By Dr. Binodkumar Singh*

Diplomatic relations between India and Nepal, established on June 13, 1947 and subsisting at the governmental and people’s level, are moving towards consolidation of mutual understanding, prosperity and peace after passing through various ups and downs.

India and Nepal, as close neighbours, share a unique relationship of friendship and cooperation characterised by open borders and deep-rooted people-to-people contacts of kinship and culture. Modern-day India and Nepal initiated their relationship with the India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950 and accompanying secret letters that defined security relations between the two countries, and an agreement governing both bilateral trade and trade transiting Indian territory.

But, since late 2015, cultural and political issues have strained relations between the two countries with anti-Indian sentiment growing amongst the government and people of Nepal.

Nepal, in a historical step forward, promulgated its new Constitution on September 20, 2015. But, the Madhesis, the Janajatis and the Tharus, who are considered as the marginalised groups, felt they were being left out in the new Constitution. These groups, Madheshis in particular, blockaded the border points from September 23, 2015 and ended the protest action on February 5, 2016, after 135 days. More than 50 people were killed in protest-related violence.

The Nepal government called it an undeclared blockade by India — it systematically raised the anti-Indian nationalism sentiment; and it tried to cozy up to China and use it as an alternative source of supplies. However, rejecting the Nepali allegations, India’s Ministry of External Affairs’ spokesperson Vikas Swarup on October 1, 2015, observed: “We can only take goods up to the border and beyond the border it is the responsibility of the Nepalese side to ensure that there is adequate safety and security for the trucks to enter that side.”

Remarkably, Nepal’s Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli, during his visit to India from February 19-24, 2016, signed seven agreements and memorandums of understanding (MoUs) including establishment of Eminent Persons Group (EPG) to comprehensively review bilateral relations and recommend measures including institutional frameworks to further enhance bilateral ties.

Conversely, just prior to the visit, linking his maiden foreign trip to India and the then ongoing ‘border blockade’, on January 26, 2016, Oli alleged that “India has imposed an ‘unofficial border blockade’. It would not be appropriate for me to visit India unless the situation returns to normal”.

Oli also made a week-long official visit to China from March 21 to 27, 2016, sealing 10 separate agreements and MoUs on using the northern neighbour’s sea port facility, building a regional international airport in Pokhara, exploring the possibilities of signing a bilateral free trade agreement and finding oil and gas reserves in Nepal, among others.

At the height of the blockade, as critical fuel supplies from India were choked off, Nepal turned to China and signed an MoU with the China National United Oil Corporation on October 28, 2015, to import petroleum products.

Before this, Nepal had relied exclusively on India for its energy needs. India usually sends Nepal about 100,000 tonnes of fuel every month, including diesel, kerosene and LPG.

Further, on December 29, 2016, China has agreed to provide grant assistance of NR 15.7 billion (one billion yuan) to Nepal for the implementation of three key infrastructure projects.

Beginning a new level of bilateral military engagement, Nepal will hold its first ever joint military exercise with China on February 10, 2017 named Pratikar-1 that will be on training Nepali forces in dealing with hostage scenarios involving international terror groups. However, trying to play down the significance of the exercise, Nepal’s ambassador to India Deep Kumar Upadhyaya on December 26, 2016, noted: “We have done similar exercises with some other countries too in the past to be able to deal with the Maoists. There’s really not much in it. Whichever way you look at it, Nepal has a special relationship with India and that’s not going to change because of any such exercise.”

Indeed, India heaved a sigh of relief after Pushpa Kamal Dahal aka Prachanda, Chairman of Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist Centre (CPN-Maoist Centre) was elected as the new Prime Minister of Nepal on August 3, 2016.

New Delhi had got tired of and frustrated with the predecessor K.P. Sharma Oli regime, which appeared determined to undo the new warmth that had crept into the India-Nepal bilateral relationship after Narendra Modi became Prime Minister in May 2014. Modi was quick to congratulate Prachanda and invite him to India.

Outstandingly, Dahal visited India from September 15-18, 2016, and held wide-ranging talks with Modi and sealed three significant deals during his four-day visit. The two Prime Ministers reviewed the entire gamut of bilateral cooperation and underlined the need to further deepen and expand bilateral cooperation in all areas for the mutual benefit of the people of the two countries. They directed that all bilateral institutional mechanisms be convened regularly and their decisions be implemented expeditiously. Both sides agreed to hold the next session of the India-Nepal Joint Commission in 2016.

In the interim, on October 5, 2016, the EPG during its second meeting in New Delhi agreed to review and contextualise the India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950. Both the sides decided to change the 66-year-old treaty as per the changed bilateral, regional and global context. Further, the fourth Joint Commission meeting led by the Foreign Ministers of both countries held in New Delhi had noted the automatic renewal of the India-Nepal Trade Treaty for another seven years from October 27, 2016, without any changes in the existing treaty. The Treaty was revised the last time on October 27, 2009. The India-Nepal Trade Treaty offers many preferences to Nepal on non-reciprocity, but it is not all about non-reciprocal trade preferences provided by India. The next session of the Joint Commission will be held in Nepal at mutually convenient dates. The third session of the Joint Commission was held in Kathmandu in July 2014.

Meanwhile, Indian President Pranab Mukherjee while addressing a seminar organised by India Foundation, Neeti Anusandhan Pratishthan Nepal and Nepal Centre for Contemporary Studies on the theme of India-Nepal relations, in Kathmandu on November 3, 2016, said: “As our security interests are inter-linked, we must continue to consult and coordinate closely to safeguard our shared security interests.” He also appreciated the contribution of Nepali Gurkhas to India’s defence. As many as 40,000 Nepalis are serving in the Indian Army and have fought in critical war zones.

Further, Minister of State for External Affairs V.K. Singh on January 4, 2017, said: “I am also the Honorary General of the Nepali Army. A large number of ex-Indian Gurkhas receive pension from India. That’s the kind of relations we have. Our relations with Nepal are so unique that this kind of relationship stands on its own footing.”

In addition, Nepal and India have planned to build Integrated Check Posts (ICPs) on their respective sides at ports of entry in Birgunj, Biratnagar, Bhairahwa and Nepalgunj. On December 15, 2016, a Nepal-India senior officials’ meeting on ICP that concluded in Kathmandu also decided to complete such ICPs in Biratnagar by December 2018.

In the first phase, ICPs were to be built in Birgunj of Nepal and Raxaul of India, and Biratnagar of Nepal and Jogbani of India. The Indian side has already completed the ICPs in Raxual and Jogbani and the ICP of Raxaul has already come into operation, while it is being operationalised at Jogbani soon. Meanwhile, the Nepali side has urged the Indian side to operationalise ICPs at both sides of border — Raxaul and Birgunj — simultaneously.

More recently, India’s scrapping of high-value bank notes on November 8, 2016, has dragged down economic growth in neighbouring Nepal with trade, remittances and tourist numbers all down as Nepal’s economy was heavily reliant on India for trade, jobs and aid. Even Banks and Financial Institutions (BFIs) in Nepal have substantial amount of INR 500 and INR 1,000 notes because the Indian currency is widely accepted in the country and the Indian government also allows both Indian and Nepali nationals to carry up to INR 25,000 in cash.

Ahead of the December 30 deadline announced by the Indian government to deposit banned INR 500 and INR 1,000 notes, Nepal’s Ambassador to India, Deep Kumar Upadhyaya, in an exclusive interview on December 24, 2016, said: “The demonetised currency was also a legal tender in Nepal and almost all household in Nepal had some or the other amount of the demonetised Indian currency because of their personal relations with India. But Nepal also has some remote areas, which have not been able to exchange their notes yet, and people there are worried about their currency and I get calls every day enquiring about what is being done for them through India. We have requested the Indian Government to look into the matter and extend the deadline for Nepal by at least 15 days so that people living in the remote areas can have access to the banking system.”

To promote tourism, India and Nepal agreed to adopt the open skies policy in their respective aviation sectors. Nepal’s Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation Joint Secretary Suresh Acharya and India’s Civil Aviation Ministry’s counterpart Arun Kumar signed an agreement in New Delhi on December 21, 2016 in this regard.

During the meeting, the Indian side had proposed to Nepal to revise the policy, upon which Nepal agreed. But, Nepal maintained that airport infrastructures should be properly developed for the same. The two sides have also agreed to hold next rounds of discussions in February 2017 to discuss various technical issues, including air routes and entry points.

New Delhi appears to have repaired relations with Kathmandu for the time being, and might have more say with the new CPN-Maoist Centre–led government, but it has a long way to go to regain the popular adulation that was visible during Prime Minister Modi’s first visit to Nepal in 2014, and during India’s humanitarian response following the April 2015 earthquake.

Moreover, amending the Constitution to address Madhesi demands to redraw boundaries of federal provinces, is a domestic affair and needs to be addressed internally. Nevertheless, the current trend and cozying up of Nepal and China is troubling for India as Nepal is considered as a natural ally of India and conventionally close to it.

*Dr Binodkumar Singh is Research Associate at the Institute for Conflict Management, New Delhi. Comments and suggestions on this article can be sent to editor@spsindia.in

By Khalaf Ahmad Al-Habtoor*

Barack Obama’s emotional farewell speech before a crowd of thousands was another fine example of the type of inspirational oratory that saw him elected eight years ago as US president. Punctuated by standing ovations and deafening applause, there was hardly a dry eye in the house, including his own.

However, unlike my appreciative response to his masterful 2009 speech in Cairo University, promising improved relations between the US and the Arab world, on this occasion I was unmoved. It has been proven over and over again that he is not a man of his word. At least with President-elect Donald Trump, we know what we are getting. We may be in for a rough ride, but we will not be fooled.

Obama’s congenial façade hid a dagger. He was instrumental in damaging my world, our Arab world, perhaps beyond repair for generations to come. For that I will never forgive him. He has left the Palestinians in dire straits, without a shred of hope. Homes in East Jerusalem are being demolished as I write, while his successor plans to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, signifying the death of any two-state solution.

He contributed to the ruination of Libya, and permitted the proliferation of Daesh and other extremist groups on his watch. Even more shameful was his abandonment of the Syrian opposition just when they were gaining ground, opening the door to Russia’s military intervention.

Worst of all was his invitation to an undeserving rogue state, one that constitutes the region’s greatest threat, to rejoin the community of nations. For all their hate speech against the ‘Great Satan’ the ayatollahs, enriched by hundreds of billions, must be mourning the loss of their greatest benefactor and his wingman Secretary of State John Kerry.

According to Jennifer Ruben writing in The Washington Post, Kerry’s efforts opened up “the US banking system so that Iran could get the ‘benefit’ of the deal,” and “followed up by acting as Tehran’s chamber of commerce, trying to cajole businesses to set up in Iran.”

Iran’s European spending spree is bearing fruit. Days ago Iran Air took delivery of the first of 100 Airbus passenger jets on order, and has signed a $16.6 billion deal with Boeing for 80 more. The carrier’s chairman described the delivery as “a great day.”

That was not the only great day for Tehran in recent times. Arguably, Iran’s greatest day was one that has been given little prominence by the mainstream media, perhaps deliberately so. Obama secretly cut a deal to supply Tehran with 116 metric tons of uranium, enough to fuel 10 nuclear bombs, notwithstanding Iran’s violation of the nuclear deal’s terms by exceeding its production of heavy water last year, overlooked by the Obama administration.

Speaking to The Washington Post, political blogger and Iran expert Omri Ceren perfectly summed up this disastrous state of affairs. “We both allow the Iranians to exceed the heavy water limits in the deal — and then richly compensate them with uranium that can be used for bombs. Our allies would be excused for thinking we are now promoting Iran’s interests, not the West’s.”

Providing an unstable state entity openly hostile to its neighbors and engaged in furthering its dominance over Arab countries certainly is not in the interest of Gulf states either. Trump has called the Iran deal “a disaster” and “the worst deal ever negotiated.” He has agreed to discuss it with its most vociferous opponent, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, once he moves into the White House.

That said, Trump has admitted unraveling the deal is no simple task because the other state signatories involved — China, Russia, the UK, France and Germany — have no appetite to follow suit. They have their eyes on lucrative trade deals. Dollar signs have obliterated their so-called cherished values when it comes to Tehran. They are not fazed by Iran’s domination of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, its weapons supply to Hezbollah, its long-range ballistic missile program or its military expansion.

We definitely are. Those of us who live on Iran’s doorstep are right to be concerned, especially now that sales of oil will vastly fatten the Iranian treasury, which will undoubtedly play a role in strengthening Shiite militias in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and elsewhere.

Obama’s provision of 116 metric tons of uranium makes the situation even more worrying, particularly at a time when Congress is gearing up to slap Iran with yet more sanctions, a move viewed by President Hassan Rouhani as a violation of the deal incurring “a harsh reaction.” He warned: “America cannot influence our path of strength and endurance.”

In that case, Iran could tear up the deal unilaterally, throw the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors out, remove monitoring systems, break seals on centrifuges and clandestinely take the nuclear weapons path with a vengeance. As unlikely a scenario as that may be when Iran celebrates its coming out of the cold, it is not beyond the realms of possibility.

During his last days in office, Obama has stabbed America’s Middle East allies in the back. It is clear that the nuclear deal was heavily weighted to benefit Iran on many levels, but what we were not told was its legitimization of Iran’s acquisition of uranium. The media is hot with discussions on Obama’s legacy. I can only wonder how many more nasty surprises are in store.

How many times do we have to be burned before we get the message that America cannot be trusted? Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) must shore up their defenses in any way open to them. Forget diplomatic speak.

We know who our enemies are and we know what they want. Ultimately, we can only rely on each other. That is the bottom line. If we believe that any major power will protect us if our backs are ever against the wall facing a nuclear Iran — treaty or no treaty — like Ukraine, we will be thrown to the wolves.

*Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor is a prominent UAE businessman and public figure. He is renowned for his views on international political affairs; his philanthropic activity; his efforts to promote peace; and he has long acted as an unofficial ambassador for his country abroad.

By Giancarlo Elia Valori*

Everyone should or could carry out influence actions and operations or, if the situation is favourable, each country could even interfere with or intrude into the political process of an opponent or an ally.

Francesco Cossiga, who really knew everything about intelligence services, used to say that the agent of influence “attacks the country of interest by influencing its decision-making process.” If we made a list of the agents of influence currently operating in Italy, we could almost smile and wonder at this refined, complex and subtle intelligence field. On the other hand, as many Italian and foreign journalists and scholars have documented, the United States made several influence actions and operations vis-à-vis Italy. They included the “demagnetize” project designed to eradicate, both in Italy and in France, the cultural and political influence of the Communist Party and its allies. Not to mention the Embassy briefings given to Indro Montanelli and many other great Italian journalists. This is exactly the “influence” which has always materialized in Italy. Obviously, also the Soviet Union did so, through networks not identifiable with Moscow and apparently apolitical – or even notoriously right-oriented – news agencies .

If there had not been a colonel of the Defence Intelligence System (SID), who distributed bribes to the participants of the Italian Republican Party Congress in Ravenna, so as to ensure the victory of Ugo La Malfa – and hence of the Party line in favour of the “centre-left project” – currently Italy would have been very different. Finally, if a great foreign correspondent of the newspaper “L’Unità” had not had personal and direct contacts with the Palestinian leadership, he visited at night by crossing the lines – and who was later discovered to be a KGB colonel – much of the Middle East policy of the Italian Left would have not been implemented.

Intrusion is a technique of offensive and covert penetration into friends’ or foes’ intelligence systems to draw confidential information and, once again, change the decision-making process of the “victim.” These are crimes which, if discovered – as is probably now happening in Italy – affect the agents, but usually keep the source that used data intact. It is not necessary for these operations to be always in the cyber area – they can also be carried out with the old paper documents. As an Italian Navy Officer did during World War II, by taking away important documents during a party held in an enemy embassy and later returning to the ball- room with a dazzling smile.

To be clear and technically accurate, with Donald Trump the US intelligence services have decided to do what they do in countries swinging between two influences: a delegitimizing bloodless coup. Why? Because the US intelligence community has many and varied interests, including companies, foreign politicians and geostrategic projects already underway. Everybody has mobilized against Trump since the very beginning so as to make him a “lameduck”: lavishly funded demonstrations against him were staged throughout the country, such as those of the Ukrainian Euromaidan, as well as of the usual Hollywood actors – who are progressive and liberal only when their money is not called into question – and of the gay or LGBT communities that have long become reference groups for election or advertising campaigns or for campaigns designed to change social perceptions. One issue regards also Israel: 20% of Hillary Clinton’s campaign was funded by Saudi Arabia, not to mention the Sunni lobby which has been domineering the State Department since George W. Bush’s administration. With Donald Trump, also this mechanism will go up in smoke. The President-elect knows all too well that, without Israel, there is no room for the United States in the Middle East. And even this rankles in the now modest mind of our American friends.

If Trump’s line for an appeasement with the Russian Federation had real effect, the whole new cold war apparatus arranged by Barack Husseyn Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would go to waste. Obviously, it is very likely that Putin ordered his networks in the United States to favour the Republican candidate hated by his own party. However, we will never know and the reconstructions of facts made by the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), who is usually the Head of CIA, are very weak and sometimes naive.

In his official document, summarizing a longer and very confidential text, the DCI speaks about public and well-known attempts made by Vladimir Putin to influence “the US decision-making process”. Cannot a sovereign State say what it thinks? How can we prevent it to do so? On April 7, 2016 the DCI also publicly spoke of Panama Papers dismissing them as defamation means used by the United States against Russia, by even adding the issue of the Russian athletes’ doping at the Olympics. Is there anything more evident than this? Would this be a secret mechanism to “demolish the American liberal society and its institutions”? I do not think so. Furthermore the document notes that Putin, although appreciating the efforts made by Trump during the election campaign, “avoided praising him so as not to create problems to his reference candidate”. What else could he do – as the DCI document maintains – if not developing “a clear preference for the candidate Trump”? Is it a crime or – and here the issue gets comic – an “intelligence operation”?

However, what our US friends currently mean by intelligence?

I fear that it happened to them what is also happening to us, that is a kind of transformation of Agencies and Services into a large “communication company”, in which operations are no longer carried out or, rather, it is believed that “communication” is enough. It is not enough to organise competitions for children to “draw intelligence”. We need to still be harsh and impassive operators of covert actions, which are only rarely real war actions. In short, from the US DCI document we can infer that a foreign Head of State should not even dare to mention the US election campaign. The document also mentions Putin’s “friends”, namely Silvio Berlusconi and Gerhard Schroeder, both kicked out of their own governments because they were thinking of a new relationship between Russia and Europe. Indeed – as happened with the old cold war – Europe is still the bone of contention between the old and new Empires. Currently the issue lies in weakening it economically, but in the past the issue lay in making it strong – though not enough – to face the USSR and its Eastern European allies. Moreover, the DCI document also speaks of Guccifer 2.0 that hacked the US Democratic Committee’s website and is supposed to be an operator of the Russian military service (GRU). In fact, it is good practice for any serious secret service to use e-mails and Internet addresses directly related to its own structure, or possibly state, during the hacking activities, what it is and for what reason it is doing so.

Unbelievable. Conversely, the other charge included in the DCI document regarding the possible Russian intrusion into the US electoral machines, is more realistic. Would it not be better to use the old indelible pencils? Why using – as also happens in India – on-line electoral machines owned by private companies?

The DCI document also states that the Russian media have always commented Trump statements favourably. What did they have to do – always stay quiet? And also other countries, such as Italy or France, have been fans of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, In fact, clumsily as usual, Italy funded Hillary Clinton’s campaign with Matteo Renzi. Hence the charges of manipulating the election process should apply also to Italy, which, however, with Matteo Renzi, knew nothing about the real US political equilibria.

Reference is also made to well-known websites, such as Russian Times, which supposedly “denigrated” the poor wretched Hillary Clinton. Hence, obviously no one can pass judgments on American politicians. Moreover the report drawn up by CIA and disseminated by CNN about the Trump’s alleged sexual activities in Russia was – and is – entirely invented. Indeed, the DCI himself, James Clapper, apologized and has recently pledged allegiance to this Presidential administration. It seems incredible, but it is true that, according to some authoritative American media sources, CIA had asked for help to the Ukrainian services, which I imagine will be gone right through by Russia until after the Summit.

To put it in harsh and clear terms, with these operations against its own country, CIA proved to be an amateurish Agency, now unable to do intelligence, but only capable of doing “communication” – and badly so. We do not even well understand why the ‘Langley Agency has sunk so low. It may be full of poor-quality analysts, but it is not the only one. It does not want Trump to make peace with the Russian Federation, but why? It is true that the new cold war feeds the “industrial military system” that not even Eisenhower liked. However there is a strategic and political alternative option round the corner.

Reaching an agreement with Russia and China (and here Trump harshly criticizes China’s “currency manipulation”) so as to rebuild the new areas of influence in the world. China wants a free hand in the Pacific, without getting in the way and interfering with Japan. It is a smart proposal to be carefully studied in the United States. Obviously the United States will not leave South Korea to its fate, but again an agreement is possible even with the Communist North Korea. Europe should go to rack and ruin, for its irrelevant strategic merits, but it could become a safe area southwards, against the permanent Sunni jihad (fuelled exactly by the United States) and open to Eurasia and its new “Silk Road”, with collective security measures to be studied specifically.

Latin America, that the United States have proved to be unable to hold, could be a reference area also for the European powers, called upon to support – with new development patterns – the economies created by millions of their emigrants. Moreover Africa will increasingly need China and the Russian Federation, which will make their intervention areas safe.

Finally Trump shall turn his intelligence system upside down, considering that McCain himself stated he drafted and then disseminated -. instead of a now amateurish CIA – the 35-page document he himself had received from a British MI6 agent operating in Moscow. Material just sketched out and unverifiable, irrelevant and stupidly defamatory. The American “deep state” has not yet digested Donald J. Trump’s victory. but it shall do so quickly because the new President does not seem to be a man who is content with pretending to rule.

About the author
*Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “La Centrale Finanziaria Generale Spa”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group and member of the Ayan-Holding Board. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title of “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

Resolution 2334, approved 14-nil by the UN Security Council on December 23, 2016 with only the United States abstaining, has generated a tsunami of media comment.  A major subject of debate has turned on the fact that, for the first time in his eight years in office, President Obama decided not to veto a demonstrably anti-Israel resolution.

From much of the media verbiage it might be assumed that this US abstention on a vote on the Israeli-Palestinian issue was unique.  Unique for the Obama administration it certainly was, but over the years the US has abstained on – rather than vetoed – no less than 21 Security Council votes relating to Israel.  US abstentions have occurred under Presidents Nixon, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton.

So that in itself was nothing new.  The truly unique aspect of resolution 2334 is that it seeks to modify Security Council Resolution 242, the accepted and agreed basis for the Arab-Israel peace process.  Adopted by the Security Council in the immediate aftermath of the Six Day War in June 1967, resolution 242 became the cornerstone of Middle East diplomatic efforts to solve the Arab-Israel dispute.  It was accepted not only by the world community in general, but specifically by Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and even the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

Emphasizing the need to establish “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East”, it maintained that Israeli armed forces should withdraw “from territories occupied in the recent conflict” and that there should be an “acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area, and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”

The term “every state in the area” encompassed Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.  It could not refer to Palestine, because there was no such state at the time. The “Palestine” that the world had recognized until 1948 had been superseded by the UN General Assembly’s vote to partition it into a Jewish state and an Arab state.  During the war that followed the establishment of Israel in 1948, Transjordan, as it then was, seized the West Bank and east Jerusalem, and Egypt gained control of the Gaza strip.  These areas, now referred to in resolution 2334 as “Palestinian territories”, were governed by Jordan and Egypt respectively for 19 years – from 1948 until 1967 – without any attempt by either Arab state to establish a sovereign Palestine.  Then, as now, recognizing a sovereign Palestine in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza meant recognizing a sovereign Israel outside those areas – something the Arab world was not prepared to do at the time.

Resolution 2334 runs counter to 242 because it explicitly establishes the 1967 pre-war boundaries as the baseline contours for a Palestinian state, declaring that the council “will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiation.”

What are the “4 July 1967 lines”? They delineate where the Israeli and the Arab armies happened to be positioned in1948 at the moment the fighting stopped. “I know the 1967 border very well,” said Lord Caradon, Britain’s ambassador to the UN, who submitted Resolution 242 to the Security Council. “It is not a satisfactory border, it is where the troops had to stop…It is not a permanent border.” Caradon’s US counterpart, Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, confirmed that the armistice lines did not constitute an acceptable border. In fact, Article II of the Armistice with Jordan explicitly specified that the agreement did not compromise any future territorial claims of the parties, since it had been “dictated exclusively by military considerations.”

Which is why – as Dr Dore Gold, the renowned expert on Middle East affairs, has pointed out – Resolution 242 required the creation of new “secure and recognized” boundaries and “did not call for a full withdrawal from all the territories that Israel captured in the Six Day War; the 1949 Armistice lines were no longer to be a reference point for a future peace process.”

President Lyndon Johnson made this very point in September 1968: “It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders.”

Resolution 2334 by-passes this vital building block for a future final status agreement, and embeds the status quo – long assumed to be negotiable – into permanence.  It urges countries and organizations to distinguish “between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967” – an appeal that will doubtless be used by Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) activists to bolster their campaigns, aimed at cutting Israel’s political, economic, commercial, academic, artistic and sporting ties with the rest of the world, and eventually dismantling the state.

In voting through Resolution 2334 the Security Council, like the EU in seeking to differentiate between Israeli produce and that emanating from the territories, is – perhaps from the best of motives – setting back the process that it nominally seeks to promote.  Pre-determining the borders of a future sovereign Palestine is scarcely consistent with maintaining that they must be the subject of direct negotiations between the parties, a mantra repeated endlessly by world leaders.  If they are already determined, why undertake face-to-face negotiations?  In short, rather than advancing the peace process, resolution 2334 significantly retards it.

Obama’s decision to allow resolution 2334 to pass does not sit easily with one of his keynote speeches on the Israel-Palestine issue. Back in May 2011 he was firmly backing the principles established in 242.  “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

He went on: “Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security.”

UN Security Council resolution 2334 has little to offer on these matters beyond  aspirations. In addition to calling on Israel to end all settlement activity, it asks for “immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror.” Do such acts include Hamas launching rockets indiscriminatingly out of Gaza?  What steps, taken by whom, does it envisage?

In urging both parties to create the conditions “necessary for promoting peace,” it calls on them to “launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process”, blind to the anomaly that the resolution itself creates and its deleterious effect on that exhortation.

Despite the applause that greeted the vote, December 23 was not the Security Council’s most creditable day.

In spite of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority’s endorsement of a peace conference being held in Paris on Sunday, other Palestinian factions were opposed to the premise of the international summit, and said they were not expecting any diplomatic breakthroughs.

Kayid al-Ghoul, a senior leader in the Gaza Strip for the left-wing Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) told Ma’an on Sunday that he expected the administration of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to turn to the United States to foil any possible outcome, five days ahead of the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump — a vocal supporter of illegal Israeli settlements.

Al-Ghoul told Ma’an that the premise of the conference, which is expected to recommend the resumption of peace negotiations toward a two-state solution, meant “bypassing the right of return and self determination” for Palestinians.

Similarly, Daoud Shihab, a senior Islamic Jihad official in Gaza, described the conference as merely another attempt to resume a peace process “that Israel has already killed and buried, while the international community still refuses to admit that Israel is the main source” of the crisis.

He also warned that Netanyahu’s “terrorist government” could react to the outcome of the conference with more demolitions of Palestinian homes and land confiscations in the occupied territory. Last month, Israel responded to a UN resolution condemning illegal settlements by approving new settlement units in occupied East Jerusalem.

A Gaza-based leader within the left-wing Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), Talal Abu Tharifa, also warned of a possibility that the conference may create “low standards” regarding Palestinian rights.

He highlighted Israel’s belligerent opposition to any international intervention in the peace process by pointing to how Israel has been outraged over the mere fact the conference was held in the first place.

In his weekly cabinet remarks on Sunday, Netanyahu slammed the Paris conference, calling it “useless.”

“I must say that this conference is among the last twitches of yesterday’s world. Tomorrow’s world will be different — and it is very near,” the Israeli prime minister ominously declared.

Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has welcomed the conference, and told French daily Le Figaro on Saturday that he believed the summit could be be the last chance to implement the two-state solution, saying that “2017 has to be the year the occupation ends, the year of freedom and justice for the Palestinian people.”

However, an increasing number of Palestinians say the prospect of a two-state reality has become dimmer, amid an a growing extremism among Israel’s right-wing government and public, and a surge in illegal Israeli settlement construction that has now obtained the stamp of approval by US President-elect Donald Trump.

A number of Palestinian activists have criticized the two-state solution as unsustainable and unlikely to bring durable peace, proposing instead a binational state with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians.

Islamic State (Daesh) militants abducted 13 lecturers at a religious school in Afghanistan’s eastern Nangarhar province on Sunday, an official said.

“The teachers were busy taking exams from students in Shpoly area when they were abducted,” Attaullah Khugyani, spokesman for the provincial governor, said.

A statement quoting the provincial governor says Afghan security forces have started an operation to release the lecturers, who were kidnapped from the madrasa in Haska Mina.

In Nangarhar’s Kot district on Friday, Daesh militants burned more than 60 civilian houses that had already been evacuated due to the militant threat.

Daesh militants have slowly been spreading to other areas outside Nangarhar province, adding to pressure on the already stretched Afghan security forces amid a rise in insurgency.

Original source

“Andrea is very sad to be missing the chance to sing at such a huge global event but he has been advised it is simply not worth the risk…” according to a source close to blind opera singer Bocelli who had been determined to ‘press ahead’ and sing at Donald Trump’s inauguration.

As The Daily Mail reports, when tenor Bocelli announced he would not sing at this Friday’s celebration, it was widely reported it was because fans had said they would boycott his concerts and records.

But a source said the 58-year-old had been determined to ‘press ahead’ and sing, but had pulled out on the advice of his security team after receiving threats to his life.

The revelation came as another singer – Broadway legend Jennifer Holliday – last night pulled out of the President-elect’s festivities after being threatened and branded an ‘Uncle Tom’.

Singer Holliday, 56, famed for her performance as Effie in Dreamgirls, had originally said she was ‘determined’ to sing for Trump despite voting against him.

She also denounced the incredible abuse she was getting and called it an attack on freedom of speech.

Stars including Elton John and Celine Dion have declined invitations to sing at the ceremony.

Isn’t it great just how ‘non-violent’ and ‘accepting’ Americans are (when they get their way)?

The volume of discarded electronics in East and Southeast Asia jumped almost two-thirds between 2010 and 2015, and e-waste generation is growing fast in both total volume and per capita measures, new UN research shows.

Driven by rising incomes and high demand for new gadgets and appliances, the average increase in e-waste across all 12 countries and areas analyzed — Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam — was 63% in the five years ending in 2015 and totalled 12.3 million tonnes, a weight 2.4 times that of the Great Pyramid of Giza.

China alone more than doubled its generation of e-waste between 2010 and 2015 to 6.7 million tonnes, up 107%.

The first Regional E-waste Monitor: East and Southeast Asia, was compiled by the UN’s think tank, the United Nations University, through its Sustainable Cycles (SCYCLE) Programme and funded by the Japanese Ministry of Environment.

Using UN University’s estimation methodology, the research shows rising e-waste quantities outpacing population growth.

The average e-waste generation per capita in the region was approximately 10 kg in 2015, with the highest generation found in Hong Kong (21.7 kg), followed by Singapore (19.95 kg) and Taiwan, Province of China (19.13 kg).

There were large differences between nations on the per capita scales, with Cambodia (1.10 kg), Vietnam (1.34 kg) and the Philippines (1.35 kg) the lowest e-waste generators per capita in 2015.

The report uniquely presents a summary of the regional e-waste statuses, and it is arranged to allow direct comparisons where possible that can help further the development of e-waste management systems and policies based on other countries’ experiences.

“For many countries that already lack infrastructure for environmentally sound e-waste management, the increasing volumes are a cause for concern,” says co-author Ruediger Kuehr of UN University. “Increasing the burden on existing waste collection and treatment systems results in flows towards environmentally unsound recycling and disposal.”

The report cites four main trends responsible for increasing volumes:

• More gadgets: Innovation in technology is driving the introduction of new products, particularly in the portable electronics category, such as tablets and wearables like smart watches.
• More consumers: In the East & Southeast Asian region, there are industrializing countries with growing populations, but also rapidly expanding middle classes able to afford more gadgets.
• Decreasing usage time: The usage time of gadgets has decreased; this is not only due to rapidly advancing technology that make older products obsolete due to hardware incompatibility (e.g., flash drives replacing floppy disks) and software requirements (e.g., minimum requirements for PCs to run operating software and various other applications) but also soft factors such as product fashion. As more devices are replaced more rapidly, e-waste arising grows.
• Imports: Import of EEE provides greater availability of products, both new and second- hand, which also increases e-waste arising as they reach their end of life.

The report warns of improper and illegal e-waste dumping prevalent in most countries in the study, irrespective of national e-waste legislation.

Consumers, dismantlers and recyclers are often guilty of illegal dumping, particularly of “open dumping”, where non- functional parts and residues from dismantling and treatment operations are released into the environment.

Studies in the region show that the main reasons are:

• Lack of awareness: End users do not know that they should dispose of their obsolete EEE separately or how or where to dispose of their e-waste. Additionally, informal e-waste recyclers often lack the knowledge about the hazards of unsound practices;
• Lack of incentives: Users choose to ignore collection and/or recycling systems if they need to pay for them;
• Lack of convenience: Even if disposal through existing systems does not incur a fee, users may choose not to dispose of their e-waste in the proper channels if it is inconvenient or requires their time and effort;
• Absence of suitable sites: There may be a lack of proper locations for hazardous waste disposal where residues from e-waste recycling can be sent; and
• Weak governance and lax enforcement: A country with inadequate management or enforcement of e-waste legislation may result in rampant non-compliance.

The report also points to common practices such as open burning, which can cause acute and chronic ill-effects on public health and the environment.

Open burning of e-waste is practiced mainly by informal recyclers when segregating organic and inorganic compounds (e.g. burning cables to recover copper).

Though less common, spontaneous combustion sometimes occurs at open dumping sites when components such as batteries trigger fires due to short circuits.

Informal recycling, also called “backyard recycling,” is a challenge for most developing countries in the region, with a large and burgeoning business of conducting unlicensed and often illegal recycling practices from the backyard.

These processes are not only hazardous for the recyclers, their communities and the environment, but they are also inefficient, as they are unable to extract the full value of the processed products.

Mostly, these recyclers recover gold, silver, palladium and copper, largely from printed circuit boards (PCBs) and wires using hazardous wet chemical leaching processes commonly also known as acid baths.

Typically, informal recyclers use solvents such as sulphuric acid (for copper) or aqua regia (for gold). The leachate solutions go through separation and purification processes to concentrate the valuable metals and separate impurities. This often results in the release of toxic fumes.

“Open burning and acid bath recycling in the informal sector have serious negative impacts on processers’ occupational health,” Shunichi Honda co-author of this study warns. “In the absence of protective materials such as gloves, glasses, masks, etc., inhalation of and exposure to hazardous chemicals and substances directly affect workers’ health.”

“Associations have been reported between exposure from improper treatment of e-waste and altered thyroid function, reduced lung function, negative birth outcomes, reduced childhood growth, negative mental health outcomes, impaired cognitive development, cytotoxicity and genotoxicity.”

Adds co-author Deepali Sinha Khetriwal, Associate Programme Officer, UN University: “Indirect exposure to these hazardous substances is also a cause of many health issues, particularly for families of informal recyclers who often live and work in the same location, as well as for communities living in and around the area of informal recycling sites.”

Top marks to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan

According to the report, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have a head-start in the region in establishing e-waste collection and recycling systems, having begun in the late nineties to adopt and enforce e-waste specific legislations. This was built in large part on experience in solid waste management. Among the most advanced economies and areas in Asia, the three are also characterised by high per capita e-waste generation, formal collection and recycling infrastructure and relatively strong enforcement.

Hong Kong and Singapore, meanwhile, do not have specific e-waste legislation. Instead, the governments collaborate with producers to manage e-waste through a public-private partnership. As small island nations with large shipping and trade networks, both countries have significant transboundary movements of e-waste generated domestically, as well as in transit from other countries.

China, the Philippines, Malaysia and Vietnam all have recent e-waste legislation. The four countries are therefore in a transitionary phase, with a mix of formal and informal elements in an evolving eco-system in terms of collection and recycling infrastructure. The countries face similar challenges in enforcing regulations with limited resources and capacity and low public awareness regarding the hazards of improper disposal of e-waste.

Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand have yet to establish legal frameworks for e-waste management. However, there is an active informal sector in these countries with an established network for collection and import of end-of-life products and their recycling, particularly repair, refurbishment and parts harvesting.

The total amount of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE — anything with a battery or a cord) put on the market worldwide increased from 51.33 million tonnes in 2007 to 56.56 million tonnes in 2012.

Asia, including the 12 nations and areas in this new study, is the largest consumer of EEE, buying nearly half of EEE put on the market (20.62 million tonnes in 2005; 26.69 million tonnes in 2012).

The increase is particularly striking given the drop in EEE sales in Europe and the Americas in 2012 following the global financial crisis.

Asia as a whole accounts for the majority of EEE sales and generates the highest volume of e-waste, estimated at 16 million tonnes in 2014. However, on a per-capita basis, this amounts to only to 3.7 kg per inhabitant, as compared to Europe and the Americas, which generate nearly four times as much per capita — 15.6 kg per inhabitant.

With growing incomes, consumers in Asia now replace their gadgets more frequently. In addition, many products are designed for low-cost production, but not necessarily repair, refurbishment or easy recycling.

Cambodia, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam have not ratified the Ban Amendment and, of these countries, only Cambodia prohibits the import of e-waste and only Vietnam prohibits the import of second-hand electronics.

Taiwan (which does not apply to the Basel Convention) controls the import of e-waste through its national legal framework, which is the equivalent of the Basel Convention.

All the countries in the region control e-waste either via the Basel Convention or their national legal frameworks. However, measures to control the import of second-hand electronics are different among the countries and regions. There are two types of control measures to import of e-waste and second-hand electronics: 1) do control the import of e-waste but do not restrict of second-hand electronics (Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore and Vietnam); and 2) prohibit the import of e-waste and prohibit or restrict the import of second-hand electronics (Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Vietnam).

Despite these formal steps, enforcement of these measures remains a significant challenge in these countries and many others around the globe.

Children whose parents considered them to be ‘overweight’ tended to gain more weight over the following decade compared with children whose parents thought they were a ‘normal’ weight, according to analyses of data from two nationally representative studies published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. The findings indicate that children whose parents identified them as being overweight perceived their own body size more negatively and were more likely to attempt to lose weight, factors that partly accounted for their weight gain.

“Although parents’ perception that their children are overweight has been presumed to be important to management of childhood obesity, recent studies have suggested the opposite; when a parent identifies a child as being overweight, that child is at increased risk of future weight gain,” psychology researchers Eric Robinson (University of Liverpool) and Angelina Sutin (Florida State University College of Medicine) write in their paper.

“We argue that the stigma attached to being an overweight child may explain why children whose parents view them as being overweight tend to have elevated weight gain during development,” they added.

Drawing from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, Robinson and Sutin examined data for 2,823 Australian families. As part of the study, researchers measured the children’s height and weight when they began the study as 4- or 5-year-olds. At that time, the children’s parents reported whether they thought the children were best described as underweight, normal weight, overweight, or very overweight.

Later, when they were 12 or 13, the children used a series of images depicting bodies that increased in size to indicate which image most resembled their own body size. The children also reported whether they had engaged in any behaviors in an attempt to lose weight in the previous 12 months.

Researchers took height and weight measurements again when the children were 14 or 15 years old.

The results indicated that parents’ perceptions were associated with children’s weight gain 10 years later: Children whose parents considered them to be overweight at age 4 or 5 tended to gain more weight by age 14 or 15.

And this association could be accounted for, at least in part, by the children’s beliefs and behaviors. That is, children whose parents thought they were overweight perceived their own body size more negatively and were more likely to report attempts to lose weight.

The results were the same for boys and girls, and they could not be explained by other possible factors, such as household income, presence of a medical condition, and parents’ weight.

Importantly, the link between parents’ perceptions and children’s later weight gain did not depend on how much the child actually weighed when they began the study.

When Robinson and Sutin examined data from 5,886 Irish families participating in the Growing Up in Ireland study, they saw the same pattern of results.

Using these data, the researchers cannot determine whether parents’ perceptions actually caused their children’s weight gain, but “the findings of the present studies support the proposition that parents’ perception of their children as overweight could have unintended negative consequences on their children’s health,” Robinson and Sutin concluded.

(RFE/RL) — More than 70 countries have called on Israel and the Palestinians to restate their commitment to a peace settlement and to refrain from unilateral actions.

The call was made in the final communique at a Mideast peace conference in Paris on January 15.

The statement urged both sides to “officially restate their commitment to the two-state solution” and disassociate from voices that reject this.

Palestinians welcomed the gathering and the final statement. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who refused to attend — said the conference was “rigged” against Israel.

Palestinians welcomed the gathering, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — who refused to attend — said the conference is “rigged” against Israel.

The last round of direct peace talks collapsed amid acrimony in April 2014 after nine months of negotiations.

Palestinian official Saeb Erekat said the statement amounted to a rejection of Israel’s occupation and settlement construction in captured territories. He said it sends a message that Israel “cannot achieve peace and stability” without ending its occupation.

Speaking to reporters after attending the gathering, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said it was significant that the final statement recognizes both the need to end Palestinian incitement and violence, as well as Israel’s security needs.

No representatives of the incoming administration of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump took part.

French President Francois Hollande said that “only direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians can lead to peace. No one will do it in their place.”

“The world cannot, should not, resign itself to the status quo,” he told diplomats in Paris, who came from across Europe, the Mideast, and other regions.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said that the international community is committed to encouraging a return to the negotiating table to broker a solution that sees both an Israeli and Palestinian state.

He said that the basis for negotiation is a return to the borders of 1967 and the recognition of the major resolutions passed at the United Nations.

The status of Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive and complex issues of the conflict.

Trump promised during the election campaign to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Ayrault said moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from its current place in Tel Aviv would be a “provocation.”

He said that his country fears that an embassy move will unleash new Mideast violence.

Ahead of the Paris gathering, Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas warned that moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem would “not help the peace process.”

Palestinians regard East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state, while Israel proclaims the entire city as its capital.

By Rodolfo C. Estimo Jr.

The three-day visit to Saudi Arabia by Spain’s King Felipe Vl “is a shot in the arm for Saudi-Spanish bilateral trade relations,” said Abdullah Al-Meleihi, a board member of the Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce and Industry, on Sunday.

Spanish Ambassador Joaquin Perez Villanueva said King Felipe Vl’s visit “is mainly intended to exchange notes on subjects of mutual interest … and drum up support for consolidating economic relations.”

The Spanish king’s delegation comprises a high-level delegation that was expected to meet local business leaders to promote bilateral trade and investment.

“Spain has longstanding … economic relations with the Kingdom, thanks in part to the excellent relationship between former King Juan Carlos and the Saudi royal family,” said Villanueva.

Al-Meleihi, president of Al-Ramez International Group, said: “Saudi Arabia as a country needs know-how, which Spain has in various sectors such as mining, solar energy and construction, among others.”

He added that the visit engenders the transfer of technology, paving the way for Saudi Arabia to eventually export its own finished products to other countries instead of raw materials.

“It would be in stark contrast to the situation some 30 years ago when we were after imports and looking for foreign investors to come to our country for investment purposes,” said Al-Meleihi, whose group is an investor in Euromarche, a major shopping center in the Saudi capital, and in other business ventures.

Dr. Yasser Al-Harbi, a member of the Saudi-Spanish Business Council, said he hoped the meetings would bolster bilateral trade.

“The Saudi and Spanish leaderships have been enjoying a good friendship for a long time now, and we in the private sector in the Kingdom consider Spain a good partner in technology and knowledge transfer,” said Al-Harbi, who is also vice chairman of the Aparal Group, which is involved in information and communications technology (ICT) in the Kingdom.

Saudi Arabia is Spain’s third-largest trade partner in the Arab world, and is ranked 12th among exporting countries to Spain from outside the EU.

The two countries are near to finalizing a $2.1 billion deal that will see Spain sell five warships to Saudi Arabia.

Spain is also involved in the $22.5 billion Riyadh Metro project, also called the King Abdulaziz Project for Riyadh Public Transport. The Spanish construction group FCC leads the FAST consortium in the ongoing project.

The Metro system will meet the demand of the city’s growing population while reducing congestion in the city. The population in Riyadh by 2030 is expected to reach 8 million.

The FCC said Riyadh Metro is the largest international contract in the history of construction in which a Spanish company has been awarded a contract. The contract covers the design and construction of three lines totaling 64.6 km.

Spain is also involved in building a high-speed rail line between Makkah and Madinah. Major Spanish companies such as Talgo, OHL, Adif and RENFE formed a consortium and won the railway project in 2011.

By Salim Furth, Ph.D.*

As 2017 begins, the U.S. economy is in its eighth consecutive year of expansion, one of the longest periods of economic expansion in U.S. history, but the recession that took place when Slumdog Millionaire was best picture and Just Dance topped the charts still casts a shadow over the economy. Economists may debate what made the Great Recession of 2008–2009 so different from previous recessions, but Americans do not need data analysis to understand that something went wrong.

As we enter the new year, the overarching trends are still those that defined the seven-year non-recovery: slow income growth, low labor market participation, and a high cost of living in urban areas. The biggest factor behind the slow income growth is low productivity growth. Private investments or public policies that restore productivity growth would be welcome signs, but even if those signs prove to be elusive, policymakers can pursue deregulation of housing and other markets to lower the cost of living and allow Americans to stretch their wages further.

A Return to Normalcy

As of the end of 2016, economic growth has been normal for at least a year. With a few exceptions, data indicate an economy operating at or near its “natural” or “potential” level.

The unemployment rate reached a nine-year low of 4.6 percent in November and has not exceeded 5 percent since September 2015. Experience from previous periods of sustained growth indicates that little further improvement can be expected.

Gross domestic product (GDP) is growing at a steady but unimpressive rate. Adjusted for population growth and inflation, GDP grew 0.8 percent from the third quarter of 2015 to the third quarter of 2016.

Private domestic investment grew rapidly from its recession trough but peaked at 17 percent of GDP in early 2015 and has not grown since then. The lack of further growth is both an indicator and a cause of the end of the recovery: Strong growth in wages and GDP depends on investment. At just 16 percent to 17 percent of GDP, investment is treading water.

Like investment, labor force participation has not reached pre-recession levels. Part of that change is due to the retirement of the baby boomers: People born in 1951 turned 65 in 2016. However, prime-age workers are also less likely to be working or looking for work now than in 2007. Persistently low participation is one of the main challenges facing policymakers in 2017.

Monetary policy is an exception to the prevailing normalcy. Inflation has remained below the Federal Reserve Board’s 2 percent target for years. Consequently, the Fed has left its policy levers in positions that are typical of a recovery and is likely to remain accommodative until inflation reaches 2 percent.

Mediocre Level of Output

Even though the rate of GDP growth is reasonable for a recovered economy, the level of GDP is far below what economists expected before or during the Great Recession. GDP directly measures output, but it tracks national income so closely that the two are often interchanged.[1]

Previous experience taught that after a recession or depression, GDP tends to bounce back to its previous trend. After the Great Depression of the 1930s, incomes surged back to their pre-crash trend, and the economy moved along in the 1940s and 1950s as if nothing had ever happened. Now, however, the economy is growing at both a lower level and a slower rate than the longstanding trend. (See Chart 1.)

The recovery from the Great Recession was disappointing in two respects: It was much slower than expected, and it did not return the U.S. economy to the previous growth trend.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), reflecting the consensus of the time, predicted in January 2009 that the economy would grow at a rate of more than 3.5 percent per year for four years beginning in 2011 and would produce $20.5 trillion in 2016.[2] Instead, 2016 output will come in below $19 trillion, about 7.5 percent less than expected. That would equal a 7.5 percent cut in income for every worker and investor in the U.S.

Looking at income growth trends in another way, the CBO has steadily degraded its expectations for the potential future output of the U.S. economy.[3] Its annual forecasts for actual 2017 GDP, plotted in Chart 2, show how the experience of the past eight years has convinced economists that something worse than a mere recession has taken place since 2007.

In January 2009, during the depths of the recession, the CBO projected that potential output in the nonfarm business sector would grow 24 percent between 2009 and 2017.[4] By the time the most recent CBO report was issued, that estimate had shriveled to 14 percent growth.[5]

The lost growth, according to the CBO’s estimate, is due to a trifecta of lower levels of productivity, capital, and labor. Lower productivity growth directly explains about half the loss in output. Indirectly, it explains even more: Lower productivity means lower returns to work and investment, which further reduce output as potential workers and investors stay away.

Moderate Wage Growth

Despite the mediocre growth environment, wage growth has picked up over the past few years.[6] However, it has been lower than expected, and part of the real wage growth enjoyed in 2015 and 2016 was due to a one-time drop in energy prices.

Although individual compensation often deviates, average compensation for any sizeable group is determined mainly by labor productivity.[7] For decades, average U.S. compensation growth has closely tracked average labor productivity, although it takes some work to make an apples-to-apples comparison.[8]

Labor productivity is determined by two things: the amount of productive capital per worker and something economists call “total factor productivity.” The latter is an unobservable mix of technology, management practices, regulatory waste, and market flexibility.

CBO estimates of potential labor force productivity suggest that durable factors have depressed wages: a combination of low productivity growth and low investment. In 2009, the CBO estimated that potential labor productivity would grow by 18 percent through 2017. The most recent CBO estimate dropped that to 10 percent growth.

Policymakers looking to nudge wage growth higher should focus on sustainably increasing labor productivity, which can be done in two ways. The more certain way is to allow investment to increase by simply cutting the marginal tax rate faced by new investment. Regulatory reform can help on a smaller scale by decreasing anti-competition policies, such as certificate-of-need laws[9] and slow FDA drug-approval processes,[10] that discourage investment.

The less certain but more spectacular way to boost wage growth is to figure out how to increase total factor productivity growth, which, if it were easy, would already have been done. Merely getting productivity back to its pre-2009 trend would be a great accomplishment, but there is no single, large-scale lever like taxation that affects productivity across the board.

Much of what constitutes productivity is determined outside the realm of policy. However, where policymakers are concerned, regulatory reform is the most promising approach. The difficulty is that very few regulations are big enough to move the macroeconomic needle significantly on their own. It would take a concerted effort across sectors and at all levels of government to restore the dynamism lost since 2009.

Recovering Labor Market

A smaller share of American men and women are working than before the Great Recession, even when those likely to be retired or in school are excluded.[11] The good news is that labor force participation among workers aged 25–54 began to recover in late 2015 as real wages grew. The best-case scenario for 2017 is that wage growth will continue and will draw more adults off the sidelines and into the productive economy.

As family structure and public assistance programs have evolved over the past two generations, the U.S. workforce has undergone a quiet transformation. Historically—and as recently as 1980—men were expected to be the breadwinners. The social expectation and the fact that male-dominated professions were substantially better paid meant that the vast majority of mature men had a strong commitment to the labor force. Even if their wages fell, they stuck with jobs because they had to. During a recession, they might lose their jobs, but they would remain in the labor force looking for work.

In the 21st century, the growth in female-headed households has added many women to the ranks of those who are strongly attached to the labor force. A working-class single mother with children to feed is likely to behave much as a stereotypical 1950s father behaved. A growing number of two-earner households fall into this category as well, with lifestyles and mortgages that depend on both spouses working full time.

On the other side of the coin, more adult men appear to have a low attachment to the labor force. They will work for the right price but have options for maintaining their lifestyles without work, such as living with parents or girlfriends. A troubling proportion of both men and women have chosen to rely on disability insurance,[12] which usually means permanent detachment from the labor force.

Policymakers should use the opportunity presented by a reasonably healthy labor market to reform welfare programs in ways that penalize work less. The programs most in need of repair are disability insurance, which is a permanent trap even to temporarily disabled people,[13] and housing assistance, which often imposes marriage penalties.

High Cost of Living

While workers’ wages are determined by their productivity, the value of those wages depends on the prices of the goods and services they purchase. Prices in the U.S. have been pushed higher by regulation and restrictions on trade. If continued, those policies will mute the benefits of economic growth in 2017.

Federal regulation is a well-known problem, especially with regard to energy. Increasing tariffs, as some have proposed, would also raise consumer costs and make it harder for Americans to enjoy the benefits of growth.

Although it is less widely acknowledged, new regulations at the state and local levels continue to raise prices. In 2016, both New York City and Austin, Texas, placed severe limits on short-term home rentals.[14] Aside from lowering incomes, the regulations will increase the cost and decrease the flexibility of the market for accommodation.

Even more costly are the limits placed on residential construction, especially on the West Coast and in the Northeast. The surging technology sector, centered in Silicon Valley, is having less of an impact on economic growth than it might have if the surrounding region allowed for construction and growth. Historically, cities have grown up around thriving industries, allowing for shared prosperity. Today, local laws against density and development are preventing population growth in high-productivity cities. Instead of benefiting from growth, working-class renters are often priced out of the market.

To be sure, regulations can have benefits as well, And some of those benefits are widely shared. Too often, however, the benefits are narrowly concentrated and create powerful constituencies that oppose reform.

The high cost of regulation is a major drag on living standards. A Heritage Foundation report in 2015 estimated that just 12 specific regulations set the average household back $4,440 a year.[15] Little has improved since then, although the list is down to 11 since Congress repealed the ban on crude oil exports.[16] If policymakers at all levels prioritize deregulation in major consumer markets—housing, transportation, and energy are the biggest—the prospects for improvements in standards of living in 2017 and beyond will be brighter.

Conclusion

The U.S. economy has recovered from the Great Recession, but the recovery has been disappointing. Incomes are lower, jobs and workers are fewer, and prices are higher than history had led us to expect. In the “new normal,” investment is low, and more people are content to stay on the sidelines.

All of the top-down fixes tried since 2008 have failed. The major economic policies of the past business cycle have been bailouts, stimulus spending, financial market regulation, expanded health care entitlements, and large deficits. These have not increased investment, have not restored economic participation to a high level, and have not addressed the cost of living for most Americans.

In 2017, policymakers should resolve to restore investment incentives, reengage those who gave up looking for work, and deregulate the cost of living. If those policies—combined with the efforts of workers, investors, and innovators throughout the economy—can bring income growth back up to the pre-recession trend, the median American household could expect to see its annual income rise by $4,200,[17] with even larger gains for those who are currently unemployed. Lowering the cost of living through regulatory reform could lead to a similar rise in the purchasing power of income.

About the author:
*Salim Furth, PhD, is a Research Fellow in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.

Source:
This article was published by The Heritage Foundation

Notes:
[1] The difference between national output and national income is net payments to foreigners.

[2] Reported in 2015 dollars.

[3] Potential output is the CBO’s estimate of the “the economy’s maximum sustainable output,” based on the available capital, labor, and technology and the ways those are combined to create output. Congressional Budget Office, “Budget and Economic Data,” https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget-economic-data (accessed December 18, 2016).

[4] Congressional Budget Office, “Budget and Economic Data: Potential GDP and Underlying Inputs,” January 2009, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/51137-2009-01-PotentialGDP.xls (accessed November 10, 2016).

[5] Congressional Budget Office, “Budget and Economic Data: Potential GDP and Underlying Inputs,” August 2016, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/51137-2016-08-PotentialGDP.xlsx (accessed November 10, 2016).

[6] Salim Furth, “Stagnant Wages: What the Data Show,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3074, October 26, 2015, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/10/stagnant-wages-what-the-data-show.

[7] James Sherk, “Workers’ Compensation: Growing Along with Productivity,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3088, May 31, 2016, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/05/workers-compensation-growing-along-with-productivity.

[8] The Heritage Foundation has done that work. See ibid.

[9] Salim Furth and Reece Brown, “Finish What Reagan Started—End CON Laws,” The Daily Signal, August 12, 2016, http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/12/finish-what-reagan-started-end-con-laws/.

[10] Alden F. Abbott, “FDA Reform: A Prescription for More and Better Drugs and Medical Devices,” Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum No. 182, June 20, 2016, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/06/fda-reform-a-prescription-for-more-and-better-drugs-and-medical-devices.

[11] For a detailed treatment of labor force participation trends, see James Sherk, “Not Looking for Work: Why Labor Force Participation Has Fallen During the Recovery,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2722, September 4, 2014, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/not-looking-for-work-why-labor-force-participation-has-fallen-during-the-recovery.

[12] Ibid., Table 5.

[13] Romina Boccia, “What Is Social Security Disability Insurance? An SSDI Primer,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2994, February 19, 2015, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/02/what-is-social-security-disability-insurance-an-ssdi-primer.

[14] Michael Nunez, “New York Law Bans Airbnb Short-Term Rentals,” Gizmodo, October 21, 2016, http://gizmodo.com/new-york-law-bans-airbnb-short-term-rentals-1788086399 (accessed December 14, 2016); Melissa Quinn, “He Rented Out His Condo After Losing His Job. Now Austin Wants to Ban That,.” The Daily Signal, July 12, 2016, http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/12/he-rented-out-his-condo-after-losing-his-job-now-austin-wants-to-ban-that/ (accessed December 14, 2016).

[15] Salim Furth, “Costly Mistakes: How Bad Policies Raise the Cost of Living,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3081, November 23, 2015, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/11/costly-mistakes-how-bad-policies-raise-the-cost-of-living.

[16] Nicolas Loris and Elayne Allen, “The Lifting of This Oil Ban Could Add 800,000 New Jobs,” The Daily Signal, July 6, 2016, http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/06/how-free-market-reforms-can-transform-the-american-energy-sector/ (accessed December 14, 2016).

[17] Median household income in 2015 was $55,775, and the 2016q3 gap between GDP per capita and the pre-2008 trend was 7.5 percent. Their product—about $4,200—approximates what one could reasonably hope that the median household would gain from a return to trend output growth.

By Kevin Jones

The upcoming inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump has raised questions about the future of immigration reform, but the nation’s Catholic bishops remain hopeful.

“We also find it important that we engage the present incoming administration,” Bishop Joe S. Vasquez of Austin, Texas, who chairs the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration, said Jan. 12. “We think it is highly important that we as bishops make known what is taking place in our country and how to address those possibilities.”

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, the U.S. bishops’ conference president, even voiced confidence.

“I actually think this may be a very good time to pursue all the goals that we’ve had all along,” Cardinal DiNardo said. “This is a new moment, with a new Congress, a new administration. And therefore we should up our expectations and move very carefully, but clearly, on comprehensive immigration reform.”

Leading U.S. bishops and bishops’ conference officials spoke with reporters Jan. 12 to mark National Migration Week, a nearly 50-year-old celebration that encourages the Church to reflect on the situations facing immigrants, refugees, children, and victims of human trafficking.

President-elect Trump, who takes office next week, campaigned on several strong anti-immigration policies, including talk of deportation, strict enforcement of immigration law and a famous promise to build a wall on the Mexico border and make Mexico pay for it.

Bishop Vasquez said that the rhetoric of wall-building is “not the place where we’d want to start our conversation on immigration.”

He said the bishops advocated humane policy and laws that take into consideration the need to keep families together and to help those who have come to the U.S. at a young age.

Cardinal DiNardo said the bishops’ concerns focus on immigration reform.

“As of right now, we haven’t (discussed) too much on the wall situation,” he said, voicing greater concern for the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, President Barack Obama’s executive action which allowed millions of immigrants who met certain standards to stay in the U.S. The program especially benefitted those who had arrived in the U.S. without documentation while being under age 18.

Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, vice president of the bishops’ conference, said the conference is trying to have a conversation with Trump’s transition team.

“Obviously we continue to help our elected officials to understand the issue,” he said, noting there are “many challenges” regarding immigration.

“But I hope that we are going to make progress this year,” he continued. “Immigration reform is about people. It’s not about politics, it’s about fathers and mothers and children and brothers and sisters.”

Ashley Feasely, policy director of the U.S. bishops’ Migration and Refugee Services, also reflected on upcoming priorities.

“There are many still in Congress who believe that immigration reform is a possibility,” she said. “And I think there are individuals in the incoming White House who are interested in seeing reform. I think it’s important that we continue to engage at the state and local level, with Congress, and the new administration to show the need to reform our broken system.”

For Bishop Vasquez, National Migration Week is a chance to highlight Catholics’ mission to welcome newcomers.

“In Matthew 25, Jesus specifically says, ‘I was a stranger and you welcomed me’,” he said. “Those words are applied to our immigrants. Jesus identifies with them completely.”

He noted that many migrants leave difficult situations including violence and gang warfare. Some have survived human trafficking.

“It’s important that we see them not as problems, but as persons,” he said.

Archbishop Gomez reflected on Pope Francis’ message for National Migration Week.

“He reminds us of the story of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and that she is our mother, and that we should not be afraid, because we are not alone,” the archbishop said. “It was a beautiful message of hope. I feel that is what we need right now. More hope for the future.”

The European Union and its member states compromised core human rights values in responding to the multiple challenges facing the bloc in 2016, Human Rights Watch said in its World Report 2017.

Human Rights Watch highlighted developments in 10 EU member states and union-wide developments on migration and asylum, discrimination and intolerance, terrorism and counterterrorism, and EU foreign policy.

“Faced with major challenges in 2016 – including migration and Brexit – European Union governments and institutions regrettably retreated from core rights values,” said Benjamin Ward, deputy Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “In 2017, the world needs the EU to put human rights values back at the heart of its policy responses.”

In the 687-page World Report, its 27th edition, Human Rights Watch reviews human rights practices in more than 90 countries. In his introductory essay, Executive Director Kenneth Roth writes that a new generation of authoritarian populists seeks to overturn the concept of human rights protections, treating rights as an impediment to the majority will. For those who feel left behind by the global economy and increasingly fear violent crime, civil society groups, the media, and the public have key roles to play in reaffirming the values on which rights-respecting democracy has been built.

The EU as a whole failed to show leadership and solidarity in the face of the largest global displacement crisis since World War II. EU policies focused primarily on preventing arrivals and outsourcing responsibility for asylum seekers and refugees to other regions.

Attacks in Belgium, France, and Germany, many claimed by the Islamic State, together killed scores of people and injured hundreds more. The attacks prompted or reinforced problematic measures and proposals in EU countries in ways that compromise human rights, including through expanded police and surveillance powers, strengthened intelligence cooperation, and revoking dual citizenship of terrorism suspects. There was virtually no progress on accountability for complicity by EU governments in CIA abuses during counterterrorism operations.

The ongoing refugee crisis and the terrorist attacks reinforced xenophobic, Islamophobic, and anti-immigrant sentiment. These developments were manifested in attacks on Muslims, migrants, and those perceived as foreigners, and support for populist anti-immigration parties in many EU states. Anti-Semitism remains a serious concern.

The EU’s foreign policy agenda was dominated by the conflicts in Syria and eastern Ukraine, and the relationship with the Russian government as a result of Moscow’s involvement in these conflicts.

Country-specific developments in the EU highlighted by Human Rights Watch include Poland’s constitutional court crisis; Hungary’s abusive border policies; the negative impact of the state of emergency in France, the rash of hate crimes in the UK after the Brexit vote, and the deteriorating conditions for asylum seekers on the Greek islands.

By Die Morina and BIRN team

Following an emergency session of Serbia’s Council for National Security, Serbian Prime Minister Aleksander Vucic on Saturday accused Kosovo of sending special forces to attack the first train in 18 years from Belgrade to the northern, Serb-run part of the Kosovo town of Mitrovica.

“They sent a unit … compromised only of the most loyal Albanians with rifles to Jarinje [the border crossing] where they were to arrest the train driver and passengers,” he said, adding that the overall aim was to cause “a great conflict”.

“The [Kosovo] Albanians, without the approval of NATO or anyone else, sent 17 armoured vehicles with special units … to the north with the aim of provoking a conflict of broad proportions,” Vucic claimed.

Vucic ordered the train stopped at the Serbian border town of Raska claiming that Kosovo’s Albanians had tried to mine the railway.

Kosovo police strongly denied such accusations and said they had checked the railway and found no explosives.

The Serbian Prime Minister also sent “an unambiguous warning” to Kosovo “not to try to attack the Serbian people in Kosovo with arms, because Serbia will not allow such attacks.

“Peace is in everyone’s interest, they should not play and destroy what we have long been building. A train with just passengers is not a threat to anyone … I am not threatening anyone, I am just begging them not to kill Serbs because we will protect our people,” Vucic said.

Vucic said Kosovo – which declared independence from Serbia in 2008 – had been preparing “war games” for some time, adding he was not sure if they “had anyone’s blessing” – presumably meaning outside powers.

The train in question, painted in the colours of the Serbian flag and bearing the words “Kosovo is Serbian” in 21 different languages, including Albanian, set off from Belgrade to northern, Serb-run Mitrovica on Saturday morning – the first train from Belgrade to Mitrovica in 18 years.

The announced reopening of the line from Serbia to Mitrovica – as well as the decorations on the train – raised tensions in Kosovo, where officials deemed it as a provocation and called for it not to enter Kosovo.

In the event, the train did not enter Kosovo. Vucic said that he decided to stop the train in Raska, in southern Serbia, just before the border, “to save freedom and lives and avoid conflict and show everyone we want peace”.

He added that he already discussed the situation with the EU foreign policy chief, Frederica Mogherini, and would inform Russia, China and and US Vice President Joseph Biden about the “war games that Pristina was preparing.”

Kosovo Prime Minister Isa Mustafa meanwhile told reporters in Pristina that Kosovo had mobilized state institutions to deal with the situation but did not refer to special police actions.

“I think the reversal of this train is the right action because its entry would not be allowed,” he said.

“If it entered the country, this train would be treated by the laws of Kosovo. The Republic of Kosovo will not allow such provocations which would turn Kosovo and the region towards a dark and unpredictable conflict.”

Media reports confirmed that all the passengers left the train in Raska, just before the border, after it stood in the station for more than an hour-and-a-half. The passengers continued their journey to Mitrovica by bus.

The interior of a train is decorated with posters of Serbian saints and Serbian Orthodox Church monasteries in Kosovo, with explanations of the pictures in both Serbian and English. Serbian authorities said the aim was to promote Serbian heritage in Kosovo.

Hashim Thaci, the President of Kosovo, on Saturday said Kosovo “respects free movement of people and goods. But the entry of a train covered in nationalist posters from Serbia, which are contrary to the constitution and laws of Kosovo, is totally unacceptable.

“Furthermore, there are passengers and high officials of Serbia on the train who do not have permission to enter Kosovo,” Thaci added, calling on the authorities to ban the train from entering the country.

Edita Tahiri, Kosovo’s Minister for Dialogue, called on the EU to intervene and halt “the provocation of this train with its ultra-nationalist symbols, in the name of keeping the peace, stability and the principles of dialogue”.

However, Maja Kocijancic, EU spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and Security, said issues between Belgrade and Pristina must be resolved through dialogue.

The US ambassador to Kosovo, Greg Delawie, wrote on Twitter that he was “concerned about train issue.”

“Call for restraint from all parties. Need normalization not confrontation,” Delawie wrote.

The Belgrade authorities previously said the test line would operate between January 20 and February 26, after which the authorities would decide if the line is profitable.

By Kristy Siegfried*

Those who thought Europe’s refugee “crisis” was over were reminded this week that tens of thousands of refugees remain stranded in Greece and the Balkans. Images of refugee tents shrouded in snow on the Greek islands have sparked outrage about the lack of adequate shelter, and scorn has been poured on the Greek government for keeping refugees in such miserable conditions. But others have pointed out that the real culprits are EU and member state policies that have closed borders and shrugged off responsibility for a more equitable distribution of the refugees arriving on Europe’s southern shores.

Italy and Germany, along with Greece, have paid the heaviest price for the EU’s lack of solidarity. Germany has received nearly 1.2 million asylum seekers over the past two years, while Italy received 335,000 arrivals over the course of 2015 and 2016. Under increasing pressure from their electorates and with little chance of EU-wide agreement, both countries are pushing ahead with unilateral measures aimed at stemming the flow of migrants and refugees, and more rapidly returning failed asylum seekers.

Taken in isolation such measures are unlikely to have a major impact, but in late 2015 and early 2016 we saw how the actions of one or two member states can have a knock-on effect on migration policies throughout the EU.

Agreements with transit countries

Sea arrivals to Italy reached a new high of 181,000 in 2016 and the pressure on the country’s reception system is immense. Italy’s new government, led by Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, who took office mid-December, is wasting no time acting to deter the steady stream of smugglers’ boats setting off from Libya’s coast, even in the middle of winter.

This week, new Interior Minister Marco Minniti was dispatched to Tripoli to broker an agreement on fighting irregular migration through the country with Fayez al-Sarraj, head of the UN-backed Government of National Accord. The GNA is one of three governments in Libya vying for power but Italy appears unwilling to wait for the emergence of a central government with which to negotiate. This week it also re-opened its embassy in Tripoli, the first Western country to do so in the two years, since conflict erupted between Libya’s rival factions.

According to news reports, Minniti and al-Sarraj agreed to strengthen cooperation on fighting terrorism, irregular migration, and human trafficking. A statement issued by the interior ministry noted that the embassy would serve as “the principal coordination centre” for the joint efforts.

The bilateral agreement, due to be formalised in Rome at the end of January, is not unprecedented. Under a “friendship” treaty that former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi made with the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2008, Italian ships intercepted boats carrying migrants and returned them to Libya, where those on board faced detention and deportation. As Human Rights Watch pointed out, there was no attempt to determine whether any of the migrants qualified for international protection or were victims of trafficking. In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Italy had violated international laws with its “push back” policy.

While it seems unlikely Italy will renew that strategy, it’s still unclear what form its cooperation with Libya will take, besides supplying Libya’s coastguard with eight new patrol boats. Reportedly, one of the goals will be to boost controls at Libya’s southern border, where most migrants currently enter the country in smugglers’ vehicles originating mainly from Niger. But the GNA has limited authority in the south, where regional tribes control the main smuggling routes.

The deal may nevertheless set a precedent for other member states to strike similar agreements, or for the EU to consider a migration arrangement like the one it made last year with Turkey. Malta, which is currently holding the EU presidency, has already suggested that the EU could expand on the agreement Italy has forged with Libya.

Ramped up detentions and deportations

The second prong of the Italian government’s hardened approach to irregular migration is to increase the rate at which it deports migrants rejected for asylum. Before heading to Tripoli, Minniti was in Tunis to discuss a repatriation agreement that could smooth the way for Italy to more easily deport Tunisian migrants, most of whom don’t qualify for asylum. Anis Amri, who committed the attack on a Berlin Christmas market in December, had arrived in Italy from Tunisia in 2011. Both Italy, and later Germany, attempted to deport him, but Tunisia failed to issue the necessary travel documents.

A week after Amri was shot dead by police near Milan, Italy’s police chief issued a directive urging officers to take “extraordinary action” to help deport more irregular migrants, “in an international context characterised by instability and threats”. Later, Minniti announced plans to open detention centres in every Italian region where migrants would be held prior to their forced return. Former prime minister Matteo Renzi, who stepped down in December, had given in to EU pressure to build “hotspots” to screen and fingerprint migrants, but had stopped short of detaining them.

In the wake of the Berlin attack, Germany is also under pressure to increase the rate at which it returns failed asylum seekers. It deported 25,000 of them in 2016 (up from 21,000 in 2015), and another 55,000 returned home voluntarily, but the figure is not enough to satisfy a public fearful of more extremist attacks and struggling to absorb hundreds of thousands of newly recognised refugees.

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière is pushing a plan that would make it easier to detain rejected asylum seekers considered a potential security threat, and to deport them from “repatriation centres” at airports. Starting in March, Germany also plans to restart returns of newly arrived asylum seekers to Greece, reversing the five-year EU-wide suspension of the Dublin Regulation, which requires asylum seekers to remain in the first country where they register a claim. This couldn’t come at a worse time for Greece, which is already struggling to process the asylum claims of an estimated 62,000 refugees stranded by border closures in the Balkans and the EU-Turkey agreement.

Germany has threatened to cut foreign aid to countries that don’t cooperate in accepting back deportees. There’s also renewed talk of adding Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco to Germany’s list of “safe” countries of origin. Rejected asylum applicants from “safe” countries can be fast-tracked for return, although repatriation agreements are usually necessary to actually carry out deportations.

Despite the rhetoric from Italy and Germany, the reality is that deportations are hard to do. In a year in which German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government will be fighting for re-election and in which early elections in Italy are also a strong possibility, the first priority for both countries is to slow the rate of new arrivals.

Caps on asylum seeker numbers

Germany already saw a massive drop in arrivals in 2016 compared to 2015 (280,000 compared to 600,000), but that may not be enough to satisfy voters.

Last year, Austria introduced a cap on the annual number of asylum seekers it would accept, a move widely criticised at the time as a contravention of international refugee law. But Austrian Defence Minister Hans Peter Doskozil is now proposing a system that would see caps imposed across the EU, in conjunction with the offshore processing of asylum applications in countries such as Niger and Jordan.

In the past, Merkel has dismissed the idea of setting an upper limit on asylum claims, despite pressure to do so from the Christian Social Unity (CSU) party, which forms part of her coalition government. But now Merkel’s own Christian Democrat (CDU) party is proposing annual targets for numbers of asylum seekers based on the humanitarian situation in conflict zones around the world, and on Germany’s ability to absorb newcomers. The proposal stops short of setting a figure for 2017, but it suggests that Germany may now be more receptive to the Austrian plan, which will be presented at a meeting of Central European nations in February.

2016 saw border closures and the EU-Turkey deal make it a lot harder to get into Europe, but 2017 promises to be a year in which the doors close even further on those seeking refuge and asylum.

* Kristy Siegfried, Migration Editor for IRIN

Tyrants don’t allow open questioning, and they hate the free press. They want total control.

That’s why, according to three senior officials on the transition team, the incoming Trump administration is considering evicting the White House press corps from the press room inside the White House and moving them – and news conferences – to a conference center or to the Old Executive Office Building.

This may sound like a small logistic matter. It’s not. The White House “press room” contains work stations and broadcast booths, and the briefing area for presidential news conferences. Reporters have had workspace at the White House since Teddy Roosevelt was president, in 1901.

But we’re in a new era, the reign of King Trump.

Sean Spicer, Trump’s press secretary, acknowledges “there has been some discussion about how” to move the press out of the White House. Spicer says it’s because the new administration would like a larger room to allow more members of the press to attend press conferences.

Rubbish. It’s because a larger room would allow the administration to fill seats with “alt-right” fringe journalists, rightwing social media, Trump supporters and paid staffers. They’d be there to ask the questions Trump wants to answer, and to jeer at reporters who ask critical questions and applaud Trump’s answers.

The move would allow Trump to play the crowd.

That’s exactly what happened at Trump’s so-called “news conference” on January 11 – the first he’s held in six months.

It wasn’t really a press conference at all, and shouldn’t have been characterized as one. It was a fake news conference that took place in a large auditorium.

In the audience were paid staffers who jeered and snickered when reporters asked critical questions, and cheered every time Trump delivered one of his campaign zingers. It could easily have been one of his rallies.

In this carnival atmosphere it was easy for Trump to refuse to answer questions from reporters who have run stories he doesn’t like, and from news outlets that have criticized him.

He slammed CNN for dispensing “fake news,” called Buzzfeed “a pile of garbage,” and sarcastically called the BBC “another beauty.” The audience loved it.

Just as he did in his rallies, Trump continued calling the press “dishonest” – part of his ongoing effort to discredit the press and to reduce public confidence in it.

And he repeatedly lied. But the media in attendance weren’t allowed to follow up or to question him on his lies.

For example, Trump wrongly stated that “the Democratic National Committee was totally open to be hacked. They did a very poor job. … And they tried to hack the Republican National Committee, and they were unable to break through.” 

Baloney.FBI Director James B. Comey said there was evidence that Republican National Committee computers were also targeted. The critical difference, according to Comey, was that none of the information obtained from the RNC was leaked. Also, according to Comey, the Russians “got far deeper and wider into the [DNC] than the RNC,” adding that “similar techniques were used in both cases.”

Trump further asserted at his fake news conference that “I have no deals that could happen in Russia, because we’ve stayed away. And I have no loans with Russia.”

Wrong again. Trump repeatedly sought deals in Russia. In a 2008 speech, Donald Trump Jr. said “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” and “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Trump’s statements at his fake news conference were, and are, big lies. They influence public understanding and opinion about two critically important issues: Did the Russians help Trump win the election, and, if so, why might they have done so?

At the very least, they should have been followed up with questions from the White House press corps. That would have happened at a real news conference in the White House press room, holding 45 correspondents from major media outlets who are assigned full-time to report on the president.

Which is the danger of evicting the press from the White House and putting press conferences into a large auditorium: Trump won’t be called on his lies, and the White House press corps will lose the leverage they have by being together in one rather small room.

And that’s precisely why Trump wants to evict the press from the White House.

A senior official admitted the move was a reaction to hostile press coverage. The view at the highest reaches of the incoming administration is that the press is the enemy. “They are the opposition party,” said the senior official. “I want ‘em out of the building. We are taking back the press room.”

The incoming Trump administration is intent on neutering the White House press corps. If it happens it will be another step toward neutering our  democracy.

This week, Congress passed a budget calling for increasing federal spending and adding $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. Most so-called “fiscal conservatives” voted for this big-spending budget because it allows Congress to repeal some parts of Obamacare via “reconciliation.” As important as it is to repeal Obamacare, it does not justify increasing spending and debt.

It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the Obamacare repeal would be used to justify increasing spending. Despite sequestration’s minor (and largely phony) spending cuts, federal spending has increased every year since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Some will attribute this to the fact that the Republican House had to negotiate with a big-spending Democratic president — even though federal spending actually increased by a greater percentage the last time Republicans controlled the White House and Congress than it did under President Obama.

The history of massive spending increases under unified Republican control of government is likely to repeat itself. During the presidential campaign, President-elect Donald Trump came out against reducing spending on “entitlements.” He also called for a variety of spending increases, including spending one trillion dollars on infrastructure.

One positive part of the infrastructure proposals is their use of tax credits to encourage private sector investments. Hopefully this will be the first step toward returning responsibility for building and maintaining our nation’s infrastructure to the private sector.

Unfortunately, the administration appears likely to support increased federal spending on “shovel-ready” jobs. Claims that federal spending helps grow the economy rely on the fallacy of that which is not seen. While everyone sees the jobs and economic growth created by government infrastructure projects, no one sees the greater number of jobs that could have been created had the government not taken the resources out of the hands of private businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs. Despite what some conservatives seem to think, this fallacy applies equally to Republican and Democrat spending.

President-elect Trump has criticized the past two administrations’ reckless foreign policy, and he has publicly shamed the powerful Lockheed Martin company for wasting taxpayer money. Yet, he continues to support increasing the military budget and has called for increased military intervention in the Middle East.

The fact is the United States already spends too much on militarism. Not only does the United States spend more on the military than the combined military budgets of the next eight highest spending countries, but Pentagon waste exceeds the total Russian military budget.

America can no longer afford to waste trillions of dollars on a militaristic foreign policy. Donald Trump should follow-up his attacks on wasteful military spending by dramatically changing our foreign policy and working to cut the Pentagon’s bloated budget.

If the new administration and Congress increase spending, they will need the Federal Reserve to monetize the growing debt. The need for an accommodative monetary policy gives the Federal Reserve and its allies in Congress and in the deep state leverage over the administration. This leverage could be used, for example, to pressure the administration to abandon support for the Audit the Fed legislation.

Fed action can only delay the inevitable day of reckoning. Raising levels of federal spending and debt will inevitably lead to a major economic crisis. This crisis is likely to be reached when concerns over our national debt cause more countries to reject the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. The only way to avoid this crisis is to stop increasing spending and instead begin reducing spending on all aspects of the welfare-warfare state.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Scientists at the University of Sydney have demonstrated the ability to “see” the future of quantum systems, and used that knowledge to preempt their demise, in a major achievement that could help bring the strange and powerful world of quantum technology closer to reality.

The applications of quantum-enabled technologies are compelling and already demonstrating significant impacts – especially in the realm of sensing and metrology. And the potential to build exceptionally powerful quantum computers using quantum bits, or qubits, is driving investment from the world’s largest companies.

However a significant obstacle to building reliable quantum technologies has been the randomisation of quantum systems by their environments, or decoherence, which effectively destroys the useful quantum character.

The physicists have taken a technical quantum leap in addressing this, using techniques from big data to predict how quantum systems will change and then preventing the system’s breakdown from occurring.

The research is published today in Nature Communications.

“Much the way the individual components in mobile phones will eventually fail, so too do quantum systems,” said the paper’s senior author Professor Michael J. Biercuk.

“But in quantum technology the lifetime is generally measured in fractions of a second, rather than years.”

Professor Biercuk, from the University of Sydney’s School of Physics and a chief investigator at the Australian Research Council’s Centre for Engineered Quantum Systems, said his group had demonstrated it was possible to suppress decoherence in a preventive manner. The key was to develop a technique to predict how the system would disintegrate.

Professor Biercuk highlighted the challenges of making predictions in a quantum world: “Humans routinely employ predictive techniques in our daily experience; for instance, when we play tennis we predict where the ball will end up based on observations of the airborne ball,” he said.

“This works because the rules that govern how the ball will move, like gravity, are regular and known. But what if the rules changed randomly while the ball was on its way to you? In that case it’s next to impossible to predict the future behavior of that ball.

“And yet this situation is exactly what we had to deal with because the disintegration of quantum systems is random. Moreover, in the quantum realm observation erases quantumness, so our team needed to be able to guess how and when the system would randomly break.

“We effectively needed to swing at the randomly moving tennis ball while blindfolded.”

The team turned to machine learning for help in keeping their quantum systems – qubits realised in trapped atoms – from breaking.

What might look like random behavior actually contained enough information for a computer program to guess how the system would change in the future. It could then predict the future without direct observation, which would otherwise erase the system’s useful characteristics.

The predictions were remarkably accurate, allowing the team to use their guesses preemptively to compensate for the anticipated changes.

Doing this in real time allowed the team to prevent the disintegration of the quantum character, extending the useful lifetime of the qubits.

“We know that building real quantum technologies will require major advances in our ability to control and stabilise qubits – to make them useful in applications,” Professor Biercuk said.

Our techniques apply to any qubit, built in any technology, including the special superconducting circuits being used by major corporations.

“We’re excited to be developing new capabilities that turn quantum systems from novelties into useful technologies. The quantum future is looking better all the time,” Professor Biercuk said.

After decades of research and countless control attempts, dengue fever–a mosquito-borne viral disease–continues to infect an estimated 390 million people around the world each year. Now, researchers have reported in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases that the mosquitos that carry dengue virus (DENV) can be genetically engineered have an increased resistance to infection by the virus.

When a mosquito bites someone infected with DENV, the virus needs to complete its lifecycle in the mosquito’s gut, eventually infecting its salivary glands, before it can infect another person. Previous studies have shown that mosquitos rely on a molecular pathway dubbed JAK/STAT to try to fight DENV infection and stop this cycle. Proteins known as Dome and Hop are involved in turning on the JAK/STAT when the mosquito is infected with DENV.

In the new work, George Dimopoulos, of Johns Hopkins University, and colleagues genetically engineered Aedes aegypti mosquitos to turn on expression of either Dome or Hop, in the fatbody tissue, earlier in infection–immediately after ingesting blood–and make more of the proteins.

Mosquitos with engineered versions of Dome or Hop that were then infected with DENV had 78.18% (Dome) and 83.63% (Hop) fewer copies of the virus in their guts, as well as significantly less virus in their salivary glands.

Mosquitos with the altered genes had normal lifespans, but produced fewer eggs than normal mosquitos. When the researchers repeated the experiments with Zika virus and chikungunya virus, no impact was seen on infection, suggesting that the importance of the JAK/STAT pathway in the fatbody tissue is unique to DENV.

“It may be possible to achieve improved or total resistance to dengue and other viruses by expressing additional transgenes in multiple tissues that block the virus through different mechanisms,” the researchers write. “Recently developed powerful mosquito gene-drive systems, that are under development, are likely to make it possible to spread pathogen resistance in mosquito populations in a self-propagating fashion, even at a certain fitness cost.”