deed – to the same ugly reactionary forces that brought on that war: fascism, the politics of racial superiority, anti-Semitism, and militarism. The so-called alt-right, a still relatively small but growing white nationalist movement, is slowly creeping into the mainstream of American politics. In fact, given that it has a line to the White House (through the president-elect’s appointment of Steve Bannon as Chief Strategist) we can expect that it will continue to gain followers in this country.

The alt-right movement is precisely a betrayal of everything Americans fought and died for in World War II. When their spokesmen quote Nazi propaganda with approval — when they shout ‘hail victory’ (the English translation of Sieg Heil) — US citizens disgrace America; they disgrace our national history and the blood we spilled fighting and defeating fascism.

The worst mistake we can make is to treat the alt-right as a movement embodying opinions: already, we have begun to see a decided shift towards the acceptance of white nationalist and separatist ideology as simply one more position alongside others on the political spectrum. But the alt-right is not just one more point of view: we cannot afford to dignify it by merely agreeing to disagree. While it would like to be regarded as a movement of ideas, its momentum is emerging not from opinions or ideas at all, but insecurity and resentment.

The alt-right has given new vitality to white supremacism, which is not an idea but a racist ideology, and thus cannot simply be treated with counter-arguments. Once it is regarded as a political position — to be countered with rational argument — it has already implicitly been accorded a rational status. The white supremacist does not simply have an incorrect, distorted view of reality – he has a distorted view of himself. He has not fallen prey to bad science; he has not simply embraced positions that happen to be wrong, because what he defines as a position is a façade — a front, not only to the public, but even more so, to himself. The white supremacist is not in the grip of merely false beliefs, but illusions – beliefs that are allowed to operate because they are self-gratifying. Sometimes illusions may be harmless. Illusions about race are not – they are inherently violent: that the white race is the source of all creative value in the world, at once satisfies a deep-seated wish for racial superiority, and provides the justification for the exclusion and outright discrimination against non-whites and minorities.

If racially motivated extremists have not received explicit or direct support from Trump himself, they have undoubtedly benefited from the widening spread of Trumpism, which continues to embolden their movement.  Trumpism — we might say — is the victory of a certain epistemology; it is the view that knowledge is reducible to perception. It has no use for anything like the disinterested pursuit of truth – which has become no more than whatever belief happens to be expedient and best serve one’s self-interest.

In its contempt for things like evidence, justification and warrant, Trumpism has created a social condition in which virtually all the normal constraints on public speech and discourse no longer apply. The problem is that when anything can be said, we must invariably find ourselves in the predicament that nothing can be said; because if we do not recognize any non-formal unwritten rules about what can be said, we lose the background assumptions without which public discourse ceases to have any meaning at all.

It is perhaps sad to say, but nonetheless true, that liberals helped to create the conditions in which Trumpism could flourish. As the French philosopher Alain Badiou put it, the truth is “indifferent to difference” and in its essence universal in nature – it is not impressed by ethnicity, nationality, or race: truth is “the same for all.” This basic principal is what many liberals and multiculturalists ultimately refused to acknowledge; and it is coming back to haunt them. Over the past two decades, much of the political sphere has been reduced to respecting personal identity – and, consequently, identity politics has been co-opted by white nationalists, as was inevitable. Now, political correctness is dead in the water: its phoniness and patronizing racist underpinnings, as well as its artificially imposed rules, did little to address the causes of racism; but may have actually undermined genuine social solidarity.

Of course, we cannot entirely blame multiculturalism and liberal relativism for the emergence of white identity politics. America is experiencing something like a Weimar-moment, the liberal-democratic Germany that governed during the inter-war years, and was ultimately overcome and destroyed by the forces of fascism which geminated and was allowed to grow to infect the civil and political society within its borders. Unlike the United States perhaps, the Weimar Republic was weak: every political party — no matter how anti-republican — was allowed to compete for governmental power. Weimar was unable to clearly distinguish friend from enemy.

Today, as the race-fueled, far-right wing continues to usurp ever more political space, we are facing a very real, and very similar danger: that the extreme right will gradually infect and erode the body politic. We cannot avoid this if we allow the alt-right and its, albeit, ill-defined program to become “respectable”. With the permissibility and increasing prevalence of proto-fascist rhetoric, the extreme right is undergoing a pubic relations makeover; their leaders are making an effort to don a “human” face, appearing to normalize their agenda and broaden their growing appeal. At this moment in time, we must remain extremely vigilant: while our democratic institutions are not in immanent danger, the mixture of racial politics and the president-elect’s right-wing authoritarianism is potentially disastrous. If a geo-political or economic crisis should occur will we meet it with our moral awareness in tact, our sense of justice, and committed to fundamental democratic principles? Ultimately, this will depend on recognizing that the political problem of today is increasingly the problem of ‘love thy neighbor.’

The white-nationalists want us to believe that Muslims, Mexicans, and immigrants are not our neighbors: that Jews are not our neighbors – anyone not like them is not our neighbor. Unremittingly, however, what they have forgotten is that the neighbor does not necessarily accommodate our a priori assumptions about what they should look like, or wear, or what language they speak. As the great German theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who in 1945 was hanged by the Gestapo, once wrote: “Neighborliness is not a quality in other people, it is simply their claim on our selves…We have literally no time to sit down and ask ourselves whether so-and-so is our neighbor or not.”

When we see the rise of nationalism in the United States and Europe, Russia and East Asia, and we are witness to the refugee crisis sweeping across the Middle East, Bonhoeffer’s observation that we have not the luxury of time could not be timelier.

*Dr. Sam Ben-Meir teaches philosophy at Eastern International College. His current research focuses on environmental and business ethics.

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

By Niharika Tagotra*

India has an ambitious nuclear energy programme but its legislative-regulatory mechanism does not quite match up to it. With a present installed capacity of 5780 mega watts (MW), contributing about 3 per cent to the total energy production, nuclear power in India is produced primarily by its Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) that operate at a Plant Load Factor (PLF) of 50 to 60 per cent given the shortage of uranium fuel supply. India aims to produce anywhere between 45,010 MW (optimistic scenario) to 78,060 MW (highly optimistic scenario) of nuclear energy by the year 2047 as per the Indian Energy Security Scenario (IESS).

This will however require the country to fully utilise the capacity of its existing PHWRs, as well as commission production in the 8 new sites identified for setting up of PHWRS (6 reactors per site). India will also have to build 2500 MW of Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs) using the spent fuel obtained from its thermal reactors. Further, the country will need to identify and commission at least four new Light Water Reactors (LWRs).

In sum, by 2047, India will need to develop and commission around 55 new nuclear power plants in order to be able to substantially increase the share of the percentage of nuclear power generated. The energy scenario however faces innumerable bottlenecks including a laggard energy bureaucracy as well as a series of legislations pieced together in an incoherent manner.

Nuclear Energy Bureaucracy

The nuclear energy infrastructure in India comes directly under the purview of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). AEC is the umbrella body that sets out the atomic energy policy and oversees the functions of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) as well as the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). The DAE administrates the nuclear Public Sector Undertakings as well as the R&D centres. It also provides the AERB with technical support and staff. The AERB in turn monitors the PSUs that are under the purview of the DAE, regulates the safety aspects of these agencies as also the licensing process of setting up new nuclear plants.

The AERB, despite being a regulatory body, lacks the independence of authority. There is an evident conflict of interest between the three agencies – DAE, AEC and the AERB. To begin with, the secretary to the government of India in the DAE is also the ex-officio chairman of the AEC. Hence, the party that is being monitored by the AERB and the party being reported to are essentially the same; a fact also strongly underlined by the PAC parliamentary report of 2011-12 as well as the recently concluded Integrated Regulatory and Review Service (IRRS) mission sent by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to India in 2015. This muddling of the chain of command is one of the major reasons behind the never ending delays in commissioning of reactors.

The fact that the FBRs in India are still awaiting regulatory clearances even after being close to criticality for three years now is a case in point. The issue was also highlighted by A Gopalakrishnan, former Chairman of the AERB (1993-96), who argued that the interference in AERB’s functioning by the DAE has led to the “AERB toning down the seriousness of safety concerns and agreeing to the postponement of essential repairs to suit the DAE’s time schedules.”

In 2011, the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) Bill was introduced in parliament with a view to improve the regulatory status of the nuclear facilities in the country. The NSRA bill aimed to establish a central regulatory authority by the name of Council of Nuclear Safety (CNS). The NSRA, replacing the AERB, would have jurisdiction over all nuclear facilities and premises. The bill takes the regulatory mechanism a step further; however, with the Chairman of the AEC included in the CNS, it fails to address the issue of conflict of interest.

Further, the bill authorises the government to exempt certain facilities and activities from the purview of the NSRA on grounds of national defence and security. However, there is no provision for the setting up of regulatory authorities for exempted facilities. The absence of a standing Appellate Authority is another point of concern in the bill. The NSRA bill lapsed with the dissolution of parliament in 2014 and has not been introduced since the new government came to power. Thus the regulation and security environment for the current nuclear facilities remains status quo.

Bottlenecks for the Private Sector

In order to increase the pool of finance for its nuclear power projects and lessen the duration required for construction of nuclear power plants, the government will also need to look at increasing the participation of private players and regularise the flow of investments to the cash- crunched nuclear energy sector. Currently, India sees a very low participation by the private sector in its nuclear energy industry. The participation from the private industries has been limited to the supply of components, equipment, and works contracts, partaking in the sector only as junior equity partners. Companies like BHEL, L&T and WIL have been awarded contracts for the manufacture of steam generators and reactor equipment but their participation is plagued with policy delays and other regulatory and bureaucratic issues.

The process of private participation is also hampered by a weak management of contracts by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). The company uses the L1 method for awarding of contracts. Under the L1 or the ‘lowest bidder’ tender system, the contract is awarded to the bidder who provides a product that meets all the mandatory requirements specified under the Services Qualitative Requirement (SQR) at the least net cost. This, however, comes with its own set of challenges, whereby the tender system fails to take into account the ‘cost-plus’ phenomenon. Bids that are too low to be implemented affect the quality of the products delivered, and lead to contract termination or delays due to litigation.

The issue of L1 procurement was also highlighted in the Dhirendra Singh Committee report on Make in India in Defence Sector. The report highlighted the need for the government to base its public-private partnership on the model of ‘strategic partnership’ premised on the pillars of strategic needs, quality criticality, and cost competitiveness. The Committee’s recommendation of the selective identification of a few important players, and nurturing them through preferential treatment so as to co-opt them for buy-and-make and government-to-government procurement programmes, can also be used for India’s civil nuclear energy programme.

Streamlining of the process of bureaucratic inspection during manufacturing and setting a base price for competitive bidding can also help in ensuring fair competition for the private industries. In addition to this, the civil nuclear policy in India lacks an offset programme that has been working well for its defence sector. It has been able to accrue a substantial amount of capital for its defence-industrial development and if incorporated in the nuclear energy sector, could help augment the production and R&D capacity.

The outsourcing base for the NPCIL is also very limited. For instance, only BHEL and L&T are involved in the process of manufacturing steam generators. The manufacture of each unit takes about four years, on an average, and in view of its production targets, India would need around 50 steam generators. The total time for their manufacture will total up to anywhere around 100 years at the current pace.

Nuclear Liability

India’s nuclear legislative framework is patchy. Its fragmented domestic policies are mostly inconsistent with the international agreements signed by the country. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA) passed by the Indian parliament in 2010 gives the NPCIL a right to recourse against suppliers in case of a nuclear accident (clause 17(b)) and allows the supplier to be sued under an Indian law by the citizens at large (clause 46). This stands in contradiction to the clauses mentioned under the Convention of Supplementary Compensation (CSC), an IAEA instrument ratified by India in February 2016.

Article 10 of the Annex to the CSC convention declares, “the operator shall have a right of recourse only if this is expressly provided for by a contract in writing; or if the nuclear incident results from an act or omission done with intent to cause damage, against the individual who has acted or omitted to act with such intent.” While the CSC convention provides a more liberal framework for supplier/operator liability, the framework provided for under the CLNDA is more stringent, thus pointing at incoherence between the two.

The fallout of the general ambiguity around India’s liability regime has been the reluctance of Westinghouse and General Electric (GE) to venture into the Indian nuclear energy sector. Although India has responded to this policy loophole by setting up an insurance pool of INR 1500 Cr to compensate nuclear firms for mishaps in India, the amount insured appears to falls short of what might be required in the case of an eventuality.

Additionally, the demand for an unlimited time and cost liability from a limited liability company imposes an unnecessary burden on the supplier, an issue which has deterred even domestic vendors from acting as suppliers/sub-suppliers.

Conclusion

In order to revamp its nuclear energy architecture, India will need to replace the piecemeal approach to policy-making with a coherent, integrated policy on regulatory and liability issues. The many layers of secrecy around the country’s nuclear infrastructure and shifting accountabilities that induce ambiguity around the regulatory framework discourage private participation and capacity building in the sector. In order to achieve the slated targets, India will need to substantially restructure its inward-looking nuclear policies.

* Niharika Tagotra
Research Intern, IPCS

There are various types of coups: the seizure of executive power by military officials who disband the elected legislature, judiciary and executive, shut-down the media that criticizes the military take- over and and outlaws’ independent social movements. The most recent coups are led by institutional forces which ouster the elected President through the intervention of congressional, judicial , security forces, (including the intelligence apparatus) and the mass media.

Four examples of institutional coups took place during the Obama regime : the Ukraine (2014), Honduras (2009), Paraguay (2012) and Brazil (2016). These coups serve as a model for the ouster of US President-elect Trump before he takes office and during his selection of Cabinet appointments.

In this essay we will analyze the unfolding of the anti-Trump coup by examining the process, the step by step means by which the principle operatives intervene against the electoral result.

Step One: The Mass Media and the ‘Recount’ Ploy

Immediately after Trump was elected, a group of marginal politicians led by the Green Party Presidential candidate, Jill Stein, demanded a voter, recount, despite her 1% vote and less than half million-dollar campaign. Democratic party officials and backers donated over seven million dollars.

The mass media, which had previously totally ignored the Green Party campaign, and ‘electoral’ experts backed and publicized the demand for a recount. The first recount in Wisconsin demonstrated that the recount made no change in the outcome. Judges in Michigan and Pennsylvania ruled against recounts.

The recount tactic failed and the coup organizers moved to a more sinister kind of intervention.

Step 2: The CIA, the Mass Media, the President and the Congress

The recount ploy predictably failed to deny Trump’s advance to the Presidency. But it provided an opportunity for the mass media to repeatedly call into question the legitimacy of the election outcome.

Once the ‘marginals’ lost their utility, the powers behind the coup openly took the political stage.

Obama ordered the CIA to compile a report which would demonstrate that ‘Russia a sworn enemy’ of the US people, intervened in the elections and secured Trump’s victory via cyber theft of Democratic Party information.

The mass media went into a propaganda frenzy. Wild,unsubstantiated accusations were published and mouthed accusing Trump of being a traitor, a dupe of Putin, an ignoramus who ignores the CIA’s reliable, systematic findings of Russian intervention…. as dictated by the country’s chief coupster Barack Obama.

Step 3: Obamas Junta attacks Russia to Defeat Trump

The Obama’s junta is engaged in illegal tampering and pressuring the Electoral College to induce them to violate their electoral mandate to vote for Trump. When blackmail failed to force the Electors to submit to the Junta, Obama escalated his aggression against Russia.

Eight years of lost wars, coups, failed regimes, lost Congressional elections, culminating in the defeat of Hillary Clinton, has enraged the Obama junta. With unanimous support from the mass media, the CIA and unconvincing testimonials by past and present ‘experts’ and officials, Obama has escalated the perverse and dangerous ploy of intensifying the economic and military stranglehold on Russia.

In the last days of his regime, Obama launched new economic sanctions on Russia, a large scale (CIA and NSA) cyber war on Moscow’s economic, political and military institutions, designed to disrupt and paralyze the functioning of its society and state.

Obama’s cyber war and sanctions are designed to deepen the polarization between the US and Russia, hoping to entrench the enemies of Trump’s reconciliation with Putin. The junta’s ‘war of tensions’ will incite a Russian counter-response to sanctions and cyber attacks, and serve as a pretext for a build-up of enmity in order to isolate and destroy Trump’s announced quest for reconciliations and market-diplomacy.

Obama’s open declaration of warfare toward Russia, his reliance on intelligence agencies, the total control of the war propaganda deluging the US public, is designed to construct a new kind of invisible Wall.

Step 4: Obama’s Wall: Fencing the US Public from Trump’s Market Politics

To the end, the Obama regime’s legacy rests on its perpetual warfare and violent intervention against independent states. Any and all political leaders who pursued political power via expanding markets is deemed an ‘enemy of the American people’.

This fiction faces its greatest threat not from China, Russia, or Iran but from within: Trump’s declared aim to expand through US market power. The ‘Russian plot’ will continue to Trump’s inauguration and beyond. Post- Obama’s animus will continue as Trump seeks to implement his foreign policy of ‘market deals’, renegotiation of trade agreements with China, oil and aerospace trade-offs with Iran, and the termination of sanctions with Russia.President Trump will declare ‘let the oil deals flow’!

To oppose President Trump, the Obama junta has built a Wall of political accomplices among the Intelligence agencies, Democratic and Republican Congress people and mass media mega-propagandists.

Conclusion

What will it take for Trump to tear down the Wall? Trump’s post- election tour of cities and his mobilization of core supporters serves to prepare the popular base.

Some of his Cabinet appointees, especially the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, include his staunchest allies in pursuing market politics. Trump can only bring down the Wall by defeating the Congressional War Party.

Trump will have to neutralize and re-structure the intelligence agencies. He will need to lop the heads of the Obama apparatus – or bring them in line with his policies toward Russia, NATO and market imperialism.

The biggest obstacle to bringing down the Wall will be the Congress-Pentagon complex that has flourished under Obama’s military imperialism. Trump can successfully play against Obama’s record of multiple failed wars, and trillion-dollar, ill-spent, war expenditures. What makes Trump’s attempt to tear down the Wall difficult is the constant barrage of mass media propaganda which will hammer at any and all meetings, dialogues and agreements between the US and Russia. Trump will need to find the appropriate voices and outlets to counter it.

Finally, if Trump does press forward with his version of US market expansion, he will have to overcome the bellicose policies of several of his Cabinet appointees. That requires that Trump sets policy and enforces it. Any weakness or even tactical concessions to war mongers and Russian bashers in his Administration will prevent Trump from breaking the Wall. Confinement to the Obama legacy of imperial wars will lead to domestic crises and the rapid deterioration of his electoral base.

If Trump defeats the three step coup attempt via his business-military- alliance, he will have to convert those anti-coup forces into allies in pursuit of his quest to make over the US economy, “to make markets strong”?

While we can hope for a less bellicose foreign policy, the domestic class struggle is likely to intensify in the face of the profoundly anti-working class policies which Trump will carry-over from the Obama regime. The Cabinet line-up is set to impose reactionary health, education and labor policies which is likely to provoke popular discontent. Trump is like to continue Obama’s police repression against workers, racial minorities and immigrants.

In place of global conflicts we are likely to see the intensification of domestic struggles and inter-capitalist rivalries over market priorities. Trump faces dual battle lines: one against civilian militarist and the other against domestic social classes.

When summer temperatures rise in Greenland and the melt season begins, water pools on the surface, and sometimes disappears down holes in the ice. That water may eventually reach bedrock, creating a slipperier, faster slide for glaciers. But where does it go once it gets there, and what happens to it in the winter? A new study helps answer these questions.

Scientists have been able to observe liquid water at single points by drilling holes, but those observations are limited. An improved technique developed by a graduate student at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and her colleagues is now expanding that view across entire regions, and across seasons for the first time, by making it possible to use airborne ice-penetrating radar to reveal meltwater’s life under the ice throughout the year.

The first results, just published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, reveal extensive winter water storage beneath the ice. They suggest that glaciers’ response to melting depends not only on the rate at which meltwater flows down, but also on the amount of water stored beneath the ice through the winter, and on the topography and permeability of the land below, said the study’s lead author, Columbia graduate student Winnie Chu.

“The distribution of meltwater evolves constantly, switching from one location to another,” said Chu. “By knowing how this distribution changes seasonally, we can better understand the spatial linkage between ice and water flow.” Chu said that more meltwater is produced as temperatures rise, and the study suggests that Greenland has the potential to store some of it at the base of the ice. This could potentially mediate the impact of meltwater on summer ice flow by maintaining stable subglacial water pressures through the year, she said.

Greenland’s ice sheet has a wide range of temperatures and impurities that cause the ice to freeze in different ways, and those variations have made it difficult for ice-penetrating radar to identify pockets of water beneath the ice. Chu and her colleagues developed a way to correct for those variations by using 3D thermomechanical ice-sheet models and knowledge of the ice sheet’s chemistry to bring out the reflectivity that indicates water in radar data.

In the study, the researchers describe where water was prevalent inside the ice at the start of the melt season and where it was present at the end of winter in Russell Glacier and neighboring Isunnguata Sermia, in western Greenland. They showed that early in the melt season, most of the meltwater reaching bedrock was along sediment-filled troughs beneath the glaciers. In contrast, during the winter, the bulk of the region’s subglacial water could be seen pooling in higher bedrock ridges, while the lower-elevation troughs were mostly dry.

The scientists suspect that during warmer weather, water pressure opens drainage systems in the ice, allowing meltwater from the surface to flow through to the troughs below. Those channels may close in the winter as less water pours in and water pressure decreases. In the troughs, the sediment-filled floor allows for better drainage. “Any remaining subglacial water then likely continues to seep through groundwater drainage, leaving little wintertime storage at the ice-bed interface,” the authors write. But the ridges are made up of less permeable material, so water can pool on them.

The effect of water is evident in the changing speed of the glaciers during the year. During the 2010 melt season, Russell Glacier flowed more than twice as fast as it did at the end of the following winter, the authors write. The glacier speeds up in early summer, suggesting water pressure rises rapidly there, Chu said. It decelerates quickly at the end of summer, suggesting that the formation of channels in the ice creates more efficient, faster drainage of the meltwater from the glacier bed, the scientists write.

Neighboring Isunnguata Sermia accelerates more slowly. That could be associated with its apparent widespread subglacial water storage capacity, which may be maintaining water pressures through the winter, Chu said. Russell Glacier, in contrast, has less winter water storage and would experience a greater increase in water pressure at the start of the melt season.

“Our findings suggest that the winter subglacial hydrological state could pre-condition the glacier response to additional meltwater in the following summer,” Chu said.

The technique used in the study provides a clearer view of how water moves beneath the ice than any other existing method, said Joseph MacGregor, a glaciologist and geophysicist at NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center who was not involved in the study.

“We have prevailing ideas of how water flows on the surface of ice sheets, through ice sheets, and under ice sheets. What we don’t have are great observations of where that water is beneath the ice most of the time,” MacGregor said. “This result changes that state of affairs. It also demonstrates the value of airborne remote sensing for testing fundamental glaciological hypotheses.”

New climate model projections of the world’s coral reefs reveal which reefs will be hit first by annual coral bleaching, an event that poses the gravest threat to one of the Earth’s most important ecosystems.

These high-resolution projections, based on global climate models, predict when and where annual coral bleaching will occur. The projections show that reefs in Taiwan and around the Turks and Caicos archipelago will be among the world’s first to experience annual bleaching. Other reefs, like those off the coast of Bahrain, in Chile and in French Polynesia, will be hit decades later, according to research recently published in the journal Scientific Reports.

“These predictions are a treasure trove for those who are fighting to protect one of the world’s most magnificent and important ecosystems from the ravages of climate change,” said Erik Solheim, head of UN Environment. “They allow conservationists and governments to prioritize the protection of reefs that may still have time to acclimatize to our warming seas. The projections show us where we still have time to act before it’s too late.”

If current trends continue and the world fails to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then severe bleaching will occur every year on 99 per cent of the world’s reefs within the century, according to the study.

The Paris Agreement’s aspirational target of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees provides a safer, but not an entirely safe space for coral reefs. Even if emission reductions exceed pledges made by countries to date under the Paris Agreement more than three quarters of the world’s coral reefs will bleach every year before 2070.

It takes at least 5 years for a reef to recover from a single bleaching event. “Bleaching that takes place every year will invariably cause major changes in the ecological function of coral reef ecosystems,” said study leader Dr. Ruben van Hooidonk of NOAA and the University of Miami. “Further, annual bleaching will greatly reduce the capacity of coral reefs to provide goods and services, such as fisheries and coastal protection, to human communities.”

The need to act is clear. Between 2014 and 2016, the world witnessed the longest global bleaching event ever recorded, which killed coral on an unprecedented scale. In 2016, bleaching hit 90 per cent of coral on the Great Barrier Reef and killed more than 20 per cent of the reef’s coral.

The new study shows that, on average, the world’s reefs will start suffering annual bleaching in 2043. About 5 per cent of them will be hit a decade or more earlier, while about 11 per cent will suffer annual bleaching a decade or more later than this date.

If emission reductions exceed pledges made by countries to date under the Paris Agreement, coral reefs would have another 11 years, on average, to adapt to warming seas before they are hit by annual bleaching. If such emissions reductions become reality, many high and low latitude reefs in Australia, the south Pacific, India, Coral Triangle and the Florida Reef Tract will have at least 25 more years before annual bleaching occurs, buying time for conservation efforts. However, reefs near the equator will experience annual bleaching much sooner, even if emissions reductions pledges become reality.

“It is imperative that we take these predictions seriously and that, at the very minimum, we meet the targets of the Paris Agreement. Doing so will buy time for coral reefs and allow us to plan for the future and adapt to the present,” said Mr. Solheim.

Predicting when and where annual bleaching occurs will help policymakers and conservationists decide which reefs to prioritize. “Reefs that will suffer annual bleaching later – known as climate “refugia” – are top priorities because they have more time to respond positively to efforts that seek to reduce bleaching vulnerability”, said Dr. van Hooidonk. Such efforts include reducing land-based pollution, halting overfishing and preventing damage from tourism.

Coral reefs, which are already under threat from overfishing and tourism, are especially vulnerable to climate change because they are easily affected by warm water. When sea temperatures rise, the algae that give coral its bright colours leave their host, causing it to look white, hence the term ‘coral bleaching’. The loss of algae, which provide coral with much of its energy, make corals vulnerable to starvation and disease.

Known as the world’s underwater cities, coral reefs provide hundreds of millions of people with food, income and coastal protection. They are home to at least one quarter of all marine life and they generate an estimated $375 billion per year from fisheries, tourism and coastal protection.

“We are going to need to be much more innovative and proactive if we want to see coral reefs thrive into the next century,” said World Wildlife Fund (WWF) lead marine scientist and study co-author Dr. Gabby Ahmadia. “Conventional conservation is not going to cut it against the impacts of climate change. We need to embrace the new climate reality to guide efforts to save our oceans”.

Archbishop Socrates Villegas of Lingayen-Dagupan has denied reports that he criticized Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in his New Year homily.

The prelate said a Manila Times report titled “Duterte no protector of Filipinos – Archbishop Villegas” was “fake.”

“This is fake news,” the online news site of the bishops’ conference quoted Archbishop Villegas as saying on Jan. 4.

In his homily on Dec. 31, the archbishop supposedly said that in pushing for the revival of the death penalty, Duterte would be killing people, especially the poor.

Although the church is firm against capital punishment, the prelate said the article was a “completely fabricated lie.”

“This was not the homily at the cathedral last December 31,” he said after the article triggered attacks against him by Duterte’s online supporters.

By Antonio Anup Gonsalves

For over four centuries, a historical and iconic miraculous statue of Jesus Christ carrying his Cross has become an emblem of passion, struggle and faith for Filipino Catholics.

The life-size statue of Jesus is enshrined in the famous minor basilica popularly known as the Quiapo Church, located in the Archdiocese of Manila. The statue has survived the blazing fires that destroyed the church twice, two earthquakes, the floods of numerous typhoons and bombings during World War II.

The church which hosts the statue never sleeps. It welcomes devotees early in the morning till late evening. During the day, it holds continuous Masses and healing services. During the night, the church shelters poor homeless people. In the early morning, the church is cleaned and again reaches out to the pilgrims and devotees.

Every year on Jan. 9, the annual feast day, millions of devotees gather to celebrate the Feast of the Black Nazarene. They take part in the spectacular religious procession known locally as the “Traslacion,” during which devotees carry a replica of the statue across Manila.

Up to 18 million participants are expected to take part in this year’s procession and the festivities that surround it.

Pope Innocent X specially recognized the Philippines’ strong devotion to the Black Nazarene of Manila in 1650.

Msgr. Jose Clemente Ignacio, the rector of the Minor Basilica of the Black Nazarene, said that some people wait in line for seven hours without complaint, simply to touch the image.

“They say Filipinos are resilient, but where is this resiliency coming from? It’s the practice of our faith,” he told CNA.

Msgr. Ignacio spoke more about the Black Nazarene and its related devotions. The text of the interview is below, edited for clarity and brevity.

CNA: Could you describe Quiapo Church for us?

Msgr Ignacio: The church is one of the most popular churches in the country as it is home to the miraculous Black Nazarene, a much-venerated statue of Jesus Christ which many people believe has miraculous attributes.

St. John Paul II recognized the church as the Minor Basilica of the Black Nazarene because of its role in strengthening a deep popular devotion to Jesus Christ and because of its cultural contribution to the religiosity of the Filipino people.

CNA: What is the historical background of the Black Nazarene statue of Quiapo?

Msgr. Ignacio: A first group of Augustinian Recollect missionaries landed in Manila in 1606 from Mexico. They brought with them a dark image of Jesus Christ kneeling on one knee and carrying a large wooden cross. The image was first enshrined in St. John the Baptist Church at Luneta in 1606 and after two years was moved to a bigger church nearby. Over a century and a half later, in 1767, the image was transferred to Quiapo Church whose patron is also St. John the Baptist.

In 2006, we celebrated the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the image of Black Nazarene in Manila.

CNA: Explain to us the devotion to the Black Nazarene at Quiapo.

Msgr. Ignacio: In the words of Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, “To understand the devotee you have to be a devotee. Only a devotee could best understand a devotee.”

People have sensed the spiritual wealth in Quiapo Church and there is a huge attendance for Mass every day and especially on Friday.

However, it’s the feast day that gathers together millions of devotees who walk in the procession, called the “Traslacion” of the Black Nazarene. Here in Quiapo Church you can witness many stories of the faith of the people, those who are patiently lining up for seven hours without any complaints. They just want to pray and touch the image of Black Nazarene. There are huge queues for confessions.

They say Filipinos are resilient, but where is this resiliency coming from? It’s the practice of our faith.

CNA: Tell us more about the procession called “Traslacion” of the Black Nazarene.

Msgr. Ignacio: “Traslacion” means the transfer of the Image of Black Nazarene. In a way it is imitating the Calvary experience: the sacrifice and suffering that our Lord endured for our salvation like when Jesus was walking barefoot, carrying the cross to Mount Calvary.

The devotees also want to give back to God by participating in the suffering of our Lord and entering into the Paschal mystery of Christ.

It is also commemorating the transfer of the image from Lunetta to Quiapo, when we first received the statue in 1868. Since then, because of the many answered prayers, people have been celebrating the feast on January 9.

The barefoot procession of an almost 4.3-mile journey starts from the Quirino Grandstand at Luneta and snakes its way towards the narrow streets. Passing through the city’s winding roads, after 19 hours of spiritual euphoria, the procession eventually reaches Quiapo at the Basilica Minore de Nazareno. The devotees flood by to touch the image and throw cloths to touch the image, before receiving the cloths back.

Our culture is a culture of touch and, significantly, in a way we want to touch heaven.

CNA: How do you explain this popular devotion and its importance to bring people to faith?

Msgr. Ignacio: Maybe in the past in the Western world the contemplatives’ experience of undergoing retreats in monasteries, retreat houses etc. was a contemplative way of entering into the mystery of Christ.

But there was also another, lay-focused way of having retreats by making pilgrimages. St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony, St Ignatius of Loyola–they also undertook pilgrimages which involved suffering and bodily penance in the process of entering into the Paschal mystery of Christ.

The devotion in Quiapo is somewhat similar to a pilgrimage experience and every year they come and somehow something changes in the people.

Popular religiosity is not being encouraged because there are elements that need purification… but we cannot dismiss this, because through popular piety our faith has been introduced in our home and in our families. We have been introduced to the prayers, the Rosary, the statues of the saints, the Way of the Cross.

Somehow it has a value and I guess the people here know that there is a very deep gold mine of the spiritual fruits that they can experience in Quiapo Church.

Somehow some theologians have not fully grasped this wealth that is these popular religious devotions. The Second Vatican Council encourages them and does not dismiss them. Pope Francis is asking us to support and strengthen, understand and find meaning in popular piety.

CNA: Has the devotion increased, and what is the impact of this devotion in living the Christian life in the community?

Msgr. Ignacio: The devotion has definitely increased. On weekdays there are about 10 Masses celebrated, there are also healing services. We expected only a 10 to 15 percent increase (in attendance) this year. But we were astonished that there was a 30 percent increase and lot of dioceses are asking for crucifixes from Quiapo Church.

In 2014, (attendance) was estimated at 4 million and the following year they say it is 5 million in the procession alone. But this does not include the crowd in the evening and it also does not include the crowd that goes into the Quiapo Church every hour. The local estimates say this is around 12 million.

Somehow the devotion is growing. You can see the effect of the devotion is to bring out more compassion. Even in just the “Translacion” experience (volunteers) are helping out with the medical team, water, food, so there is lot of compassion.

CNA: How is Quiapo Church helping disaster victims and fostering devotion elsewhere in the Philippines?

Msgr. Ignacio: People are giving. Even when disaster strikes there is a second collection. But where the disaster impact is big we help in rehabilitation measures.

In Bohol (a province ravaged by Typhoon Haiyan in 2014) we have finished 72 houses and given them to different families. We joined relief programs in other dioceses and granted scholarships and ran a livelihood program through our Black Nazarene Foundation, which is the distribution arm of the Quiapo Parish.

We are giving one crucifix to every church so that devotees are nourished in their devotion to the Black Nazarene. Our pilgrim image too keeps visiting parishes and dioceses.