The Taiwanese leader’s trip to the Americas starting Saturday, January 7 will be scrutinized by Beijing for signs that the incoming U.S. president’s team will risk its ire by further engaging with the self-ruled island China considers its territory, The Associated Press reports.

President Tsai Ing-wen pledged to bolster Taiwan’s international profile as she set off on a trip to reinforce relations with diplomatic allies in Central America, a task that has taken on new urgency as Beijing ramps up efforts to diplomatically isolate Taipei.

Speaking to reporters before her departure, Tsai said the visits to Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador would “show the international society that Taiwan is a capable and responsible partner for cooperation.”

She will transit through Houston and San Francisco, stops that will irk Beijing, which has urged Washington to prevent Tsai from landing in the U.S. to “refrain from sending any wrong signal to the Taiwanese independence forces.”

Beijing regards the self-governing island as part of China and officials complained after President-elect Donald Trump last month breached diplomatic protocol by speaking by phone with the Taiwanese leader. Trump raised further concerns in Beijing when he questioned a U.S. policy that since 1979 has recognized Beijing as China’s government and maintains only unofficial relations with Taiwan.

U.S. lawmakers often meet with Taiwanese presidents when they transit through the U.S. — most recently in June, when Tsai met in Miami with Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.

This time, it was not clear if Tsai would meet Trump, though some observers said a meeting with Trump’s transition team could happen despite the risk of Beijing’s anger, AP says.

“It should not surprise anyone if the incoming president’s advisers who will be working on Asia policy meet with President Tsai,” said Ross Feingold, a Taipei-based senior adviser at D.C. International Advisory, a consulting firm whose chief executive has been consulted by the Trump transition team.

“China might issue its usual statements of displeasure … but it really doesn’t depart from precedent,” Feingold said. “A meeting with Trump would be the biggest precedent changer.”

Regardless, Tsai is likely to keep the U.S. stops low-key to avoid further inflaming tensions with China, which has been angered by Tsai’s refusal to endorse Beijing’s concept that Taiwan and the mainland are part of a single Chinese nation.

By Mohammed Al-Sulami

Two terrorists were killed on Saturday after a shootout with Saudi security forces in a district north of the capital Riyadh.

Acting on a tip-off that the wanted terrorists were present at a villa in the Al-Yasmeen district, security forces cordoned off the area and asked the extremists to surrender, security sources told Arab News.

The militants, who were armed with Kalashnikov rifles, fired randomly at the police and tried to escape in a security patrol car. A police officer, coming from behind the patrol car, shot at the two militants and killed them. He was slightly injured and taken to hospital for treatment.

“Wanted terrorist Tayea Salem bin Yaslam Al-Sayari was killed in a shootout with security forces after trying to escape with his companion Talal bin Samran Al-Saedi,” the Interior Ministry’s security spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki told Arab News.

“The two assailants had two machine guns, two explosive belts and a hand grenade,” Al-Turki said. “Chemical substances used in making explosives, men’s clothes, a female gown, some food and three gas cylinders have also been found inside the terrorists’ house,” he added.

Security sources confirmed that Al-Sayari was one of the most dangerous terrorists wanted by security authorities.

He was also one of the key Daesh-linked militants who made bombs and explosive belts. In addition, Al-Sayari was wanted for involvement in last year’s terrorist attack on an emergency forces mosque in the Asir region.

Al-Saedi, the other militant, was released from the Mohammed bin Naif Center for Counseling and Care in 2012, according to preliminary information.

Some witnesses in the Al-Yasmeen neighborhood confirmed that they saw security men chasing two armed men after dawn prayer. They added that the militants refused to surrender and fired at the security men, who fired back and killed both of them.

The witnesses noted that the two extremists had lived in the district for nearly two months and they used to ride a black Yukon car. They also pointed out that the terrorists were seldom seen out of their house.

Oscar-winning screenwriter David Franzoni said a biopic about the 13th-century poet Jalaluddin Al-Rumi aims to challenge the stereotypical portrayal of Muslim characters in western cinema.

Franzoni, who wrote the script for the 2000 blockbuster “Gladiator,” has agreed to work on the film on the great Sufi scholar.

“He’s like a Shakespeare,” Franzoni told The Guardian. “He’s a character who has enormous talent and worth to his society and his people, and obviously resonates today. Those people are always worth exploring.”

Producers hope to begin shooting the film next year. Franzoni and producer Stephen Joel Brown were in Istanbul last week to meet with Rumi experts and visited the mystic’s mausoleum in Konya.

“It’s a very exciting project — and obviously challenging,” Franzoni said. “There are a lot of reasons we’re making a product like this right now. I think it’s a world that needs to be spoken to; Rumi is hugely popular in the United States. I think it gives him a face and a story.”

Rumi’s encounter with the enigmatic mystic Shams of Tabriz, believed to have occurred in 1244, altered the course of his life. After Shams’s mysterious disappearance, an aggrieved Rumi wrote much of the love poetry that he is widely known for in the west — couplets that endure in pocketbook versions of his writings, which have made him a bestselling poet in the US.

Franzoni and Brown said they would like Leonardo DiCaprio to play Rumi, and Robert Downey Jr to star as Shams of Tabriz, though they said it was too early to begin casting. “This is the level of casting that we’re talking about,” said Brown.

The film will focus on Rumi’s teachings as well as his encounter with Shams, while giving prominence to Kimya, the poet’s outspoken daughter who some scholars believe may have married Shams.

Franzoni and Brown said the main reason they wanted to make the movie was to introduce Rumi’s life story to the millennial generation that so loved Rumi’s poetry.

Because of the outcome of the events of 1917 in which left-wing parties set up soviets that first served as an alternative government and then its replacement, Russian officials have always worried about the possible reappearance of such “dual power” and their opponents have always viewed such an arrangement as a path to power.

Those attitudes make what is happening not only in the North Caucasus republics but elsewhere as well intriguing because as one observer on the scene puts it, “the powers that be are calmly watching as one after another the levers of administration are taken away from them” (kavkazr.com/a/ingushetiya-pokidayet-rossiyu/28217182.html).

In an article on a Radio Svoboda site yesterday, Prague-based analyst Ramazan Alpaut describes in detail how this is taking place in Ingushetia and suggests that this state of dual power is in varying degrees taking shape in other republics and regions of the Russian Federation as well.

Alpaut begins by noting that “researchers have pointed out as one of the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire the weak effectiveness of the civil administration in comparison with the military and the lack of willingness of the state to react in a necessary way to changing realities” in the society they are charged with controlling.

“In several regions of Russia,” he says, “societal institutions, operating not on the Constitution of the country but on the laws of the mountains are actively beginning to compete with the state.” That has already happened in some North Caucasus republics; it is now very much in evidence in Ingushetia.

A few days ago, Alpaut continues, residents of the village of Nesterovsky in the Sunzhen district of the republic met and voted to expel someone that the government had not punished in the way they thought necessary, acting much as they might have before Russia took control of the region and without much regard for the current regime and its laws.

To be sure, he continues, the population aided and abetted by some officials only suggested that the individual and his family leave whereas in the past they would have used force to expel them. But such actions have no basis in Russian law and thus represent a kind of civic activity which is a direct challenge to the authority of the state.

Magomed Mutsolgov, the director of Ingush human rights organization Mashr, points out that “these actions of the authorities and individual residents in no way correspond to the shariat or adat or even more to Russian law. In essence, this is the popularization of political speculations and intrigues” and from the point of view of law potentially dangerous.

Ruslan Karayev, a former media minister in Ingushetia, says that in his view it is more than that: it is “a powerful attack on the powers that be” who are failing to recognize the ways in which this undermines their powers and the rights of the population. If they consider what the jamaats have done in Daghestan, they will recognize how bad things could get.

“If this process isn’t stopped,” Karayev continues, “there will be ever more cases of the violation of basic constitutional guarantees.”

And Sergey Markedonov, an instructor at the Russian State Humanities University and a specialist on the Caucasus, says that this case of “’popular creativity of the masses’” is far from unusual and that similar cases have occurred in Stavropol, the Kuban and even Rostov oblast, where Orthodox groups are behaving in much the same way.

But all the experts agree, Alpaut says, that the rise of “parallel legal systems in the North Caucasus” shows that these social institutions are ready and able to compete with official state organs which “Russia had not had the strength to introduce into the region.” Thus, it is more a measure of the weakness of the state than the strength of society.

However, if people begin to feel that, they may act in unpredictable and even revolutionary ways, as those in the soviets did against the Russian Provisional Government one hundred years ago.

In Odisha’s Malkangiri district, a 910 m-long bridge over river Gurupriya is being attempted to be built for the last 34 years. This could arguably be the most delayed infrastructure building project in the world. In a layman’s calculation, had the state succeeded in building merely 27 m of the bridge per year, the project would have been completed by early 2016. This project, like many others, speaks poorly of the much hyped commitment of the state to bring development to remote areas. It also questions the popular narrative that left-wing extremism (LWE) and not official complacency is the primary hurdle in transforming the lives of people in conflict-affected areas.

As the country’s intellectual debates hovered over the imposition of the emergency by the Indira Gandhi government, the construction of a dam that would provide water to the Balimela hydroelectric project created an enormous situation. People living in 151 villages, spread over 900 sq km, discovered that they suddenly belonged to the ‘cut-off’ area. Legally, they belong to Odisha’s Malkangiri district, but the physical connectivity between the hamlets and the district headquarter have vanished. Reaching Malkangiri town, which caters to the health, educational and administrative needs of the people involved walking, bus journeys, boat rides, and more walking through forests, rivers, and rocky roads. In some cases these arduous journeys spanned over more than 50 hours.

The Balimela power project provides 510 MW of electricity to Odisha, an electricity surplus state. However, the narratives of abundance and wretched lives co-exist. An Indian Express story in September 2016 summed up a villager’s frustration over the last four decades. “The reservoir may have provided electricity to Odisha, but it has ensured that we remain a pariah. Most of our lives are spent travelling across the river. Everyday I just dream of a bridge crossing the river.” Understandably, for the country’s urban and semi-urban class, it is difficult to appreciate the condemned lives of the hundreds of villagers who live in the ‘cut-off’ area. Whether such sacrifices over lifetimes can be compared to the lives of soldiers protecting the country’s borders is a valid question.

Not surprisingly, development has eluded the ‘cut-off’ villages since the late 1970s. Only one primary health centre has functioned all these years in this area. Officials have had to travel on motorbikes to reach the villages, and on most occasions, have chosen not to, citing a range of difficulties. The villagers have not had any such luxury. Post-school educational facilities existed beyond the river. For serious health issues and complicated pregnancy cases, the river had to be crossed. Apart from a large number of personal accounts, no official estimates of the lives lost due to the lack of connectivity exist.

While the topography of the region have posed challenges, the consolidation of the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) in the area further complicated the problem. Extremists from bordering Andhra Pradesh established a safe haven. Akkiraju Haragopal alias Ramakrishna of the CPI-Maoist made the ‘cut-off’ area his base. In June 2008, 38 personnel of the Greyhound commando force drowned in the Gurupriya river after being attacked by Maoists. In 2011, then Malkangiri district collector and a junior engineer were abducted by Maoists while on a visit to the area. The collector was on a motor bike and paid the price for being responsive to the needs of the people.

The plan for the bridge has existed on paper since 1956, although the first tender was floated in 1982. Since then, the government has requested bids on 10 instances for the construction of the bridge, but no work happened till 2016. Many contractors cited the threat of the extremists. The first Border Security Force (BSF) camp came up in the area in 2015 and another contract was floated in early 2016. This time the cost was INR 172 crore, 23 times more than the first tender in 1982, worth INR INR 7 crore. The bridge to be constructed over the narrowest width of the 68 km-long river will re-establish connectivity. Ambulances and officials will be able to reach the villages. Villagers will be able to reach Malkangiri town. The bridge will also help security forces intensify their anti-extremist operations.

The fresh deadline for completing the project is September 2017. The bottleneck now is not posed by the Maoists, but by the lack of funds. Of the total INR 172 crore required for the construction of the bridge, New Delhi has so far sanctioned INR 45 crore. The Indian government’s demonetisation drive that has led to a shortage of currency notes for daily payment to labourers poses an additional challenge for the Kolkata-based Royal Infra Construction that is building the bridge. While the weekly requirement is to the tune of INR 2.5 lakh, only INR 1 lakh is available from the banks. Even the river, flowing at a height of 458 m, which is 6 m more than the maximum level with which capping of piles and construction of piers can be done, is unfriendly. According to estimates, the 452 m level wwill notbe reached till March 2017.

Hope floats for the 30,000 people in the ‘cut-off’ area.

This article appeared at IPCS

While the post-sanction era seems prosperous for Iran, it seems worrisome for Iran’s major foe, Saudi Arabia, which is being confronted by Iran’s rising influence in the Middle East and the anticipation of Iran achieving a nuclear weapon soon.

Iranian influence in the region is growing and the trend is due to a number of developments. First, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah, the Iran-backed Lebanese militant organization, have been operating beyond Iran’s border and inside other Arab states, namely Syria and Iraq. Secondly, Iran was successful in establishing its influence substantially within the Lebanese social fabric and there is a strong presence of Hezbollah within Lebanon. Thirdly, the Iran-influenced government of Iraq consults with Iran on about every matter, even on petty issues. Fourthly, a pro-Iranian regime, led by Bashar-al-Assad, is still holding onto power in war-torn Syria.

Fifthly, Iran has been increasingly attaining a good control over the Shia (Shiite) community within Bahrain which has a Shia majority population under the Sunni monarch. Sixth, Iran has helped the Houthis, an armed group in Yemen, successfully capture the Yemeni capital, Sana. Last but not the least, the nuclear deal among the six nuclear powers and Iran was a landmark political, diplomatic and economic achievement for Iran, creating the possibility for strengthening Iran’s regional influence.

All these factors are making Saudi Arabia take unilateral steps for the first time, bringing a change in its long practiced policy of multilateral actions (alongwith western allies) against Iran.

Iran does not possess any real economic strength at the moment because of the effect of the decades-long economic sanctions (though withdrawn very recently) imposed by the international community. The Gulf policy makers, especially those in Saudi Arabia, fear that if an economically weak Iran has the ability to directly engage inside several countries in the region and wreak havoc, what would happen when, in the new post-sanction era, it does acquire the economic strength like that of the Arabian Gulf’s Arab states?

Moreover, once Iran starts to gain an economic advantage, it can push to consolidate and expand its already established influence in Lebanon. Iran certainly would not shy away from showering Hezbollah (Lebanon-centric militant organization) with financing in order to facilitate expansion of Hezbollah’s activities beyond Lebanon and into the greater Middle East.
A strong Iranian economy can also encourage Iran’s political elites to back Shia (Shiite) communities within the neighbouring Sunni monarchies in order to make these countries less stable; similar to what Iran has been currently doing within Bahrain.

An economically solvent Iran may not hesitate to facilitate daring sectarian-moves across the region. It would not be surprising if Iran backs further militiamen engagement to take control of the capital of an independent state in the region, similar to what it did in Yemen through Houthi militants, who represent the voice of a very small portion of the Yemeni population.

Iran’s major foe, Saudi Arabia, now fears that the Iran nuclear deal might not block Iran’s path to the bomb. Rather, the deal may act as a cover to Iran’s effort to build nuclear weapons. The Iran nuclear deal has already been interpreted by Saudi Arabia to be a window opened for Iran to pursue peacefully its nuclear-weapon program. Saudi Arabia believes that as the deal rewards Iran financially, the deal would make the Iranian regime capable of financing and arming the militant groups like Hezbollah, which is Iran’s major terror machine in the region.

Thus, the post-sanction era seems prosperous for Iran and appears worrisome for its foes, especially Saudi Arabia.

For the last several years, Arabian Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia, have been concerned over Iran’s likelihood of acquiring a nuclear weapon. The inking of the Iran nuclear deal has only helped to increase such fears, and the Arabian Gulf states are now rushing to boost their defence capabilities further as a hedge against Iran.

Because of the growing Iranian influence in the region and in anticipation of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia has become more cautious in its defence mechanism. In this prevailing environment, there is every reason to believe that Saudi Arabia may, perhaps secretly, make its move towards developing own nuclear weapon capabilities.

Perhaps, it is the beginning of another nuke race.

*Bahauddin Foizee, primarily associated with law practice, is an analyst & columnist on international affairs, and specializes on Middle Eastern, greater Asia-Pacific & European geopolitics.

Even now, US President Barack Obama is playing his last dirty game to sabotage the presidency of his successor.

The alleged interferences of Russia into US elections is still unproven, despite the final briefing Trump got from the intelligence community that needed weeks to fabricate the “proof”. These agencies didn’t come up with hard evidence, but only with a strong probability, that means still rumors. The hacking story is pretextual in order to dislodge US combat troops along the Russian border and to emplace the Russophobic US Congress against Trump and his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. By the way, how can voting machines be hacked or manipulated when they are not connected to the internet?

That the mainstream media participate in Obama’s dirty game shows that they have not assimilated Hillary Clinton’s defeat. 95 percent of the media have been in the Clinton camp and subdued all negative news about her. They were the largest creators so-called of fake news, that means not reporting of real news. It’s not a surprise that the media are all hung up on the Russian hacking spin that the Obama administration created out of deep frustration about the Clinton loss. The Clinton defeat was also President Obama’s personal defeat because he and the First Lady campaigned for Hillary cross country.

Also, the hacks into the Clinton campaign and her manger’s email account are still unproven, they are still in the rumor mill. The media should have taken the scandalous revelations about Clinton and John Podesta seriously, instead, they ignored it and scandalized every foolish election battle cry from Donald Trump.

Not without reason, the Obama administration pursues Assange so obsessively. And Hillary Clinton said about Assange after he published cables showing her corruption and derogatory remarks about foreign heads of states as Secretary of State: “Can’t we just drone this guy”? The alleged sexual allegations against Assange in Sweden would have long been forgotten if the Obama administration wouldn’t have put permanent pressure on the Swedish government. Hopefully, Trump will dismiss the trump up charges.

Julian Assange made it convincingly clear that he didn’t receive the emails from a Russian source. The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Assange, Craig Murray, confirmed that he received two dispatches from two different sources in Washington D. C. It seems that it was rather a leak than a hack.

As it seems, there were still a few morally decent members in the Clinton team. When a Clinton spokesperson didn’t want to confirm the authenticity of the published emails, he referred to “doctored” emails implying that Russia might have manipulated them. If these emails were forgeries the US intelligence agencies should have at least found out.

The big fuss about the email “scandal” is just a pretense in order to dissuade Trump from his balanced attitudes towards President Putin and Russia. Obama wants to destroy US-Russian relations and urge the upcoming president into a confrontational course Senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both are outspoken warmongers, held already hearings accusing Russia of harming the national interest of the US. The exploitation of the intelligence community by the Obama administration and the Clinton people has led to a loss of credibility of the intelligence agencies.

Usually, these agencies shouldn’t be involved in the daily political quarrels. The last time, the CIA was misused was under the George W. Bush administration. Secretary of State Colin Powell had to present false intelligence before the UNSC that led to the attack on Iraq.

Trump is less ideological than Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. He doesn’t want to change the lifestyle of other peoples and the political system of other nations. Every nation should mind its own business. Trade deals are a top priority of the Trump administration. Whether Trump can stick to his guns remains to be seen.

Despite the intensive briefing of the incoming US president, Trump didn’t denounce Putin. So far, it is unprecedented that a US president didn’t publicly endorse the findings of his intelligence agencies. In the long run, this could endanger Trump’s life. The fate of JFK’s assassination looms over the head of every US president who doesn’t play according to the rules of the Deep State. Besides other things, perhaps Donald Trump has to learn this, too.

That the mainstream media are still against Trump and do not criticize Obama’s blatant spin shows that they haven’t recognized the signs of the times. In the future, Donald Trump is going to go unconventional ways of communications with Washington’s media crowd. There will be more tweets and fewer briefings for the White House press corps.

By Dean Cheng*

As 2016 drew to a close, China published its third space white paper, sustaining the pattern of publishing one every five years.[1] This is consistent with the cycle of Five Year Plans that are central to Chinese economic and social planning efforts. China’s Space Activities in 2016 provides both an overview of China’s space achievements over the past five years and an outline of key projects and milestones for the next five years.

Chinese Aims in Space

Much has been made of the white paper’s discussion of Chinese lunar, deep space, and manned space efforts. According to the white paper, a major focus during the next five years will be conducting several landings on the Moon. These missions, parts of the China Lunar Exploration Program (CLEP), build on the experience of deploying lunar orbiters and a rover, Yutu (“Jade Rabbit”), over the past several years. The immediate goal is to obtain and retrieve lunar soil samples (Chang’e-5) and to land a probe on the far side of the Moon (Chang’e-4). Chang’e-4 would make China the first nation to land an object on that side of the Moon.

In addition, Chinese space authorities expect to begin exploring the larger solar system. Thus far, China has not ventured beyond the Earth–Moon system. Its one attempt to do so (as a part of the Russian Phobos-GRUNT mission) was when the Russian mission failed during launch. The white paper states that China intends to launch a probe to Mars by 2020 and is also interested in dispatching probes to Jupiter and the asteroid belt.

The white paper also indicates that the Chinese will be launching resupply vehicles (Tianzhou) to the Tiangong-2 space lab so that they can conduct prolonged missions. This will help to support the broader goal of getting a larger, more advanced Chinese space station operational within the next five years. No indication is given, however, of any plans to land a Chinese astronaut on the Moon. Given the methodical approach China has taken thus far toward space, it is likely that they are currently studying the problem but will not incorporate manned spaceflights formally into space plans until they have successfully landed and returned robotic surveyors and samples.

In addition to such high-profile efforts, the white paper makes clear that PRC decision-makers will not be neglecting fundamental space support capabilities. The next five years will see the Chinese producing additional models of rockets, expanding the current range of Long March launch vehicles. They will also improve their Beidou indigenous satellite navigation system and field a variety of remote sensing systems (reconnaissance and surveillance satellites), including both electro-optical and synthetic aperture radar systems. The Chinese also expect the new Wenchang launch facility on Hainan Island to become fully operational by 2020.

Perhaps most striking, however, is the clear signal that Beijing is sending in this white paper about the relationship between space systems and terrestrial objectives. The Chinese will target improvements in their space information services capabilities, for example, at areas with large numbers of ethnic minorities, border areas, and islands in the sea. This reflects the importance the Chinese leadership has placed on maintaining a grip on such restive areas as Xinjiang and such key locations as the artificial islands in the South China Sea.

Similarly, the white paper emphasizes the role that the Beidou navigation system will play in supporting Xi Jinping’s One Belt, One Road initiative. This multibillion-dollar effort is expanding Chinese infrastructure throughout both Central Asia (the Silk Road Economic Belt) and the Indian Ocean (the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road). The white paper indicates that basic services will be provided to nations on these two routes by 2018. By increasing these regions’ reliance on Chinese satellite navigation data, Beijing hopes to limit the inroads of American and Russian systems and their associated political impact.

Military Considerations

The white paper makes few references to China’s growing military space capabilities. No mention is made of anti-satellite systems, much less likely future tests, but even this carefully edited volume notes that space plays a vital role in national security considerations.

What is clear is that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been steadily expanding its portfolio of space capabilities. The PLA is responsible for operating all of China’s space infrastructure, from launch sites to mission control facilities to tracking stations and ships. It has tested a number of anti-satellite systems, including not only the 2007 direct ascent kinetic kill vehicle that generated enormous debris, but also a weapon designed to destroy satellites in geosynchronous orbit.[2]

These new capabilities are being incorporated into a new organizational structure. The recent PLA reforms unveiled at the end of 2015 and early 2016 include the establishment of the PLA Strategic Support Force (PLASSF). This new service (junzhong) brings together Chinese military space, electronic warfare, and network warfare capabilities and reflects the military’s holistic view of space. For the Chinese military, establishing space dominance is integral to the larger effort to establish information superiority. Consequently, the PLASSF is expected to coordinate space, electronic warfare, and cyber operations.

How America Should Respond

It is clear that China will be pressing forward with the development of its space capabilities, including new satellites, launchers, and facilities. Even more important, however, Beijing clearly views space as one of the many tools it can and does employ to further its overall political goals.

For the United States, including the incoming Trump Administration, it is therefore essential to keep from falling behind China’s burgeoning space efforts. It is equally vital that the United States integrate its space activities with its other political and diplomatic, economic, and military activities as part of its national strategy. Space policy should not be developed in a vacuum.

To this end, American leaders should take several steps to ensure that our space program remains at the forefront of our strategic thinking.

• Incorporate American space achievements into our broader political messaging. The United States is not engaged in a space race with China or Russia, but that does not mean that space missions do not influence international perceptions. NASA is one of the world’s most recognizable brands, and space capabilities are part of America’s brand. The world views American space accomplishments, including the New Horizons mission to Pluto, the International Space Station, and the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope, as a reflection not only of our scientific curiosity, but also of our industrial and technological capabilities and as part of our political appeal. Consequently, our abilities and advances in space should be incorporated into American strategic messaging and public diplomacy efforts, reflecting our overall national will and capacity.
• Establish a clear road map for maintaining American space capabilities. Because of its wealth, the United States sustains four space-related programs. NASA focuses on space exploration, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is responsible for providing essential information such as meteorological forecasting. In addition, there is the realm of national security space, where the U.S. Air Force and the intelligence community fly a variety of space systems to monitor global developments. Yet despite this substantial commitment of resources, the United States continues to rely on Russia for rocket engines and to place American astronauts in orbit. This dependence will eventually undermine American space superiority: If we cannot decide how and when to place payloads into orbit, how can we sustain our position?
• Sustain funding and provide programmatic stability for key space projects. It is incumbent on the incoming Administration and Congress to provide the wherewithal to support continued American leadership in space. In part, this entails providing sufficient funding over the long term to ensure that programs can be brought to fruition. The end of the Space Shuttle program has seen a variety of incarnations of rockets and crew capsules, but the consistent support from both the executive and legislative branches necessary to produce a working system has never materialized. Similar problems have marred the American weather satellite constellation to the point that the U.S. now depends on China for portions of its weather data.
• Encourage private-sector entrepreneurship and innovation in meeting civilian space demands. In some areas, such as communications satellites, private companies have long been dominant. Companies such as Intelsat are among the world’s largest operators of satellites, their constellations dwarfing many nationally owned and operated ones.

Conclusion

One of the Obama Administration’s major innovations has been increased reliance on the private sector to produce new approaches to managing and even to launching satellites. Coupled with interest from such entrepreneurs as Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, the result has been a surge of companies striving to fill the gaps in America’s space capabilities. This approach should be sustained in the coming years, especially as the companies’ products mature and become increasingly reliable. Encouraging entrepreneurship and unleashing private-sector innovation will be crucial to rebuilding America’s lead in space.

About the author:
*Dean Cheng is a Senior Research Fellow in the Asian Studies Center, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.

Source:
This article was published by The Heritage Foundation.

Notes:
[1] White Paper, China’s Space Activities in 2016, State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, December 2016, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=49722 (accessed January 5, 2017).

[2] Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., “Pentagon Reports on China’s Satellite Killers,” Breaking Defense, May 11, 2015, http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/pentagon-reports-on-chinas-satellite-killers/ (accessed January 5, 2017).

In a final rule issued and effective on December 23, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security removed regulations that the Executive had relied upon in implementing the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

These regulations had authorized the imposition of “special registration, fingerprinting, and photographing requirements” upon certain aliens who are citizens or nationals of countries designated by notice in the Federal Register. In essence, the regulations provided a “turnkey” system, whereby the Executive could potentially subject particular aliens to so-called “special registration” requirements by issuing a Federal Register notice (i.e., without further rulemaking).

Some had called for the Obama Administration to dismantle this system, which others continued to support, out of concern that a future administration could use it to create a registry that targeted religious or racial minorities. However, despite the Obama Administration’s action, the statutory authority under which the removed regulations were promulgated remains in effect and could potentially be used to impose new, NSEERS-like requirements in the future.

This article briefly surveys the legal authorities that underlay the implementation of NSEERS, as well as the authorities that remain available to the Executive notwithstanding the recent rule change.

NSEERS and Its Implementation

NSEERS was a multi-part initiative, which called for certain “nonimmigrant aliens” from designated countries to register at ports of entry and within the interior of the country, a process that included being fingerprinted, photographed, and interviewed.

These aliens were also required to provide immigration authorities with certain information about their presence in the United States (e.g., changes of address and employment), and to depart the United States through designated ports of entry.

As used here, the term “nonimmigrant aliens” generally encompassed aliens admitted to the United States pursuant to one of the various “lettered” visas (e.g., F visas for students). Lawful permanent residents (LPRs), refugees, asylees, and applicants for asylum were excluded, as were aliens admitted under valid A visas (diplomats or foreign government officials) and G visas (employees of designated international organizations).

When it promulgated the regulations announcing NSEERS in June 2002, the George W. Bush Administration cited various authorities for the program. Key among these authorities were previously “existing regulations” at 8 C.F.R. § 264.1(f), which, at that time, provided that “the Attorney General [later, Secretary of Homeland Security] may designate, by a comprehensive public notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER, that certain nonimmigrants of specific countries are required to be registered and fingerprinted upon arrival in the United States.” The Bush Administration also cited several provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), including:

• INA § 214(a), which provides that the admission of “nonimmigrant aliens” to the United States “shall be for such time and under such conditions” as the Secretary of Homeland Security may prescribe;
• INA § 215(a), which makes it unlawful for aliens to enter or depart the United States “except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe;” and
• INA § 265(a), which directs that “[e]ach alien required to be registered” must notify immigration officials in writing of any change of address within 10 days and furnish, along with this notice, “such additional information” as the Secretary of Homeland Security may require.

Subsequently, relying on the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 264.1(f), the Bush Administration issued a series of notices in the Federal Register that generally designated male nonimmigrant aliens, 16 years of age or older, from some two dozen countries for special registration. All but one of these countries has been described as “predominantly Muslim” (e.g., Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria). The other designated country was North Korea.

Obama Administration’s Actions and Their Legal Significance

All 25 countries were later removed from NSEERS as the result of a 2011 notice in the Federal Register (which also noted the Executive’s reliance upon other methods, besides registration, to screen aliens for security risks).

However, the regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 264.1(f), under which these countries had been designated, remained in effect until the Obama Administration removed the regulations on December 23, 2016. The removal of these regulations effectively disassembled the framework that the Bush Administration had relied upon in implementing NSEERS in the way that it did (i.e., by designating countries through Federal Register notices).

However, the statutory authority under which these regulations were initially promulgated remains in effect and could permit the Executive to promulgate the same or similar regulations in the future. This statutory provision, INA § 263(a), expressly authorizes the Executive to “prescribe special regulations and forms”—separate and apart from the general registration and fingerprinting requirements set forth in INA § 262—for six categories of aliens. Five of these categories are specific and encompass only: (1) alien crewmen; (2) holders of border-crossing identification cards; (3) aliens “confined in institutions” within the United States; (4) aliens under order of removal; and (5) aliens who are or have been on criminal probation or parole within the United States. However, the sixth category under INA § 263(a) is broader than the others and includes “aliens of any other class not lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence.”

This statutory language has been construed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) as permitting the “nationality-based distinctions” among nonimmigrant aliens employed in NSEERS. It could potentially also be construed even more broadly to encompass other aliens who are not lawful permanent residents, such as refugees. (The Executive could potentially also point to other provisions of the INA, beyond INA §§ 262-263, as authorizing the imposition of registration requirements upon aliens.)

It should also be noted that federal courts have previously rejected the argument that the imposition of special registration requirements upon aliens based upon their nationality necessarily runs afoul of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. In 1980, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected such a challenge to the special registration requirements imposed on “nonimmigrant post-secondary school students” from Iran during the Iranian Hostage Crisis on the grounds that “classifications among aliens based upon nationality are consistent with due process and equal protection if supported by a rational basis.”

Subsequently, at least one federal court of appeals relied upon similar logic in rejecting an equal protection challenge to NSEERS. In the Second Circuit decision previously noted, the court opined that the “most exacting level of scrutiny that we will impose on immigration legislation is rational basis review” and concluded that NSEERS withstood such review because it represented a “plainly rational attempt to enhance national security.”

The Second Circuit further rejected the argument that the NSEERS was “motivated by an improper animus toward Muslims,” in part, because Muslims from non-designated countries were not subject to the special registration requirements, while non-Muslims from designated countries were. Other courts reviewing equal protection challenges to NSEERS did not determine what level of review should apply, instead holding that they lacked jurisdiction to hear these challenges. These courts did so because they viewed the challenges as essentially raising selective prosecution as a defense to removal proceedings, a claim that is generally seen to be foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Reno v. Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee.

As a result, if a future administration were to reestablish an NSEERS-like program for aliens, judicial precedent could make certain challenges to such a program more difficult, although challengers could seek to distinguish future programs from earlier ones in some way.

Source:
This article was published by CRS as “Legal Sidebar: Alien Registration Requirements: Obama Administration Removes Certain Regulations, but Underlying Statutory Authority Remains” (PDF).

By Joel Wuthnow*

In late 2015 and early 2016, China announced a sweeping set of reforms to the organizational structure of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).1 Key changes included the following:

• The 4 semiautonomous general departments (responsible for operations, political work, logistics, and armaments) were replaced by 15 departments directly under the Central Military Commission (CMC).
• At the service level, a new Strategic Support Force was set up to provide support in the electromagnetic, space, and cyber domains; a separate headquarters was established for the ground forces (which were previously collectively led by the general departments); and the Second Artillery Force, an independent branch responsible for China’s conventional and nuclear missiles, was upgraded to a full-fledged service and renamed the PLA Rocket Force.
• The seven military regions, responsible for administering forces at the regional level, were replaced with five “theater commands” aligned against specific land and maritime threats on China’s periphery.

The reforms not only significantly altered the PLA’s organizational structure but also redefined authority relationships among major components. The PLA Air Force and Navy headquarters, which previously commanded operations during peacetime, were reassigned to administrative roles focused on training and equipping troops. Operational authority moved to a two-tiered system in which decisions will be made by the CMC and carried out by theater commanders.

In some ways, the new system is reminiscent of the U.S. military structure that developed following the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. That act similarly assigned the Services an “organize, train, and equip” function, while placing operations in the hands of regional combatant commands, such as the U.S. Pacific Command.

Nevertheless, a key difference is that the PLA remains a “party army”—with a primary focus on defending the interests of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)—not a national army, like the U.S. military, that serves the country’s interests regardless of which political party is in power. Thus, the PLA will continue to possess Leninist features that have no cognate in the U.S. system, such as a CMC, political commissars, and party committees down to the regimental level.

Why did Chinese President Xi Jinping and his supporters in the PLA pursue this course of reform? There are both political and operational motivations. Politically, the reforms were designed to enhance the ability of the CCP to supervise the armed forces, which were seen as increasingly corrupt and undisciplined. The reforms thus go hand in hand with parallel efforts to weed out malfeasance through an anticorruption campaign in the PLA that has already resulted in the dismissal of dozens of senior officers (including two former CMC vice chairmen, Xu Caihou and Guo Boxiong) and with efforts to strengthen Xi’s authority over the military in his role as CCP general secretary.

The reforms strengthen political control over the PLA in several ways. One reform, for instance, disbands the general departments, which were seen as too autonomous and riddled with corruption, and places their successor organizations directly under the CMC, where they can be more closely scrutinized. Another strengthens auditing and discipline inspection functions, which allow the CMC to send investigators to units across the PLA to root out offenders. In addition, the new Political and Legal Affairs Commission was set up under the CMC to bolster the role of regulations and law enforcement in the PLA.

Operationally, the reforms are intended to increase the PLA’s ability to successfully conduct joint operations on a high-tech battlefield. Over the past two decades, Chinese military strategists have identified joint operations as a key to modern warfare. This recognition was due in part to the observations of U.S. battlefield success during the first Gulf War and other operations in the 1990s. Consequently, the PLA developed joint doctrine and carried out an increasing number of cross-service exercises.

The reforms help facilitate “jointness” in the PLA in several ways. The first way is by creating a joint command and control system that places operational authority in the hands of commanders at both the central level (in the new joint staff department under the CMC) and the regional level (in theater commands). Second, the reforms established a separate ground force headquarters, freeing the CMC and theater commands to become fully joint organizations. Third, the reforms create a training management department at the CMC level that focuses on joint training. The fourth way is by giving theater commanders authority over almost all units in their respective areas of responsibility. This includes air, naval, and conventional missile forces, but probably not nuclear forces.

What does all this mean for Taiwan’s security? There are several possible implications. First, in the near term the PLA is likely to face a degree of organizational disruption as new lines of authority are clarified, new leaders take their positions, and rank-and-file personnel seek to understand where they stand in the new organizational chart and what their roles will be. An added source of organizational stress will be a concurrent downsizing of the PLA, in which the Chinese military is slated to decrease from 2.3 million to 2 million servicemembers by late 2017. As a result, the PLA will be focused inward for the next few years, reducing its ability to fight a major war.

Second, over the longer term the PLA could build a more robust ability to conduct joint operations in multiple domains. The theater commands, in particular, will likely focus on joint training related to threats in their particular areas of responsibility. Regarding Taiwan, the Eastern Theater Command, based in Nanjing, will be responsible for planning and operations related to a Taiwan contingency. Theater commanders will be able to integrate units from the army, navy, air force, and conventional missile force into joint training and operations. The Eastern Theater commander could also probably draw on more support from the Strategic Support Force, which will be critical for pursuing operations in nontraditional domains of warfare, such as space and cyber. The result could be a better trained joint force that will pose an even greater threat to Taiwan’s security.

Third, the PLA is working to create new and better trained leaders responsible for developing doctrine and conducting training and operations relevant to a Taiwan contingency. The PLA is already instituting professional military education reforms to complement its organizational restructuring, including a new curriculum focused on joint command at the PLA National Defense University.2 New commanders will also rotate into key positions at both the CMC and theater levels. Some of these could be senior officers from the navy and air force, which would bring valuable new perspectives as the PLA seeks to build a more joint force. Moreover, the PLA will probably continue a tradition of sending its best and brightest officers to the theater responsible for Taiwan.

Fourth, the Chinese military will continue to allocate its most advanced equipment to the Eastern Theater Command, just as it sent its most capable hardware to the preceding Nanjing Military Region. The reforms could facilitate development of more advanced equipment, such as long-range precision-strike systems, by encouraging stronger civil-military cooperation in defense research and development and by instituting procurement and acquisition reforms. According to press reports, the Strategic Support Force will play a role in developing advanced capabilities. This could result in a PLA that is not only better trained but also better equipped to pursue operations in a Taiwan contingency.

Nevertheless, several obstacles could inhibit the PLA’s ability to develop into a more credible joint force. First, at least for the next few years, the PLA will continue to be an organization dominated by the ground forces, with most key positions filled by army officers. This could inhibit the emergence of a true joint mentality within the PLA. Second, inter-service rivalry could pose issues as each service attempts to demonstrate and maintain its unique advantages. This might be particularly problematic in an increasingly budget-constrained environment. Third, the PLA’s lack of combat experience (having not fought a major war since 1979) means that it will not enjoy the advantage of testing its organization, doctrine, and equipment under real combat conditions.

In sum, the PLA’s organizational reforms are clearly intended to allow China to field a stronger joint force capable of effectively conducting operations across the range of possible contingencies, including those related to Taiwan. If all goes according to plan, Taipei could face an adversary that is not only better organized, trained, and equipped but also more confident in its ability to fight and win wars under informationized conditions. Nevertheless, as the U.S. military has found in the 30 years following Goldwater-Nichols, developing a capable joint force takes years of trial and error. Whether and how successfully the PLA will overcome its own obstacles remain to be seen.

About the author:
*Dr. Joel Wuthnow is a Research Fellow in the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Institute for National Strategic Studies, at the National Defense University.

Source:
This article was published in the Joint Force Quarterly 83, which is published by the National Defense University.

Notes:
1 Phillip C. Saunders and Joel Wuthnow, China’s Goldwater-Nichols? Assessing PLA Organizational Reforms, Strategic Forum 294 (Washington, DC: NDU Press, April 2016), available at <ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratforum/SF-294.pdf>.

2 Zhang Shibo and Liu Yazhou, “Strive to Build a Supreme Military Academy That Attains the World’s Advanced Standards and Boasts Unique Chinese Characteristics—On Deeply Studying and Implementing the Important Speech by Chairman Xi During His Inspection of the National Defense University,” Jiefangjun Bao, April 18, 2016, 6.

By Aaron Bailey*

Automation has become a huge concern in recent years. With computer algorithms getting more and more sophisticated, machines are becoming increasingly able to do jobs that are many people’s bread and butter.

Driverless cars have been tested on our roads for years. Although they aren’t commercially available yet, they eventually will be. Once that happens, they’ll replace cab drivers, as well as people currently contracted by rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft. After all, if employers can remove the expense of paying drivers, they can provide their services for much cheaper while still retaining a greater net profit. Automated vehicles will also replace commercial freight drivers.

That’s not the only place automation might shift the job market. We’ve already seen integration of self-checkout registers in large grocery chains. Even fast food restaurants are getting behind the trend. McDonald’s currently has kiosks at various locations that allow customers to order and receive their food without any human interaction. Carl’s Jr. and Hardees intend to test out kiosks at some of their locations as well.

Back in 2012 a robotics startup company Momentum Machines developed a prototype of a fully autonomous machine that takes orders, cooks the burger, slices the toppings, assembles the burger, wraps it all up, and gives it to the customer. This machine was shown to be able to prepare 400 burgers in an hour, and the company has already purchased a building in the San Francisco Bay Area and intends to open a fully autonomous restaurant very soon. The restaurant will still require a few humans to ensure the machines run smoothly and to empty out the cash and perform other small tasks.

Obviously if this new robo burger joint proves itself profitable, we can expect large chains to follow suit.

The question on a lot of people’s minds has been, if machines can taxi people around and take orders and flip burgers, where does that leave the millions of individuals currently employed to fill these jobs?

Markets Change — It’s Been Happening Since the Beginning of Markets

This isn’t really anything new. Printing presses eliminated the need for scribes, and more recently online media has reduced the need for printing presses. Vending machines took the job of venders a long time ago. And don’t forget that elevator operators use to be a thing.

But, we don’t hear many complaints about the lacks of jobs for scribes or elevator operators nowadays. We realize that those jobs went away because their jobs can be done much more quickly and economically through other means. The same thing is happening now, just with different jobs.

Businesses have always been innovating in ways to make themselves more efficient, thus more profitable and more satisfying to the consumer.

A common response is to point out that these innovations, and others like them, create jobs for more skilled laborers, such as the engineers who build these machines, the computer scientists who develop the algorithms for these machines, and the IT workers who will fix software and hardware issues when they happen.

But what happens to the lower-skilled laborers? Surely not everyone has the privilege (or the time, given that plenty of families are forced to work multiple jobs to feed their families) to become robot builders and coders. And even if every fast-food worker obtained a new skill, then other markets would just become flooded with overqualified job seekers.

Automation: Reducing the Cost of Living

The benefit of automation today, as always, has been that it reduces the cost of living and makes work more productive. This has been true since the invention of the wheel and all other labor-saving devices.

In cases such as these, the complaint is repeatedly made that even cheaper goods will not be affordable when no one has jobs. The more realistic scenario, however, is that fewer jobs and fewer hours will be needed to support households when the prices of goods are lower.

This can be seen to have been the case during the twentieth century when the work week became shorter, and workers began to work fewer hours. Simultaneously, the standards of living increased.

We have to consider all the facts here: business innovation may remove obsolete jobs, but with the added efficiency, goods and services are able to go down in price.

Take, for instance, autonomous cars. While it’s unfortunate that this will bring temporary unemployment to many drivers, the decline in prices for transport will be a boon to many others.

This could be especially beneficial to many low-income households who spend a large portion of their incomes on owning, insuring, and maintaining a vehicle. For many families who may only need automobiles on occasion, this will be especially beneficial.

Indeed, many households report they have no means of paying for an emergency auto repair. For many families, a broken down automobile is a looming economic risk, and the rise of plentiful automated transportation could greatly reduce these risks to family budgets.

More families also may realize that it’s no longer economical to keep up with a vehicle and opt instead for cheaper automated transportation. They then will find they have extra money to spend on other things, or more money to save.

So while technological innovation may eliminate some people’s jobs, other folks may see many benefits. If the prices of enough goods and services go down, lower wages will become sufficient enough for many people to live comfortably on lower nominal wages. This is what is known as an increase in “real income,” and it’s a good thing.

About the author:
*Aaron Bailey is a contributor at Modern Survival Online, a Navy vet, and a guitar and piano teacher.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

Donald Trump has a plan for dealing with the stock market bubble. Make it bigger.

Before the election candidate Trump blasted Federal Reserve chairman Janet Yellen for keeping interest rates too low for too long to keep the economy humming along while Obama was still in office. The president elect accused Yellen of being politically motivated suggesting that the Fed’s policies had put the country at risk of another stock market Crash like 2008.

“If rates go up, you’re going to see something that’s not pretty,” Trump told Fox News in an interview in September. “It’s all a big bubble.”

Yellen of course denied Trump’s claims saying, “We do not discuss politics at our meetings, and we do not take politics into account in our decisions.”

As we shall see later in this article, Yellen was lying about the political role the Fed plays in setting policy, in fact, last week’s FOMC statement clearly establishes the Fed as basically a political institution that implements an agenda that serves a very small group of powerful constituents, the 1 percent. If serving the interests of one group over all of the others is not politics, than what is it?

The problem we have with Trump is not his critique of the market or the Fed. The problem is his remedy which can be sussed out by reviewing his economic plan. Trump wants to slash personal and corporate taxes in order to put more money into the economy to increase business investment, boost hiring, and rev up growth. Regrettably, his tax plan achieves none of these.

First of all, slashing taxes for the wealthy does not boost growth. We know that. It doesn’t work. Period. Check out this blurb from an article on CNBC:

“A study from the Congressional Research Service — the non-partisan research office for Congress — shows that “there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth.”

In fact, the study found that higher tax rates for the wealthy are statistically associated with higher levels of growth…

The CRS study looked at tax rates and economic growth since 1945. The top tax rate in 1945 was above 90 percent, and fell to 70 percent in the 1960s and to a low of 28 percent in 1986.
The top current rate is 35 percent. The tax rate for capital gains was 25 percent in the 1940s and 1950s, then went up to 35 percent in the 1970s, before coming down to 15 percent today — the lowest rate in more than 65 years.

Lowering these rates for the wealthy, the study found, isn’t aligned with significant improvement in any of the areas it examined…

There is one part of the economy, however, that is changed by tax cuts for the rich: inequality….

The share of total income going to the top 0.1 percent hovered around 4 percent during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, then rose to 12 percent by the mid-2000s. During this period, the average tax rate paid by the 0.1 percent fell from more than 40 percent to below 25 percent.” (Study: Tax Cuts for the Rich Don’t Spur Growth, CNBC)

Trump’s tax plan will increase inequality by making the rich richer. He wants to reduce the top tax rate from 39.6% to 33% which means that people “making $3.7 million or more in a year, would receive $1 million in annual tax savings.” (USA Today) The plan is bad for the economy, bad for the deficits and bad for working people who will see more aggressive attacks on Social Security to make up for the losses in revenue.

Second, the huge tax break Trump intends to award to the tax dodging corporations that stash their money overseas will not be used to fire up growth or invest in future business ventures, but to issue more dividends to shareholders or increase stock buybacks that pump up stock prices. There’s a great article at the Intercept website that sums it up perfectly. Here’s a short excerpt:

“The official line from U.S.-based multinational corporations is that if they get a huge tax break, they’ll bring home the trillions of dollars in profits they’ve stashed overseas and use it to hire tons of Americans.

But now that Donald Trump’s election means it might really happen, corporate executives are telling Wall Street analysts what they’ll actually use that money for: enriching their shareholders and buying other companies.

The Intercept’s examination of dozens of earnings calls and investor conference talks since Trump won the presidential election finds that many executives are telling analysts at large banks that they are eager to take the money to increase dividends and stock buybacks as well as snap up competitors. They demonstrate considerably less if any enthusiasm for going on a domestic hiring spree…

“The wealthy are going to create tremendous jobs. They’re going to expand their companies,” Trump asserted during the first presidential debate. “They’re going to bring $2.5 trillion back from overseas, … to be put to use on the inner cities and lots of other things, and it would be beautiful.” During the third debate he promised that “We’re going to start hiring people, we’re going to bring the $2.5 trillion that’s offshore back into the country. We are going to start the engine rolling again.” (Corporations Prepare to Gorge on Tax Cuts Trump Claims Will Create Jobs, Jon Schwartz, The Intercept)

Trump knows his so called “tax holiday” scam is a bunch of baloney. Why would companies expand their operations, hire more workers, and generate more product when consumer demand is still in the crapper seven years after the Great Recession?

They’re not going to do that. They’re going to do exactly what their shareholders expect them to do, pursue those areas of investment that promise the best possible return. In this case that means stock buybacks, the financial engineering swindle that’s going to add another $2 trillion to equities valuations and send Trump’s “bubble” to the moon.

The people who believe that Trump is going to defend the “little guy” against the special interests, corporate lobbyists and elitist oligarchy who run this country are going to be pretty disappointed. Behind his widely-ballyhooed public relations campaign aimed at convincing his backers that he’s determined to keep the jobs in the US, Trump is working all the levers to ensure the big money keeps flowing in the same direction it has been for the last 30 years. Upwards.

As for Yellen, last week’s FOMC statement made it crystal clear that if Trump makes any attempt to veer from the predatory, neoliberal course she’s charted, he will be quickly slapped down with higher interest rates. Check out her comments from the post-statement press conference:

“We’re operating under a cloud of uncertainty at the moment … Some participants noted that if the labor market appeared to be tightening significantly more than expected, it might become necessary to adjust the Committee’s communications about the expected path of the federal funds rate, consistent with the possibility that a less gradual pace of increases would become appropriate.”

In other words, if wages finally manage to break-free from their seven years of flatlining stagnation due to an unforeseen surge in growth, the Fed will immediately extinguish that improvement by raising rates and reducing the level of economic activity. Yellen’s statement simply confirms the Fed’s anti-worker bias.

Which is why we say the Fed is basically a political institution.

By Nicole Sagener

(EurActiv) — Meat and dairy farming is more damaging to the environment than producing cereals, fruits or vegetables. Germany’s Federal Environment Agency (UBA) has called for higher taxes on animal products, but the idea is controversial.

Agriculture is a big contributor to climate change. In a recent study, the UBA highlighted the fact that farming is the largest emitter of nitrous oxide and methane, a greenhouse gas around 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

This conclusion led the UBA to a controversial conclusion, namely that VAT reductions on animal products such as meat and cheese amount to environmentally harmful subsidies. It put the current value of this tax break at €5.2 billion.

The agency criticised the fact that animal products benefit from a VAT rate of just 7%, the same rate as cereals, fruits or vegetables, despite the fact that they are far more damaging to the environment.

For example, one kilo of beef can generate up to 28kg of CO2 equivalent. For the same quantity of fruits and vegetables, emissions are typically less than 1kg.

Not only are meat and cheese resource-intensive to produce, but animals like cows also emit large amounts of methane when digesting food. According to environmental groups, the production of animal feed is also a big contributor to the greenhouse effect, as virgin forests are often cleared to make space for soya production.

“In future, animal food products should be taxed at the regular 19% rate. In return, the state could use the billions this would generate to further lower the 7% reduced rate. This could help cut the cost of fruits and vegetables or public transport. Both would be good for the climate and benefit citizens,” said UBA President Maria Krautzberger.

For the UBA, environment and climate-damaging subsidies in other sectors are still far too high, endangering Germany’s Paris climate commitments. In 2012, Berlin handed out €57bn in climate-harmful subsidies.

According to the UBA, most of these subsidies are given to the transport sector (€28.6bn), followed by the energy sector (€20.3bn). Transport is responsible for 18% of all German emissions and energy for more than one-third, making them among the most environmentally unfriendly sectors in the German economy.

“Massive blind spots” in subsidy cuts

Krautzberger complained that for years, Germany’s subsidy reduction plan had had “massive blind spots”.

“It is paradoxical,” she said, “that Germany should commit to more climate protection at the international level while we reward climate-damaging behaviour in our own country with tax breaks”.

But Thomas Gambke, a representative of the Green Party, believes the Environment Agency’s recommended tax hike would not have such a positive impact. “We should approach the question of food and climate change from the producers’ side, not use VAT to try and change consumers’ behaviour,” he said.

For Gambke, VAT on food should perform a social function and ensure that food remains affordable even for low earners. Instead of acting on VAT, Germany should demand higher standards in farming, placing animal welfare and climate change prevention at the heart of farming, the expert added.

Several ministers have also rejected the proposal. For Germany’s Minister for Agriculture Christian Schmidt (CSU), an artificial price rise through a tax hike would bring no benefit for animal welfare, the environment or consumers. He told the news organisation RND that Germany should not “use penalty taxes to prescribe what people eat”.

The global growth and survival of ISIS, in the face of opposition by governments, armies, intelligence agencies and police forces from nearly a hundred countries, requires analysis.

We understand ‘ISIS’ as the organized, militant, violent Salafist movement sometimes funded by the royal family of Saudi Arabia.

The Opposition

Those generally opposed to ISIS, in many cases, have pursued a dual and contradictory approach. For example, the United States has, at different times and places, opposed or supported ‘ISIS’.

For example, Washington supported ISIS against the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan; the secular nationalist government of Libya under President Gadhafi; Moscow in Chechnya; the Baathist government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Bashar Assad in Syria; several Presidents of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Hezbollah in Lebanon; against the People’s Republic of China fighting Uighur terrorists in Xingjian; against the Houthi nationalists in Yemen.

At various times, and especially today, the US attacked ISIS when it moved against Washington’s allies and vassal regimes.

The US opposed ISIS attacks on its ‘clients and allies’ in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and when it launched terrorist attacked against the European Union, Australia and Canada. The US opposed ISIS attacks against US-backed regimes in Somalia, Libya, Tunisia and Iraq.
ISIS has also provoked armed responses from other major powers: Russia has attacked ISIS-liked terrorists in the Caucuses, Syria and in its own cities.

Iran has waged war against ISIS in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon and within its own borders.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel, like the US, have pursued a dual approach to ISIS. On the one hand, they have financed and provided arms and medical treatment to ISIS as part of their ‘regime change’ strategy against President Assad in Syria, while waging war against ISIS when it threatened their own territorial or political ambitions in Syria.

Turkey found itself fighting ISIS when it sought to annex border regions of Syria in order to neutralize the national ambitions of the Kurds.

ISIS: A Global Power

ISIS, despite facing the world’s greatest powers and their allies, has managed to survive in a state of continuous warfare in five continents for nearly two decades. Despite lacking a single warplane or a navy, ISIS has threatened numerous regimes.

ISIS attacks have forced NATO to spend tens of billions of dollars on security measures to protect its own citizens. ISIS brutality has contributed to the flood of hundreds of thousands of refugees into Europe, a major destabilizing factor for the European Union. In brief, ISIS has become a global power without a single airplane or submarine.

What Makes ISIS a Global Power?

Western analysts focus on ISIS terrorism, which is the tactical underpinnings of its power and global reach.

Terrorism is a major part of ISIS training, discipline and militant ideology. It is a system of political, economic, cultural and religious education which explains ISIS survival and expansion.

ISIS fuses a value system exalting ethno-religious supremacy with careful tactical regional alliances.

ISIS military leaders have forged alliances with an expansionist Turkey, trading oil for arms, financial resources and logistical support to further their advances in Iraq and Syria while fueling Ankara’s regional hegemonic ambitions. ISIS obtained extensive military and financial support from the Saudi monarchic dictatorship in exchange for ISIS waging terrorist wars against Riyadh’s regional rival Shia regimes.

ISIS pursued many forms of tactical alliance with the US, supporting Washington in its campaigns of ‘regime change’ in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq, in exchange for arms, money and territory.

The tactical alliances have been transitory. In Iraq, ISIS switched from attacking Saddam Hussein to waging an unremitting terror campaign against the subsequent US vassals; from defeating Russians in Afghanistan to attacking the US and its local puppet regimes; from cooperating with the US and Turkey against President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, to absorbing or exterminating the so-called ‘moderate’ mercenaries openly backed by Washington and Ankara.

Tactical alliances have been unstable forms of mutual manipulation. They were terminated when ISIS gained the upper hand in the initial alliances. The US counterattacked with its US-Kurdish-Iraqi Regime alliance forcing ISIS to retreat in Iraq. In Syria, the alliance among Damascus, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah decimated ISIS. In Afghanistan, the Taliban has routed ISIS.

The retreat of ISIS in the Middle East has been relative. It has retained its leadership and battle hardened cadre. ISIS expanded with a series of individual terrorist attacks in the heart of the EU, US and Turkey. ISIS has lost only portions of its financial and military supply lines and has not suffered a strategic defeat. ISIS strength resides in its ideology and the quality of its leaders and members and their political-military commitments.

ISIS ideology is based on its belief in the superiority and exceptionality of its value system. ISIS ideology is, therefore, the mirror image of Western Imperialist and Israeli beliefs, which justify military conquests over vast populations of subjugated and degraded people.

Western and Israeli elites stress the superiority of their value systems and indoctrinate true believers into committing atrocities against all ‘others’.

ISIS’s ideology is backed by its members’ deep commitment to its goals and tactics. ISIS political strength is measured by the quality and depth of its supporters’ willingness to kill and die for its strategic goals.

It is the ISIS belief system, and not any cult of the personality, that drives hundreds of ISIS fighters and activists to engage in suicide bombings aimed at strategic military or ‘soft’ civilian targets with high publicity value.

While NATO and Russian powers have superior air and maritime bombing capacity, ISIS has unrivaled human suicide bomber power. ISIS suicide bombers match the high tech bombers of the West in their capacity to terrorize peaceful civilians and create chaos.

Conclusion

ISIS has converted its former tactical alliances with the West and Turkey into strategic weapons against them. ISIS terror bombings in the West are detonated by overseas sympathizers, ‘self-radicalized’ supporters or returning fighters. Decentralized terror is derived from commitments to the centralized battlefields.

ISIS borrowed its overseas operations from the well-documented practices of Western secret services. They place bombs in airplanes and other public venues while arranging the assassination of overseas officials. While ISIS does not have the global resources and complex organizational reach of the multiple intelligence and military structures of the West, it excels with its cadre of followers willing and able to engage in suicide missions – something only a few of their Western terrorist counterparts have been willing to pursue.

The worldwide war between ISIS and the major powers is likely to continue far beyond territorial victories and losses. The only hope of defeating ISIS lies in Western civilians successfully forcing their governments, namely the US and NATO, to end their invasions, occupations and withdraw from the Middle East.

Without Western armies of occupation and detested client regimes, ISIS could no longer claim to defend national and Islamic ideology. ISIS, in essence a foreign ideology, would face popular liberation armies, which draw their strength from the people’s commitments and beliefs in their historic nations, including secular and religious defenders of democratic rights and socialist values.

Thirty years ago a mysterious disease wiped out long-spined black sea urchins across the Caribbean, leading to massive algal overgrowth that smothered already overfished coral reefs.

Now, marine biologists at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) report that smaller sea urchins and parrotfish may be taking the place of the large sea urchins, restoring the balance on degraded reefs.

As a STRI short-term fellow, Catie Kuempel joined staff scientist Andrew Altieri to explore a large area of the sea floor in Bocas del Toro, Panama, where corals had died but, surprisingly, algae had not taken over.

The most common algal grazers they found were a small sea urchin about the size of a ping pong ball, Echinometra viridis, and a tiny finger-sized striped parrot fish, Scarus iseri, which would be of no interest to fishermen. They propose that these tiny organisms may be able to preempt shifts from coral to algae on degraded coral reefs. They may be small, but there are a lot of them: small grazers comprise up to 95 percent of the biomass of all grazing organisms on the reefs in the study. Their combined weight is roughly equal to that of a smaller number of bigger herbivores on healthier reefs.

Intense grazing by the small sea urchins and fish was highest on the most degraded reefs. In an experimental set up involving placing cages on the sea floor to exclude grazers of different sizes, intense herbivory in cages that permitted access to only small herbivores revealed that they can do the job of clearing algae once thought to belong only to the larger species of parrotfish and the long-spined black urchins, Diadema antillarum.

In Jan., 1983, STRI staff scientist Harilaos Lessios noticed that long-spined black urchins, but not other species of urchins were dying near the Atlantic entrance of the Panama Canal. He contacted dive shops and was able to track the mass mortality of urchins as it spread across the Caribbean from 1983-1984.

Subsequently deprived of this large species of grazer, algae grew unchecked, especially on reefs where overfishing had eliminated large parrotfish. Today, despite the fact that Diadema antillarum has recovered in some areas, the total number of this urchin in the Caribbean is still only about 12 percent of pre-die-off numbers.

“Even those of us who had worked extensively with D. antillarum did not expect that its recovery would be so slow or that its absence would contribute so dramatically to changes in complex ecological communities such as coral reefs,” wrote Lessios in a review article of observed changes 30 years later. “Its recovery is the only hopeful ray in the gloomy prospects for Caribbean reefs.”

“Given that the frequency of coral disease will probably increase with global warming and that overfishing can be prevented only in protected areas, which cannot expand indefinitely if people continue obtaining their protein from the sea, the best hope for Caribbean reefs is that D. antillarum will recover,” Lessios predicted.

Based on their observations in Bocas del Toro, Kuempel and Altieri are more hopeful, suggesting that management and monitoring strategies aimed at preventing phase-shifts from coral to algae on reefs should broaden to include the role and importance of diminutive species of herbivores. “These dollhouse-sized species came the rescue of reefs in Panama, and may be important elsewhere as well,” said Altieri.

They will continue to explore whether the algae consumption by these small species that tips the balance back from algal domination of dead reefs is clearing the way for new coral growth.

By Ajey Lele

On December 27, 2016, China’s State Council published a White Paper on “China’s Space Activities in 2016”. This is the fourth white paper on issues concerning China’s activities in the outer space. Earlier, similar such white papers were issued in 2000, 2006 and 2011. The recent white paper indicates China’s keenness to inform the outside world about their achievements and future plans in the space arena. It also means the continuation of the Chinese practice of auditing their activities every five years.

The format of the latest white paper on its space activities is largely similar to that of earlier white papers. It presents China’s vision on space exploration, explains their past achievements and the role of industry towards building space architecture. It also identifies proposals for the future, highlights international collaborations and debate policies. The first Chinese white paper on space (2000), primarily describing China’s achievements in the space sector since 1956, provides a wonderful insight into the evolution of Chinese ‘thought’ in the space arena over a period of about four to five decades. The second white paper on space (2006) had limited scope compared to the first one as it had to discuss activities of only the last five years. Interestingly, those five years were also one of the most ‘happening’ phases in China’s space programme. It witnessed the visit of the first Chinese man into space and that too in a Chinese spacecraft.

The October 2015 Shenzhou 5 mission later forced the rest of the world to take note of the technological progress made by China within a short span of time. The third white paper (2011) spoke about the Chinese desire to undertake a moon landing mission. In addition, the paper highlighted China’s effort at developing a space station. This paper further underlined China’s keenness to develop Beidou system, a space based global navigational system. It is important to note that China greatly values investments towards developing its global navigation system. They had even issued a separate white paper in June 2015, titled, “China’s BeiDou Navigation Satellite System”.

As seen with the 2006 and 2011 white papers, the December 2016 White Paper too provides an overview of the space activities undertaken last five years. However, it is important to view China’s interests and investments in space in a much wider backdrop. During the last two decades, China has made a definitive progress in the space arena and has emerged as a major space power, globally. The latest white power is not a mere factsheet or list of proposed agendas for future. It actually sets out to project China as a space power for it views space as an important instrument in its ongoing effort “to provide strong support for the realization of the Chinese Dream of the Chinese nation.” It is about China demonstrating its emergence as one of the global science and technology leaders. For many years, particularly in regard to China’s achievements in space domain, there were talks about an invisible “Russian shadow”, but not anymore. In almost every aspects of space, from launch vehicles to ground equipment to all weather sensors, China has made a remarkable progress.

Launch Vehicles

The December 2016 White Paper presents development of space activities as “an important strategic choice” in its national overall development strategy. Normally, the capability of a state as a major player in the space arena is judged by its ability to launch various categories of satellites into different orbits. For Chinese launch vehicle programmes, 2015 and 2016 were very significant years. In these two years, China successfully tested four launch vehicles, namely Long March (LM) 5, LM 6 and LM 7 and LM11. These vehicles are designed for different categories of payloads. LM 6 and LM 11 are for approximately 1000kg category payloads while the other two are for higher payloads. LM 7 is a medium heavy launch vehicle. The LM 5 has a payload capacity of around 25 tons for low earth orbit missions and about 14 tons for geostationary transfer orbit missions. LM 5 competes with the best in the world including the United Launch Alliance’s Delta 4-Heavy Rocket and is considered better than Europe’s Ariane 5 and Russia’s Proton Launcher. The success of LM 5 is crucial for China’s proposed space station (a 60 ton module) programme and robotic sample-return mission to the moon.

China also has major plans to develop a heavy-lift launch vehicle project in the next five years indicating its desire to expand the space station project and undertake more interplanetary missions. Unfortunately, China remains shy of acknowledging its failures in the space arena. For instance, it has not disclosed any details regarding the failed launch of LM 4C rocket on August 31, 2016. This rocket had carried Gaofen 10 satellite, part of China High-Resolution Earth Observation System (CHEOS) initiated in 2010. Probably, one of the reasons for China’s silence about LM 4C mission failure is due to the fact that this system is supposed to provide 24-hour intelligence gathering capabilities for both military and civilian users.

Satellite Systems

The communication and broadcasting satellites have both socio-economic and strategic relevance. China has invested in various categories of satellites including the fixed, mobile and data relay satellite systems. Presently China is in a position to provide communication services in all its territories and also in many other parts of the world. Satellites in the category of fixed comminutions systems called Yatai and Zhongxing (also known as ChinaSat) provide broadband and multimedia services. On August 05, 2016, China launched its first mobile communications satellite Tiantong-1 to provide mobile communication services not only across China but also regions outside including Indian Ocean, West Asia and Africa. Owing to geographical limitations, it becomes difficult for communication satellites to have a clear view of all the ground stations and hence they are unable to pass all the information gathered to the user. To address this challenge, China has developed its first-generation data relay satellite system composed of three Tianlian-1 satellites.

In addition, China has established Dong Fang Hong (DFH) geostationary telecommunications satellite bus (a broad model on which multiple-production satellite is based) for TV broadcasts, voice and data communications, data relay, and mobile communications satellites. They could also be used for navigation and deep space exploration missions. The first Dong Fang Hong-1 (DFH-1/China-1) satellite was launched way back in 1970. The idea of developing high-capacity and long-endurance communications satellites both for civilian and military missions first appeared in China’s 10th Five-Year Plan (2001-2005). However, China’s progress in this field has been a mixed bag of success and failure. Projects like DFH-4 did suffer initial failures, with the first two satellites (SinoSat 2 and NigComSat 1) failing to deploy their solar panel wings (two-stage solar wing deployment method). This forced China to opt for a less complex single-stage deployment method (at the expense of lower power output) and the subsequent missions have been successful.

China is successfully using the DFH model commercially too. They have marketed the DFH-4 as a single package that includes custom-made satellite design and manufacturing, launch services, and even launch insurance. With this they have attracted many developing countries and today states like Nigeria, Pakistan, Venezuela, Bolivia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Bolivia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Nicaragua have either taken the delivery of DFH buses or are in the process of getting one. China is continually upgrading its spacecraft bus and developing satellites with performance and price requirements based on the customers’ need and capacity. Presently, it is working on an all-new DFH-5 platform and expects a boost in its commercial (and military?) sales.

In addition to communication satellites, China is also making huge investments in space science and earth observation satellites for remote sensing, space mapping and meteorological purposes including constellation of small satellites for environment and disaster monitoring and forecasting. The 2016 White Paper in fact discusses in detail China’s investments and future plans in all these sectors. Satellites developed under High-resolution Earth Observation System come with sub-metric resolution and have Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imaging instruments on-board. During 2015-16, China launched its first commercial remote sensing satellites, the Jilin-1 series. The manufactures of these satellites aim to provide customers with new concept products, which though technologically advanced would still be available at low costs. In the last few years, China has launched dozens of satellites under Yaogan Weixing series. These remote sensing satellites are dual-use and are believed to provide reconnaissance support to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

The 2016 White Paper also provides various inputs about the progress made towards developing ground facilities such as Telemetry, Tracking and Command (TT&C) infrastructure, up linking stations, data-sharing and data-processing facilities, new launch sites for rockets and techniques and processes evolved towards monitoring and providing early warning on the movement of space debris. Also, various details have been provided about the investments made for developing innovative technologies and proposals for future experimentation in space and methods for gathering data in the field of space science.

Core Areas of Interest

All the four while papers on space and a separate one issued on BeiDou Navigation Satellite System indicates that presently China has three core areas of interest in the space domain: space based navigation, space station and inter planetary missions.

China is fast completing its BeiDou Navigation Satellite System as 23 of the proposed 35 satellites have already been put in the orbit and the constellation has been made operational for the Asia-Pacific region. It is expected to be fully operational at the global level by 2020, proving positioning accuracy of less than 10 meters and a timing accuracy of 20 nanoseconds. As per some estimates, almost two-third of the smartphone users in China depend on BeiDou System for searching required locations and using other applications like booking taxies, etc. China has already established partnership agreements with Russian and the European space based navigation agencies for interoperability with their navigational constellations (GLONASS and Galileo). BeiDou System is of great significance to its Belt and Road initiative as well. China also proposes to jointly develop space-related infrastructure with relevant nations involved in this project.

China’s first manned space flight in 2003 could be considered as the first major step towards developing a space station. Post-2003, various initiatives taken towards ensuring long-duration human stay in space were directly or indirectly part of its continuing effort at building a space station. During last five (or more) years, China has got breakthroughs in conducting space-walk, extravehicular activity, long-term human stay in space, development of robotic space arm, spacecraft rendezvous and docking technology and operation of a manned space transportation system. Now, China plans to launch a cargo spacecraft to dock with the earth-orbiting space laboratory. It is also keen to master key technologies for cargo transport and replenishment. Overall, the various technologies developed and experience gained would help China in building and operationalising its space station in the coming years.

For deep space exploration (deep space region is an expanse beyond 100,000 km from the earth), China proposes to focus on two specific areas: First, to continue with its lunar exploration project and get soil/rock samples back from the Moon by undertaking robotic missions. Also, achieve mankind’s first soft landing on the far side of the Moon (around 2018). Second, a mission to Mars in 2020 probably on the same lines as that of India, putting a satellite close to Mars and undertaking various observations for planning future missions.

ASAT Silence

In the 2016 White Paper, China claims that it always adheres to the principles of exploration and utilisation of outer space for peaceful purposes. It also reiterates China’s opposition to any weaponisation or possible arms race in the outer space. However, China’s track record in this field had been a subject of concern. In 2007, it had undertaken an anti-satellite test (ASAT) which had generated a significant amount of space debris.

The following table complied by one of the US-based think tanks working on space issues (Secure World Foundation) provides a summary of known or suspected Chinese ASATs in space:

Apart from the above missions, some other missions have also raised questions about China’s intentions. For example:

• Three Chinese satellites – Chuang Xin-3, Shiyan Weixing-7 and Shijian-15 – launched together on July 19, 2013, had made a sudden manoeuvre on August 19, 2013.
• The satellite Shiyan 7 (SY-7, Experiment 7) had already completed a series of orbital changes, putting it close to one of the companion satellites with which it was launched – Chuang Xin 3 (CX-3). However, it made a surprise rendezvous with a completely different satellite, Shijian 7 (SJ-7, Practice 7), launched in 2005.

Such separation, approach and grapple exercises/simulations undertaken by bringing two satellites in close vicinity (say two satellites separated by a distance of about five kilometres) raises concerns about China’s actual intentions behind undertaking such missions.A space debris clean-up satellite (Aolong-1/The Roaming Dragon) launched on the inaugural LM 7 flight in June 2016 also raises concerns about China’s intentions. The broad concept behind such mission is to demonstrate the space debris mitigation technology by using a small robotic arm to grab debris pieces and launch them towards the atmosphere so that they would burn upon entering the earth’s atmosphere. There is a possibility that such technology could also be used for ASAT purposes. The recent White Paper is conspicuously silent about such activities and it is but obvious that China would not disclose their future plans (if any) in similar directions.

Appraisal

The December 2016 White Paper not only highlights the various activities conducted by China in the space domain during the last five years, it also enumerates its strategic future plans. China has proved the competence of its technology in the space arena. Between 2011 and November 2016, the Long March carrier rocket series had completed 86 launch missions, sending over 100 spacecraft into target orbits with a success rate of 97.67 per cent. On an average, China has undertaken 14 to 15 missions per year. China has been able to broadly meet various deadlines (one to two years delay is viewed as normal in space domain) and made rapid progress on various projects identified in the 2011 White Paper.

Developing and successfully testing four different categories of launch vehicles is much commendable. The development of liquid oxygen and kerosene engines has helped China launch LM 6 and LM 7 vehicles. The new kerosene-burning engine used for LM 7 vehicle also generates more thrust and is more fuel-efficient. China is proposing to develop more heavy-lift launch vehicles in future. It is important to note that China has not given any details/deadlines about their impending launch vehicle proposals. Probably, all their plans would depend on further developments in the high-thrust liquid oxygen and kerosene engines, and oxygen and hydrogen engines. It is important to monitor the nature of investments and the progress made by China in the field of rocket engines in particular for assessing the future trajectory of its space programme.

It is often argued that Chinese investments in space sector have a military bias. However, the progress made by China in many fields, from disaster management to environmental monitoring, apart from typical fields like remote sensing and communications, does give an indication that China is looking at space technologies as a tool for infrastructure development, education, medicine, internet access, and for assisting various other social sectors. China’s BeiDou Navigational System is expected to play a major role towards implementation of their Belt and Road initiative.

Presently, China is increasingly seeking international engagement and cooperation. As per the 2016 White Paper, it has signed 43 cooperative agreements or memoranda of understanding with 29 countries in the last five to six years. China is using its space expertise as a foreign policy tool. It has been engaging various developing and smaller states, providing them with the required assistance in realising their objectives in the space domain. China’s present focus is mainly towards countries in South & Southeast Asia and also in South America & Africa.

The underlying theme of the 2016 White Paper is that China considers space industry as an important part of the nation’s overall development strategy. However, the latest white paper is totally silent on commercial gains made from the navigational market. It neither discloses any details on the number of satellites launched on commercial basis, nor about countries to which remote-sensing data/satellite imageries, etc. are being sold. As per some Chinese sources, the Beidou satellite generates about $31.5 billion for online clients such as the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corp, AutoNavi Holdings Ltd, and China North Industries Group Corp. In fact, none of the white papers till date have given any space-related budget figures. Though the latest white paper lauds the industrial progress achieved, there is no mention of any specific investment made in the space industry by any internal and/or external agency.

While it is understandable that China would not comment about their counter-space capabilities programme, but their silence about their capabilities which are significant from the point of view of maritime security, management ocean traffic, etc. is worrisome. A case in point is the recent launch of Zhongxing 15A satellite, which essentially could play a major role in maritime communications. Also, no information has been provided about present and future small satellites though China is using many such satellites for experimentation purposes. It may be noted that micro/nano/pico satellites have significant strategic relevance too.

China is keen to highlight its proposed space station and Moon and Mars missions. China fully understands that probably post-2024, theirs could be the only operational space station. This would not only enhance their prestige but also make them the only agency capable of undertaking micro-gravity experimentation. Probably, China is working towards ‘manned Moon landing’, say by 2030, in its quest for technological supremacy.

Overall, the 2016 White Paper sheds light on China’s growing ambitions in the space sector though it only reveals what China wants the rest of the world to know. So far, China has made remarkable progress in the space arena. The white paper mentions that China is keen to explore the vast cosmos and build itself into a Space Power. China has been successfully exploiting the space environment in pursuit of its national goals at social, economic and strategic levels. It is also discretely using its capabilities in space to influence smaller powers. However, the dubious nature of its space programme and its questionable track record makes many suspicious about their intent, although the preamble of the 2016 White Paper states that China looks at space technology as an instrument for improving the well-being of the mankind. However, to emerge as a respectable Space Power, China needs to practice what it preaches.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India. Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/issuebrief/china-2016-space-white-paper_avlele_060117

References:

1. “Full Text: China’s Space Activities in 2016”, The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, December 2016.
2. Texts of 2000, 2006 and 2011 White Paper on Space and the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System White Paper, available at http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/
3. Various other internet based primary and secondary sources.

Mercedes-Benz and NVIDIA announced at the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas their partnership to bring an NVIDIA AI-powered car to market.

The news broke during the Mercedes Benz Inspiration talk at CES 2017 featuring NVIDIA founder and CEO Jen-Hsun Huang and Mercedes-Benz Vice President of Digital Vehicle and Mobility, Sajjad Khan.

According to Jen-Hsun, the collaboration began three years ago.

“When our teams came together there was instant chemistry, and we share a common vision about how AI can change your driving experience, and make it more enjoyable,” Jen-Hsun said.

“At this point it is very clear that AI is going to be the future of computing. This is an endeavor that we started three years ago that we will put on the road next year – unbelievable,” Jen-Hsun said.

“I am very proud of saying that within 12 months we are rolling out a product with NVIDIA,” Khan added.

According to NVIDIA, the work is part of an ongoing collaboration focused on deep learning and artificial intelligence.

“This breakthrough called deep learning happened several years ago, and it has completely revolutionized computing from the way you speak to your phone now to the way you take photos and upload to the cloud and how it automatically tags and hosts it for you,” Jen-Hsun said.

“We have teams co-located with each other,” Khan said. “We have an office in Sunnyvale. Jen-Hsun has a team in Stuttgart.”

“Mercedes-Benz and NVIDIA share a common vision of the AI car. At this point it is clear AI will revolutionize the future of automobiles,” Jen-Hsun said.

Archbishop Erio Castellucci has a response to those who think the devil is not real: “they’re mistaken.”

“All you have to do is witness an exorcism to understand that evil is a specific entity, as well as a reality,” he told the Italian daily Il Resto del Carlino.

The Archbishop of Modena-Nonantola had seen possessed persons throughout his life, but he had never witnessed an exorcism. Then one of the two priest exorcists in his archdiocese called him. The priest had a “difficult case.”

The exorcist visited the archbishop and invited him to witness the rite.

“‘Come,’ he said to me, ‘because this man has been possessed for a long time, he comes to me once a week and your presence, as a bishop, may have an influence’,” the archbishop recounted.

Archbishop Castellucci said he understood the urgency of the case when he saw how the possessed person reacted to the exorcism.

On July 3, 2015, Archbishop Castellucci went to a parish church in Modena where exorcisms are performed. The exorcist and the possessed person, a middle aged man, were there. He had barely entered when the demon-possessed man started to shout, “Get out, get out of here, you will have a bad death.”

The man then fell into a trance.

“Then it seemed as if he had woken up and in an instant drove his fingernails into the back of my hands,” Archbishop Castellucci continued. “He had a diabolical look on his face and he uttered unrepeatable insults and curses.”

The possessed man “told me I would die in a traffic accident and while he was saying it he looked pleased.”

Archbishop Castellucci reflected on the claim, saying “My life is in the hands of the Lord Jesus and certainly not in that demon’s. I wasn’t worried at all. The word of God teaches that the curses are ineffective.”

After this experience, the archbishop said that he does not rule out the possibility of participating in other exorcisms. The Italian exorcists themselves lament that they are few in number.

Archbishop Castellucci said discernment was important regarding alleged cases of possession. Many cases belong more to “the competence of a psychiatrist than an exorcist.”

He also stressed the importance of prayers of deliverance to help disturbed persons heal.

Bollywood actors Hrithik Roshan and Yami Gautam were in Dubai on Saturday to promote their upcoming film “Kaabil,” which they say is the toughest and most exciting adventure of their lives.

“I grew as an actor. I have acted in many genres but films like “Kaabil” make you excited about the prospect of going to work every day,” Roshan said during a press conference in Dubai.

Directed by Sanjay Gupta, “Kaabil” releases in the UAE on Jan. 25, along with Shah Rukh Khan’s “Raees.”

Roshan said that he is not an eternal romantic, but believes in romanticizing everything in life and that he finds beauty everywhere.

He spoke about how he spent a great time at the Bollywood theme park in Dubai with his family. “I had such a fantastic time with my kids in Dubai. This is our second home. We travel to Dubai at least twice a year, just for fun. I must talk about our visit to the Bollywood Parks.

“We went on a Krishh ride and…, I was so nervous because my kids are the biggest critics.

“The highest they have given me on ten is 7.5 for all the work that they have seen. They gave 10 on 10 to Krishh ride,” Roshan said.

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced demonetization of high value currency notes on November 8, 2016, it was shock and surprise for everyone in India including political parties. Many people developed admiration for Mr. Modi for his courage in announcing such a drastic measure and thought that this would be a decisive step in eliminating corruption and black money in India.

The opposition political parties who were caught unaware remained confused for a few days and then realizing that they would become irrelevant if Modi were to have his way, started criticizing his move severely.

While there was broad support for the demonetization move in the beginning, people, who have not been exposed to such conditions in the past, started feeling the pinch of cash crunch. The black money holders and corrupt persons started looking for loop holes to convert their black money into white and some succeeded, with the cooperation of some corrupt bank officials.

Of course, Mr. Narendra Modi and his pledged admirers defended the demonetization move in the media and public forums, while the critics were ruthless.

Mr. Modi facing test of his life

In any case, the demonetization move stood the test of time for fifty days and people, by and large, have stood by Mr. Modi.

Many people think that if this demonetization measure would not yield the results, the feasibility of India getting rid of corruption in the foreseeable future would become remote. Having raised the expectations of the people about his anti corruption commitment to a very high level, Mr. Narendra Modi is now facing the challenge of fulfilling the expectations of the people. With election in the five states taking place in the next few weeks, Mr. Modi is facing the real test.

Do or die battle

Whatever may be the result in the state assembly elections, the political observers are bound to view it as a verdict of the nation on Mr. Modi’s demonetization move.

Of course, irrespective of the results in the state assembly election, Mr. Modi would stay on in power as Prime Minister for the next thirty months until India would go for next parliamentary election.

Mr. Modi has a do or die battle in front of him.

With relentless attack from opposition political parties, a nearly hostile media and pledged critics who seem to have developed great animosity towards Mr.Modi for whatever reasons and several non governmental organisations whose liberal fund flow from abroad are being checked by the Modi government wanting Mr. Modi to go , the battle for Mr. Modi in the next thirty months would really be hard.

Weak government machinery

The common men largely from lower and middle income group who are the victims of widespread corruption in India for the last several years, expect Mr. Modi to catch hold of the black money holders and corrupt persons , expose them in public, seize their ill gotten wealth and punish them severely. The million dollar question is whether Mr. Modi would be able to do this.

This doubt arises since the ground reality is that there is considerable level of corruption and dishonest practices existing amongst section of bureaucrats, tax officials and chartered accountants, who are expected to help Mr. Modi in fighting corruption.

With a weak government machinery and possibly several members of Mr. Modi’s party themselves not being above board and Mr. Modi’s party itself having received considerable amount of donation from rich business men (most of whom may be black money holders themselves), will Mr. Modi be able to effectively hurt these vested interests, which would only intensify opposition for him?

Test for Mr. Modi’s courage of conviction

Many people in India think that the level of commitment of Mr. Modi to curb corruption may not be the same as the level amongst several of his ministers and top officials.

So far, Mr. Modi has been checkmating them and he has to continue to do this in much more effective way. Further, several state governments are under the leadership of corrupt politicians and it is difficult for Mr. Modi to checkmate them in view of the complex and sensitive centre state relationship in the country.

Mr. Modi cannot afford to go down in his fight against corruption. In the unfortunate event of Mr. Modi failing to decisively defeat the corrupt forces, his political fortunes may face uncertainty.

As people are closely observing Mr. Modi’s speech, actions and even his body language and with enormous goodwill for Mr. Modi amongst people still intact, the whole world is watching Mr. Modi’s future moves carefully and with high expectations.

There are thirty months ahead for Mr. Modi before the next parliamentary election, when he has to necessarily ensure that the expectations of the common men are met . This can happen only if the corrupt forces are not only seem to be punished but also effectively punished to the satisfaction of the common man who dream of corruption free India.