By Elise Harris

In the first days of U.S. president Donald Trump’s administration, Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark said he has seen encouragement on pro-life matters, but cause for concern when it comes to refugees.

“I think the fact that the vice president and other White House officials addressed the March for Life last week was very encouraging, and I think it’s a good boost,” the cardinal told CNA in a sit-down interview Jan. 31.

Noting that the massive pro-life march is often ignored by the media, he said “this was I think a great gift to the people, the attention that the administration gave.”

However, he also voiced concern over U.S. president Donald Trump’s executive order on refugees, and how it will affect those suffering in various parts of the world. He said that in opposing the policy, the U.S. bishops have the support of Pope Francis.

Currently in Rome to take possession of his titular church Santa Maria delle Grazie, which he did Sunday, Tobin said that so far his schedule has been packed with curial meetings, and a visit to the new mega-dicastery for Integral Human Development was one of them.

While stopping by an office in the same building to talk about “a completely different issue,” Tobin said he got a visit from the secretary of the congregation, Fr. Michael Czerny, who popped in and conveyed the Pope’s confidence that the U.S. bishops are giving the issue “a Gospel response.”

Tobin, who currently serves as the Archbishop of Newark, was named a Cardinal by Pope Francis in his latest consistory, and got his red hat in Rome Nov. 19.

In the interview, the cardinal offered an update on Auxiliary Bishop Manuel Cruz, who was assaulted while saying Mass in Newark over the weekend.

He also spoke about his transition from the Archdiocese of Indianapolis to the Archdiocese of Newark, the strengths and challenges of consecrated life, and the 2018 Synod of Bishops, which will discuss youth and vocational discernment.

Please read below for CNA’s full interview with Cardinal Tobin:

Q: You have just changed dioceses. How has your transition to the Archdiocese of Newark been, and do you have any updates on how your Auxiliary Bishop, Manuel Cruz is doing after the assault this weekend?

The transition to Newark has been lovely. I’ve received a wonderful welcome from the clergy and from the people. Trying to orientate myself to the new reality is a bit like drinking form a firehose, as they say, so it’s a challenge each day to get to know this new church and its incredible vitality. While I’ve been here we’ve had a very disturbing incident in the cathedral of Newark Saturday. One of our auxiliary bishops and the rector of the cathedral, Manuel Cruz, was just beginning a memorial Mass for Roberto Clemente, the famous Puerto Rican baseball player and philanthropist, and a person got up out of the pew and went into the sanctuary and began to beat him. I talked to Bishop Cruz the following day and he said he had actually extended his hand to greet the man when he was hit full in the face and it damaged him. He’s received about 25 stitches in his face and at first they thought that his jaw had been broken, but he will probably need some reconstructive surgery, so it was a very traumatic experience for him and really for the cathedral community and for the archdiocese.

Q: We’ll definitely keep him in our prayers. Another thing that’s made headlines and has been on everyone’s mind is Donald Trump and everything that he’s been doing in the days since his inauguration. One of the biggest concerns has been on his immigration policy. What is your reaction to the plan that he is currently trying to implement?

Well, I made my reaction known in a statement that the Archdiocese posted. My concern for the provisions of this, first the ban on refugees from some of the most suffering parts of the world, and secondly, his total ban on any people who are coming from seven different countries, but also to people who belong to the Islamic faith. Those were all sources of concern not simply for me but also for my brother bishops.

Q: I know you’ve had differences with Vice President Michael Pence on this in the past, and in the end the local government took the same position as the Church. Do you expect the bishops will have any sway on this issue now, particularly the specific attention Trump has shown to Catholics?

I would just add that in that former disagreement with the-then governor of Indiana, it wasn’t simply the government but it was also the courts later on, because the State tried to justify its ban in federal court and in two different courts it was discarded as not being constitutional. So I think the whole constitutionality of this ban is going to be questioned not simply by Catholic bishops, but by other interested groups and perhaps the courts will have a say in it. I think what bishops need to do and what we do is to tell the truth, and to tell the truth in light of the Gospel.

Q: Have you received any sort of advice from the Vatican on how to engage the Trump administration on this issue?

Actually yesterday I was meeting with, on a completely different issue, but I was in the same building as the Migration (section), and the (secretary) of the council, Fr. Michael Czerny, came to see me, and he said the Holy Father doesn’t feel the need to intervene because he believes the bishops, not just one bishop, but the bishops of the United States are making an adequate response, a Gospel response.

Q: For Catholics in particular the Trump administration can be kind of puzzling. He’s been very strong on prolife issues but radically opposite when it comes to immigration. What advice would you give to Catholics who perhaps feel caught in the middle?

All of us have the challenge of seeing this respect for life as being, in the famous words of Cardinal Bernardin, Chicago’s “seamless garment,” which is just that the garment of Christ wasn’t torn apart at the foot of the cross and neither is our moral reflection on life. Now, it is encouraging if the present administration – I think the fact the vice president and other White House officials addressed the March for Life last week was very encouraging and I think it’s a good boost. I’ve walked in that march a number of times and have been amazed at the sort of dedication of people who come out in the middle of January, usually in freezing weather, to witness and often times it’s just ignored by the media. So this was I think a great gift to the people, the attention that the administration gave. I hope that they’ll make good on that intention. However I think that there’s probably part of public policy that was announced last week that needs to be challenged and needs a respectful debate, and I think that that’s what the bishops of the country intend to do.

Q: Shifting to another announcement that was made this week, the Vatican confirmed your post in the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The Pope met with the members this weekend. Do you have a reaction to his speech?

The theme of the meeting of the congregation – those are the cardinals and bishops that advise the department in the Vatican on policies affecting consecrated life across the world. The theme of it had to do with fidelity and perseverance, so I think that he, obviously as a religious, is interested in the witness that consecrated people give. So he talked about what are elements that can enhance fidelity among religious, things like spiritual direction, regular use of the sacraments, the importance of having a spiritual advisor. I think that he helped us see that the work we were doing was pretty crucial.

Q: You’ve worked with the congregation before and you have a lot of experience working with different religious communities. Given your experience, what would you say are some of the biggest areas of opportunity of consecrated life today, but also the great strengths it has?

Consecrated life, like any committed life, faces particular challenges today, particularly in the West, where a famous sociologist here in Italy used to talk about the “liquid society,” a society that is so fluid in its identity that you can say you’re something one day, and then change it the next, even the most profound characteristics of what it means to be human. I think as vowed people, people who have given ourselves to the Lord, to maintain that commitment within such fluidity is going to be a challenge. I think also that this sort of freedom that religious life should model isn’t always evident if we’re not truly free – free from striving for power, wealth or unlimited satisfaction. In a consumerist society, that’s going to be a challenge, to say no, living simply and living gratefully is the real secret to a happy life. So I think religious can model that for the rest of the Church. But if we’re not faithful to that, then we become like the salt that’s lost its flavor, and we don’t want to do that.

Q: One final question. The topic of faith and vocational discernment is also the topic of the next Synod of Bishops. Will your congregation be contributing any specific materials? To what extent will you be involved in the planning?

I think that all the Roman dicasteries are asked to contribute to the synod, to the preliminary and preparatory documents, so I imagine this congregation, but also the Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States. I suppose I’ll be involved a little bit because I’m the Chair on the Committee for Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations. So I know an important part of the preparatory process for a synod, is a sort of consultation and then trying to refine those consultations into a workable document to guide the synod. So yeah, I think that we’ll be involved.

Q: What are some of the big themes you think should be part of the discussion?

I think there are a number of things. How the Church is present among young people today, I think some sensitivity of what young people are looking for in themselves, what will be obstacles to young people embracing a vocation to which God is calling her or him, what is the particular witness that young people can give in the Church and the world and how does the Church need to support young people.

By Zahid Hussain

Pakistan’s media watchdog has barred firebrand, Aamir Liaquat Hussain from broadcasting after he called missing social media activists and their supporters blasphemers and traitors.

The Pakistan Electronic Media Authority (PERMA), issued a notification late last week prohibiting the religious broadcaster’s program on Bol News with immediate effect.

“Aamir Liaquat … willfully and repeatedly made statements and allegations which tantamount to hate speech, derogatory remarks, incitement to violence against citizens and casting accusations of being anti-state and anti-Islam on various individuals,” the watchdog organization said in a statement.

The Pakistan Broadcasters Association, a body of TV channel owners, supported the ban. “The PBA condemns any kind of hate speech and it stands by civil society and journalists,” they said in a statement.

Jibran Nasir, a human rights activist, also welcomed the ban.

“PEMRA did its job and we should be glad about it but our real job is still left. We can rejoice when the missing bloggers come back home. Back to work!” Nasir said in a statement.

In November 2015, President Barack Obama told a G20 press conference that proposals to give priority status to Christian refugees from Syria were “shameful.” He said, “We do not have a religious test for our compassion.” Now he is criticizing President Donald Trump for making good on this initiative.

What is really shameful is Obama’s hypocrisy, and that of his supporters. According to the logic of Trump’s critics, Obama employed a religious test to keep Syrian Christian refugees out of the United States, something that Trump is now seeking to rectify. Moreover, those refugees were created, in large part, by Obama’s failed Middle East policy.

Obama’s policy of giving priority status to Muslims was so blatant that it  caught the attention of U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Daniel Manion.

In November, he voiced concern over the almost complete absence of Christians among the Syrian refugees. He noted that “of the nearly 11,000 refugees admitted by mid-September, only 56 were Christian.” He further observed that “Perhaps 10 percent of the population of Syria is Christian, and yet less than one-half of one percent of Syrian refugees admitted to the United States this year are Christian.”

It is not persuasive to say that Obama did not explicitly employ a religious test against Christians. His defenders cannot have it both ways. If Obama didn’t have a religious test, then neither does Trump—there is no “Muslim ban.”

Trump’s executive order was written to stop refugees from Syria and six other Muslim-run nations—it did not single out Muslims. And if it were a “Muslim ban,” then all nations that are predominantly Muslim would have been named, but they were not.

Should Christian refugees be given priority status? Absolutely. There is one overriding reason: they are the most persecuted people on earth.

It is not compassionate to treat every religion equally when the distribution of the victims of religious persecution, and the reasons for it, are so egregiously unequal. Millions of Christians were murdered under Hitler, but they were not targeted for genocide the way 6 million Jews were. That makes a difference.

An Italian research institute, the Center for the Study of Global Christianity, recently released a report on Christian persecution worldwide finding that 90,000 Christians were killed in 2016. It concluded that this means one Christian is killed every six minutes.

Open Doors, the world’s largest outreach organization to persecuted Christians, found that aside from North Korea, it was in Muslim-run nations where Christians were most likely to be victimized. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan [note the name] killed more Christians because of their faith in 2016 than any other country.

The U.S. State Department’s Commission on International Religious Freedom recorded in its 2016 annual report that “More people are on death row or serving life sentences for blasphemy in Pakistan than in any other country in the world.” It detailed the violence of Muslim-run nations against Christians.

Political scientist Abraham Miller notes that the State Department still uses an antiquated calculation when assessing the victims of persecution: it limits its study to state oppression, wholly ignoring terrorist entities such as ISIS. This means, he says, that “their brutal persecution of Christians does not give Christians special consideration as refugees.”

Miller also points out that U.N. refugee camps are dominated by Muslims, many of whom brutalize Christians. “In the refugee camp in Jordan,” he says, “there are no Christians. In the camps Christians are murdered, raped, and even kidnapped and sold into slavery.”

Pew Research Center cites a survey from October where it found that the majority of Americans believe the U.S. does not have a responsibility to accept refugees from Syria. Of course, decisions on such an important  humanitarian subject cannot be guided by polls alone—moral issues demand presidential leadership.

No matter, the survey results should temper those who are now claiming that President Trump has opened Pandora’s box; he is doing what the people want. Moreover, that box was opened by Obama when he gave preferential treatment to Muslim refugees, victims who were themselves victimized by his disastrous foreign policy decisions.

Trump’s corrective is in direct response to these realities.

US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis held his first bilateral meeting with a foreign leader Monday and later spoke via phone with the South Korean and Italian defense ministers, Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. Jeff Davis said.

The defense secretary welcomed Jordan’s King Abdullah II to the Pentagon, where Mattis reaffirmed the importance of the U.S.-Jordanian strategic relationship and America’s commitment to security and stability in the region, the captain said.

“The two leaders have had a close and continuing dialogue for many years,” Davis said, adding that the defense secretary expressed his deep appreciation to King Abdullah II for Jordan’s commitment and contributions to the coalition to counter the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

The two emphasized the close nature of the U.S.-Jordan defense partnership and reiterated their shared commitment to ensuring a stable and secure Middle East, the captain said.

South Korea

Mattis spoke by telephone with South Korean Defense Minister Han Minkoo to introduce himself and reaffirm the U.S. commitment to defend South Korea and provide extended deterrence using the full range of U.S. capabilities, Davis said. Han congratulated Mattis on his confirmation and both wished each other a happy and prosperous Lunar New Year.

In their discussion, the two leaders affirmed that the U.S.-South Korea alliance of more than 60 years “remains even more relevant today and determined to take steps to strengthen the alliance further to defend against the evolving North Korean threat,” the captain said. Mattis also noted that his visit to South Korea and Japan will be his first overseas trip during his tenure as secretary of defense, and said that the U.S. will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with South Korean forces, Davis said.

Italy

The defense secretary discussed the strong U.S.-Italy defense partnership in his call with Italian Defense Minister Roberta Pinotti, the captain said.

In their first conversation, Mattis thanked Pinotti for Italy’s leadership and contributions in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, and in securing Europe’s southern flank, Davis said.

“He praised the professionalism, capabilities and compassion of Italy’s deployed forces, saying that Italian forces represent the best that Italy has to offer,” the captain said. “He highlighted specifically Italy’s carabinieri, who are performing the important work of stability police training in several theaters.”

Davis said Mattis also noted his desire to consult closely with Italy on security issues of mutual concern, especially Libya. Both leaders pledged to consult further at next month’s meeting of NATO defense ministers at NATO headquarters in Brussels.

The situation in Donbass has deteriorated sharply in recent days. Ukrainian troops continue to conduct offensive operations to seize positions held by self-defence forces, including in the suburbs of Donetsk. Heavy weapons, including heavy artillery and multiple launch rocket systems, are being actively used to shell residential areas. According to Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, such weapons should long since have been withdrawn from the contact line. There are casualties and wounded among the civilian population. As a result of the shelling by Ukrainian troops, the Donetsk Filtration Station and the Avdeyevka Coke Chemical Plant have lost power. The lives of miners working in the mines are under threat.

We see southeastern Ukraine, which is already suffering from the economic blockade imposed by Kiev, again on the verge of a real humanitarian and environmental disaster.

All of this is a direct outcome of ongoing violations by Ukraine of its obligations under the Minsk agreements, which no one in Kiev intends to act on. Instead of efforts to achieve sustainable peace, the Ukrainian authorities are trying hard to achieve a military solution to the conflict. Everyone should remember what kind of outcome this kind of reckless behaviour has led to on previous occasions.

Strangely enough, every escalation of the situation in Donbass comes at a time when the Ukrainian leadership is away on a foreign trip. Clearly, this is an attempt to keep the crisis provoked by Kiev on the international agenda.

We urge the Ukrainian authorities to immediately put an end to the armed provocations in Donbass, comply with existing ceasefire agreements and begin, at long last, to responsibly fulfil all the provisions of the Minsk Package of Measures, including those relating to the political aspects of the existing problems.

We expect Ukraine’s partners to exert the necessary influence on Kiev to put an end to these efforts to turn the tables in Donbass and sink the Minsk agreements.

We expect a quick response on the part of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine in order to de-escalate the situation as soon as possible.

By Phil Harris

Newly-elected US president Donald Trump has been hyperactive in his first week in office, signing executive orders that confirm his pre-election pledges to “make America great again” by brushing aside any concern for the plight of those seeking to find safety and a better life.

One of his first acts was the signing of an executive order to begin the process of building a wall on the US-Mexico border, saying that “a nation without borders is not a nation. Beginning today, the United States of America gets back control of its borders, gets back its borders.”

But it was on January 27, when he ordered suspension of the US refugee programme for 120 days and the barring of entry to the United States for refugees from seven mostly Muslim countries until further notice, that national and international indignation took off.

Adding its voice to protests throughout the United States, UNHCR – the UN refugee agency – diplomatically expressed concern about the uncertainty facing thousands of refugees around the world who are in the process of being resettled to the United States.

According to Filippo Grandi, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, an estimated “20,000 refugees in precarious circumstances might have been resettled to the United States during the 120 days covered by the suspension … based on average monthly figures for the last 15 years” but now “refugees are anxious, confused and heartbroken at this suspension in what is already a lengthy process.”

Grandi said that “refugees share the very same concerns about security and safety that Americans have. They themselves are fleeing war, persecution, oppression and terrorism. The individuals and families UNHCR refers to governments for resettlement are the most vulnerable – such as people needing urgent medical assistance, survivors of torture, and women and girls at risk. The new homes provided by resettlement countries are life-saving for people who have no other options.”

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) joined UNHCR on January 28 in issuing a joint statement expressing “hope that the United States will continue its strong leadership role and long tradition of protecting those who are fleeing conflict and persecution.”

Stressing that “the needs of refugees and migrants worldwide have never been greater, and the US resettlement programme is one of the most important in the world”, the two agencies noted that “the long-standing US policy of welcoming refugees has created a ‘win-win’ situation.

“It has saved the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the world who have in turn enriched and strengthened their new societies. The contribution of refugees and migrants to their new homes worldwide has been overwhelmingly positive.”

UNHCR and the IOM also expressed the strong belief that “refugees should receive equal treatment for protection and assistance, and opportunities for resettlement, regardless of their religion, nationality or race.”

However, the opinions of UN agencies on his immigration policy are unlikely to move Trump, who has already shown that he has little respect for the United Nations as a whole.

On December 28, while he was still President-elect and just two days after attacking the United Nations as being “just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time”, Trump continued his criticism of the global body saying that the organisation was causing problems rather than solving them and that it will be “a waste of time and money” if it does not start living up to its potential.

While not saying outright that the United States should withdraw from the United Nations, there are reports that the Trump administration might be considering drastic cuts in its funding of the organisation.

In an opinion piece published by The Guardian on January 27, Howard Stoffer, a former Deputy Executive Director in the UN Security Council, said that “according to some reports, there exist draft executive orders reducing US funding to the United Nations and other international organisations by at least 40 percent overall. That would reshape the organisation, whose aim is world peace and international cooperation, unalterably.”

Meanwhile, Trump has already shown how he will react to criticism of his actions by firing acting US Attorney General Sally Yates on January 30 after she told US Department of Justice lawyers not to defend his executive order banning entry for people from seven Muslim-majority countries.

According to a White House statement, Yates had “betrayed” the department by refusing to enforce a legal order that was “designed to protect the citizens of the United States”.

Yates, who was appointed by Barack Obama, had control over the immigration litigation office of the Department of Justice, which has handled federal complaints filed against Trump’s order since his immigration policy was announced.

Yates told Department of Justice lawyers that she was “responsible for this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right … At present I am not convinced that the defence of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

Yates may not be convinced but there are growing numbers who are convinced that Trump’s retrograde chauvinism sounds a warning for human rights.

By Daniela Vincenti

(EurActiv) — In an emotional letter sent to EU leaders gathering in Malta this week, European Council President Donald Tusk issued a bold call to arms Tuesday, to fight those who try to whittle away at the European project, loudly and clearly asserting that the EU is here to stay.

“In a world full of tension and confrontation, what is needed is courage, determination and political solidarity of Europeans. Without them we will not survive,” he said, giving EU leaders the proper ammunition to counterattack US President Donald Trump and like-minded world leaders hostile to the Union.

Tusk sent the letter to the 27 heads of state and government expected to meet in the baroque courtyards of the Grandmaster’s Palace in Valletta on Friday (3 February). EU leaders will meet without British Prime Minister Theresa May, as they are preparing to forge a new vision for the bloc rocked by divisive crises, including Brexit.

Recent verbal attacks by US President Donald Trump might have created the right sense of urgency to declare a united front. Meddling in EU affairs, Trump said that after the UK, other countries would leave the bloc. The billionaire-turned president called NATO obsolete, criticised Angela Merkel’s asylum policy, and characterised Brexit as “great”.

Tusk did not hide his concern about the new US government and its differences with the last seven decades of American foreign policy. But the opportunity is self-evident.

EU disintegration is no sovereignty restoration

“It must be made crystal clear that the disintegration of the European Union will not lead to the restoration of some mythical, full sovereignty of its member states, but to their real and factual dependence on the great superpowers: the United States, Russia and China,” Tusk wrote to EU leaders.

“Only together can we be fully independent,” he said.

This is the second time that EU leaders are meeting to discuss a new course for the 27-country bloc and launch a new roadmap on the anniversary of the Treaty of Rome next March. They previously met four months ago in Bratislava but, what was largely anticipated as a show of unity, ended with them refusing to share a stage together, in open disagreement over immigration and the economy.

Acknowledging that the challenges currently facing Europe are more dangerous than ever, Tusk warned against an assertive China, Russia’s aggressive policy and the changes in Washington, putting the EU in a difficult situation.

“For the first time in our history, in an increasingly multipolar external world, so many are becoming openly anti-European, or Eurosceptic at best,” he writes, adding that the external threat is mirrored internally by the rise in anti-EU, nationalist, xenophobic sentiment.

In other words, attacking the ideology and institutions has become more important than defending the interests and emotions of the people, he reckons.

To counterattack national egoism, which Tusk says is becoming an attractive alternative to integration, the European Council president believes that pride and dignity are adequate weapons.

“In Rome, we should renew this declaration of faith,” he writes. “If we do not believe in ourselves, in the deeper purpose of integration, why should anyone else?”

“If we pretend we cannot hear the words and we do not notice the decisions aimed against the EU and our future, people will stop treating Europe as their wider homeland,” Tusk insisted, raising the stakes and opting for political incorrectness to oppose the rhetoric of demagogues who claim that EU integration is beneficial only to elites.

Emotional intelligence

Tusk was not shy in calling EU leaders to stand up very clearly for dignity, the dignity of a united Europe.

“In Rome, we should strongly reiterate these two basic, yet forgotten, truths: firstly, we have united in order to avoid another historic catastrophe, and secondly, that the times of European unity have been the best times in all of Europe’s centuries-long history,” he writes.

The Polish ex-premier was not shy about demanding assertive, albeit spectacular steps that would change inspire and revive aspirations to take European integration to the next level.

The list of demonstrative actions recalls the letter Tusk sent before the Bratislava summit in September, in which he stressed the need to restore a sense of external and internal security as well as socio-economic welfare for European citizens.

Moving ahead, though, cannot be done without looking back. In a veiled attack on Trump, Tusk reminds him of the US motto united we stand, divided we fall. But it is a clear reminder to his EU pals who might be lured by similarly divisive thoughts.

“Let us have the courage to be proud of our own achievements, which have made our continent the best place on Earth,” he writes in the letter.

Electronic money – digital payment instruments that store value – can be seen simply as a technological innovation for holding and accessing regular money. This column argues that how it is used and regulated will determine whether e-money instead serves as a replacement for existing money, and discusses the regulatory implications.

By Biagio Bossone*

The Committee on Payment and Market Infrastructures – the international standard setter for payment systems – defines electronic money (e-money) as “value stored electronically in a device such as a chip card or a hard drive in a personal computer” (CPSS 2003), and the GSM Association – the trade body that represents mobile money operators globally – further indicates that “the total value of e-money is mirrored in (a) bank account(s), such that even if the provider…were to fail, users could recover 100% of the value stored in their accounts” (GSMA 2010).

These features are integral to e-money regulations worldwide, which refer to e-money as a prepaid payment instrument issued against the receipt of funds whose value is either stored on a device in the possession of customers or is accessible from customers when it is stored elsewhere (e.g. a computer server or network).¹ The functionality thus described, however, is analogous to accessing accounts held at banks, which represent claims on funds that customers may exercise at any time. From this perspective, e-money is nothing but a convenient technology for customers to access these funds, quite akin to online banking, swiping a card at merchant establishments, or making ‘card-not-present’ transactions.

The question is whether e-money is just a service on existing money or whether it can serve as money proper, ultimately replacing cash and deposits. Addressing this question should lead regulators to consider whether and how regulations should evolve to best reflect the true nature of e-money.

Money is what people think money is

Consider further the analogy between e-money and bank deposits. Aren’t the latter, too, a technology to access and mobilise the value stored in them (cash and other funds) on demand? The answer must be framed in an evolutionary context. In the early days of banking, a deposit was understood to be a safe place inside a well-protected vault where customers would keep their cash and withdraw it when needed (Rothbard 2008). As claims on money, however, deposits progressively became substitutes for money, since people found it more convenient to use them instead of cash in the exchange process. Eventually they (largely) replaced cash as payment devices and even central bank money as a settlement instrument.

To the extent that money substitutes start getting accepted in place of the original, they themselves become money. This owes to people increasingly trusting them as capable of storing value (as money does) and growing more comfortable with their acceptance. In the case of e-money, people at first use it as an easier way to access the value stored in it – they use it for small transfers, engage in frequent cash-in and cash-out transactions, and keep it in small amounts (Hanouch and Kumar 2013). In time, they may use it more widely and even hold it instead of cash and deposits (Pulver 2008, Morawczynski and Pickens 2009). In principle, as e-money usage becomes widespread and people no longer cash out, transactions can take place in e-money with only minimal need for cash to change hands or for deposits to move between accounts (Bachas et al. 2016).

But even with substitution achieving scale, a key feature would still differentiate between bank deposits and e-money, at least under existing regulations, and that is through the different monetary regimes underpinning them – fractional reserves for bank deposits and e-money issued by banks, on the one hand, and 100% backing for e-money issued by nonbanks on the other.² Under the latter regime, e-money issuances must be matched dollar-for-dollar by money in circulation.

An apparent inconsistency

Current e-money regulations are especially concerned with securing two operational objectives: first, enforcing the 100% backing regime; and second, protecting so-called ‘customer funds’.

The first objective ensures that all e-money outstanding is redeemable at all times on customer demand. The second objective raises a critical issue. Regulatory institutions and field experts talk about customer funds when referring to the funds received against e-money issuances. There are in fact two relevant cases here. Take a mobile network operator (MNO) offering mobile money services. In the first case, the MNO’s business is to allow customers to access and mobilise their bank deposits through mobile devices. In the second case, the MNO sells mobile money to customers.

In the first case, the MNO is only a service provider, not an issuer of mobile money – mobile money is a service provided on deposits, not money – and customers own deposit claims on banks, not the funds deposited with banks. In the second case, customers actually purchase monetary value from the MNO (FCA 2014). They buy a form of value (mobile money), whose ownership they acquire, in exchange for another form of value (cash or deposits) whose ownership they relinquish.³ A quid pro quo is involved in the exchange, which implies that the funds received by the MNO against mobile money issuances are no longer customer owned – their ownership transfers from the customers to the MNO.

This is consistent with the earlier analogy between e-money and bank deposits. When customers acquire bank deposit claims, they relinquish funds ownership to the issuing banks. The difference between e-money and deposits rests on their legal basis – deposits are based on lending contracts (Rubin 1975, Harker 2014) while e-money issuances involve sale agreements (Yurtiçiçek 2013), yet they both imply funds ownership transfer.⁴ The only legal arrangement that would involve transfer of possession while not transferring ownership is bailment (Helmholz 1992). However, no current regulation contemplates bailment as a legal basis for e-money.

There is therefore an apparent inconsistency in treating as customer funds the funds received by e-money issuers against e-money, much as there would be an inconsistency in treating as depositor funds the money received by banks against deposit claims. Whether e-money is simply a service on deposits or true exchange of values, the funds involved are never customer owned.

Regulatory implications

The implications are important both for the incentives to use e-money and for the allocation of rights and responsibilities among the institutions involved in its origination and circulation.

If e-money is only a service on deposits:

• Once the funds received by the e-money service providers (EMSPs) are deposited with banks (or invested in securities), customers become the owners of the related deposit claims (and securities) and their interest income. The banks (and securities depositories) are entirely responsible for providing both the liquidity necessary to support e-money redeemability and the insurance coverage needed to protect customer deposit claims (and securities) from insolvency.
• EMSPs, on their side, must only preserve the integrity and continuity of service provision. Since they only offer transaction services, and do not own the funds received, they may not be held responsible for the inability of banks (and securities depositories) to support e-money redeemability through liquidity and insurance provision. Also, provided that customer deposit claims (and securities) are not commingled with their assets, their insolvency does not put those claims at risk. Thus, no extra requirements should be imposed on EMSPs beyond those relating to service quality and market conduct.

Thus, if e-money is not money, regulatory frameworks should be simplified and the responsibilities of the relevant actors should be reconsidered. In particular, the funds received by EMSPs should be deposited with banks only, since banks are best positioned to support e-money redeemability and EMSPs have no incentive to trade off liquidity for higher returns by investing the funds in securities. Moreover, with so-called customer funds being, in fact, customer deposit claims on banks (not on the EMSPs), only banks should be responsible for protecting such claims. There would be no e-money liabilities on the EMSP side, e-money would be nothing but a service on bank deposits, and regulations should drop references to ‘customer funds’.

If, on the other hand, e-money represents true monetary value:

• The funds received against e-money issuances should be recorded on the issuers’ balance sheet as assets against e-money liabilities and any interest income earned on them should belong to the issuers, who would retain the right to decide on its use – including by passing it back on to customers to incentivise the use of e-money for both transaction and saving purposes. Regulators should stop using the terminology ‘customer funds’ and substitute it with ‘issuer liabilities’.
• Regulation should require issuers both to guarantee redeemability and to ensure legal protection of their e-money liabilities against their own insolvency.⁵ Regulations should also require interoperability between e-money schemes, and provide for the transfer of assets and liabilities from insolvent e-money issuers to surviving ones in the event of insolvency, in order to ensure service continuity to customers.
• E-money issuers should be allowed to invest part of their funds in (safe) assets other than bank deposits, thus enabling them to trade-off between liquidity and higher returns, and should be permitted to enter into liquidity and insurance arrangements with banks and other financial institutions with a view to guaranteeing e-money redeemability.
• In addition, and as an alternative, e-money issuers should be allowed to hold their funds in pooled accounts at central banks (Colombia and El Salvador are examples), which could potentially service multiple interoperable e-money schemes. This option would fully protect the e-money liabilities from liquidity and credit risks, and make them closely resemble narrow-bank deposits (Bossone 2001).
• On the other hand, banks offering e-money services to customers should be required to subject the funds received to the same prudential rules applying to deposits, and should be authorised to extend e-money loans to customers by leveraging their fractional reserves regime.

Conclusion

The question of whether e-money is money proper should be approached from an evolutionary perspective, whereby people over time determine the ‘moneyness’ of any given commodity or financial instruments. E-money may at some point become money in people’s perception, and regulations should be designed with that prospect in mind.

The regulatory framework sketched above would offer customers a broader choice of e-money instruments than currently available (from those granting full protection against liquidity and credit risks to those giving access to lending facilities), and would allow e-money to become not only a transaction device but potentially a saving instrument as well (Ehrbeck and Tarazi 2011), with relevant potential financial inclusion implications.

Finally, such a framework would incentivise banks and non-banks to exploit their own comparative advantage, with non-banks possibly competing on the segment of fully protected e-money and banks being able to replicate on the e-money side their power to create money via lending (Bossone and Sarr 2002).

Author’s note: I am particularly grateful to Gynedi Srinivas for bringing to my attention the question that gives the title to this commentary, and for his very helpful remarks and suggestions. I also wish to thank Abdou Sarr for discussing at length the issue of e-money and for offering me his critical views, and Maria Chiara Malaguti for her legal clarifications. Finally, I thank Thomas Lammer for his insights and precious references. Obviously, I am the only one responsible for the opinions expressed.

About the author:
*Biagio Bossone, Chairman, Group of Lecce; Member of the Surveillance Committee, Centre d’Études pour le Financement de Développement Local

References:
Bachas, P, P Gertler, E Seira and S Higgins (2016), “Banking on Trust: How Debit Cards Help the Poor to Save More”, Working Paper, Yale University, 7 April.

Bossone, B (2001), “Should banks be narrowed?”, IMF Working Paper WP/01/159.

Bossone B, and A Sarr (2002), “A new financial system for poverty reduction and growth”, IMF Working Paper, WP/02/178.

CPMI (2015), “Digital currencies”, Report by the Committee on Payment and Financial Market Infrastructures, Bank for International Settlement, Basle, November.

CPSS (2001), “Survey of electronic money developments”, Report by the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems, Bank for International Settlement, Basle, no. 48.

CPSS (2003), “A glossary of terms used in payments and settlement systems”, Report by the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems, Bank for International Settlement, Basle.

ECB (2012), Virtual Currency Schemes, European Central Bank, October.

Ehrbeck, T, and  M Tarazi (2011), “Putting the Banking in Branchless Banking: Regulation and the Case for Interest-Bearing and Insured E-money Savings Accounts”, World Economic Forum’s Mobile Financial Services Development Report.

FCA (2013), “The definition of electronic money”, PERG 3A.3, Financial Conduct Authority, Handbook.

Greenacre, J, and R Buckley (2014a), “Mobile Money Knowledge Product: Trust Law Protections for Mobile Money Customers”, Centre for International Finance and Regulation, Working Paper.

Greenacre, J, and R Buckley (2014b), Using Trusts to Protect Mobile Money Customers, UNCDF.

GSMA (2010), “Mobile Money Definitions”, July.

GSMA (2016), “Safeguarding Mobile Money: How providers and regulators can ensure that customer funds are protected”, January.

Hanouch, M, and K Kumar (2013), Mobile Money: 10 Things You Need to Know, CGAP, 30 December.

Harker, T C (2014), “Bailment Ailment: An Analysis of the Legal Status Of Ordinary Demand Deposits in the Shadow of the Financial Crisis of 2008”, Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law 19(3).

Hayes, D G, J F E Gillespie, P H Daly, G Grippo, and P J Johnson (1996), “An Introduction to Electronic Money Issues”, paper prepared for the US Department of Treasury Conference ‘Towards Electronic Money and Banking: The Role of Government’, September.

Helmholz, R H (1992), “Bailment Theories and the Liability of Bailees: The Elusive Uniform Standard of Reasonable Care”, University of Kansas Law Review, 97-135.

IMF (2016), “Virtual Currencies and Beyond: Initial Considerations”, IMF Staff Discussion Note, SDN/16/03.

Morawczynski, O, and M Pickens (2009), “Poor People Using Mobile Financial Services: Observations on Customer Usage and Impact from M-PESA”, CGAP Brief, Washington, D.C., CGAP.

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (1996), “Stored Value Card Systems”, Opinion to the Chief Executive Officers of all National Banks, OCC Banking Bulletin, No. 96-48.

Pulver, C (2008), “The Performance and Impact of M-PESA: Preliminary Evidence from a Household Survey”, Financial Sector Deepening Kenya.

Ramos, D, J Solana, R P Buckley, and J Greenacre (2015), “Protecting the Funds of Mobile Money Customers in Civil Law Jurisdictions”, GEG Working Paper, University of Oxford.

Roberds, W (1997), “What’s Really New about the New Forms of Retail Payment?”,  Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review,  82(1), 32-45.

Rothbard, M N (2008), The Mystery of Banking, 2nd edition, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama.

Rubin, M H (1975), “Bailment and Deposit in Louisiana”, Writing Requirements and the Parol Evidence Rule: A Student Symposium, Louisiana Law Review 35(4).

Yurtiçiçek, M S (2013), “The Legal Nature of Electronic Money And The Effects of The EU Regulations Concerning The Electronic Money Market”, Law and Justice Review IV(1): 276-321.

Endnotes:
[1] E-money must not be confused with ‘virtual currencies’, which, as the ECB (2012) notes, “…differ from electronic money schemes insofar as the currency being used as the unit of account has no physical counterpart with legal tender status”. Also, virtual currencies are representations of value typically denominated in their own unit of account (IMF 2016). Differences between e-money and virtual or digital currencies are further discussed in CPMI (2015).

[2] Existing regulations typically require that 100% of customer funds be isolated from the e-money issuer’s funds and deposited in a separate account held at a credit institution or invested in secure, low-risk assets. As an alternative, EU regulation requires that e-money issuers obtain insurance covering the full value of the funds received.

[3] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (1996) explains that: “The issuing bank sells electronic cash directly to consumers, or contracts the selling function to another firm. When the issuer sells its electronic cash directly to consumers, it is essentially selling bank liabilities to its customers. The issuer takes the proceeds from the sale of electronic cash and invests or holds the proceeds until the electronic cash is presented to the issuer for redemption.” See also Hayes et al. (1996), and Roberds (1997).

[4] In the case of bank deposits, as banks issue deposit claims to customers they become owners of the money deposited and have the right to decide on their use, subject to applicable regulations. Even if banks are required by regulation to make specific uses of the money received, including, for instance, by being required to hold specific types of assets, they (not the depositors) own the assets and they (not the depositors) are entitled to keep the income earned on the assets.

[5] For a review of the various forms of protection of ‘customer funds’ adopted worldwide, depending on the type of legal jurisdiction where regulations apply (i.e., civic vs. common law), see GSMA (2016), Ramos et al. (2015), and Greenacre and Buckley (2014a, b).

In 33 years after being re-admitted by the African Union, King Mohammed VI took its rightful seat at the pan African organization headquarters.

“It is a beautiful day when one returns home after too long an absence. Africa is my continent and my home. I am finally home and I am happy to see you. I missed you all,” the monarch told the closing ceremony of the AU summit in Ethiopia.

Morocco’s return to the fold comes a day after 39 of the AU’s 54 member states agreed to allow Morocco back in the pan African organization.  Certainly, Morocco readmittance to the African Union will benefit the whole continent since Morocco will undoubtedly contribute much to the continent in terms of knowledge, expertise and human capital.

This was high time that a country as big a player in Africa as Morocco reclaimed its rightful place in the African institution.

Most voters approve of President Donald Trump’s temporary halt to refugees and visitors from several Middle Eastern and African countries until the government can do a better job of keeping out individuals who are terrorist threats, The Financial reports.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of likely U.S. voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided.

Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided.

This survey was taken late last week prior to the weekend protests against Trump’s executive orders imposing a four-month ban on all refugees and a temporary visa ban on visitors from these seven countries.

These findings have changed little from August when 59% of voters agreed with Trump’s call for a temporary ban on immigration into the United States from “the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism” until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists.

Only 16% of Americans think this country can ever be made completely safe from terrorist attacks in general, although 52% of voters say the federal government does not focus enough on the threat of domestic Islamic terrorism.

The refugee ban is supported by 82% of Republicans and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democrats are opposed by a 53% to 34% margin. The numbers are nearly identical for the temporary ban on visas from these seven terrorist-plagued nations.

Men and women are in general agreement on both measures. Younger voters are slightly less supportive than their elders are.

Blacks oppose both bans more than whites and other majority voters do.

Among voters who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing, over 70% support both bans. Similar numbers of those who Strongly Disapprove of his job performance are opposed.

Most voters opposed former President Obama’s plan to bring tens of thousands of Middle Eastern and African refugees here this year. Sixty-two percent (62%) said Obama’s plan posed an increased national security risk to the United States.

Obama and Hillary Clinton wouldn’t say it for fear of offending Muslims worldwide, but most voters continue to believe the United States is at war with radical Islamic terrorism. Trump declared war on radical Islamic terrorists in his inaugural speech.

During the campaign, voters felt Trump would do a better job than Clinton protecting them from terrorists.

Just 32% think the United States is safer now after eight years of the Obama presidency. In late December, 34% of voters said the United States will be safer from domestic terror attacks five years from now. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe it will be less safe, while 32% expect the level of danger to be about the same.

Last January, 72% of voters said the federal government is not aggressive enough in finding those who have overstayed their visas and sending them home. Sixty-eight percent (68%) considered those who overstay their visas in this country to be a serious national security risk.

By Joyce Karam

Iran’s ballistic missile launch on Sunday was Tehran’s “first litmus test” for the Donald Trump administration as much as it was a regional show of force, according to experts.

With the launch coming just nine days into the Trump presidency, Iran-watchers expect the new administration to respond through the different levers at its disposal.

A more aggressive retaliation could, however, backfire, and lead to an unintended escalation in the Gulf region, the experts said.

According to US Defense officials, Iran test-fired a medium-range ballistic missile, the first of its kind since Trump took office on Jan. 20. Fox News reported that the launch “occurred Sunday at a well-known test site outside Semnan,” while NBC quoted US officials as saying the launch “was a failure, after the missile flew more than 500 miles… before crashing.”

Iran’s first test to Trump

Benjamin Weinthal, a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), told Arab News that Iran’s missile launch is “the first litmus test for the Trump administration to counter Iran’s growing jingoism and its violations of UN regulations.”

Iran’s last test in July 2016, during the Barack Obama administration, was not met by a stern response in part because the then president did not see a violation of the nuclear deal.

Tyler Cullis, a legal fellow with the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), said that Iran’s missile tests are not technically in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 because “the resolution only contains a hortatory call for Iran to refrain from certain missile activities.”

The resolution calls upon Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons,” but it stops short on enforcing restrictions or penalty provisions.

Both Weinthal and Cullis agree however that the test may be a “grave mistake” by Iran, and comes at an intricate time in Washington’s new strategy toward Tehran.

“The missile test should be viewed in the context of Iranian belligerence in the region. Iran’s terrorist proxy group in Yemen — the Houthis — attacked yesterday a Saudi navy ship,” said Weinthal.

Cullis said the timing of the launch is “dangerous particularly as the Trump administration appears increasingly unmoored from the norms of US policymaking and thus unpredictable in their response to these tests.”

Trump’s response

White House spokesman Sean Spicer on Monday confirmed the missile test without delving into details on the administration’s possible response. “We’re looking into that. We’re aware that Iran fired that missile. We’re looking into the exact nature of it, and I’ll try to have more for you later,” he said.

An early response by the Trump administration was to call for an emergency meeting at the UN Security Council, slated for late Tuesday afternoon. A Security Council “condemnation of Iran’s behavior and the restoration of UN-based sanctions would be an appropriate measure,” said Weinthal.

The Trump administration could go further by pursuing economic pressure on Iran. Weinthal said that Trump’s options include “forcing Boeing airlines to cancel its planes deal with Iran and urging European companies and governments who have rushed into the Iranian market that they are putting their business relations with the US at risk.”

Cullis sees an array of options that could determine Trump’s response. The US could take more aggressive actions in the Gulf “which could provoke a direct military confrontation between the US and Iran,” or by imposing new sanctions relating to Iran’s missile program.

During the campaign, Trump threatened Iranian vessels would be “shot out of the water” if they inappropriately approach US ships, and his Defense Secretary James Mattis has been a proponent of a stronger response to Iran’s aggressive behavior in the Gulf waters.

But if Trump fulfills his campaign promise and responds with a military action against Iran, “things could quickly spiral out of control,” Cullis warned.

“For a president who believes in extricating the US from the Middle East and who has bemoaned the costs of recent American interventions there, Trump might end up inviting a much larger, a much more costly, and a much more devastating conflict,” said the expert.

Whether the Trump administration takes the diplomatic, economic or military route in its response, Weinthal said its “posture toward Iran’s regime is expected to be a sea change from the Obama days” — and Sunday’s failed missile launch is an early test for it.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ghasemi said a committee had been formed in the ministry to follow up issues faced by Iranians residing abroad regarding the US visa ban.

Ghasemi made the remarks among reporters on Monday evening. He stressed that following the stance taken by Washington on Iran and some other Muslim states, careful planning has been made as regards proper approaches and measures in this regard.

“One step was formation of a committee comprising a number of organizations and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs inside the ministry,” Bahram Ghasemi added.

He noted that the committee had begun operation expressing hope that it will find appropriate solutions to new conditions.

The official emphasized that the committee had prepared necessary instructions on Sunday and Monday before issuing them to Iran’s ambassadors across the globe; “these instructions pertain to respecting honor and dignity of Iranians living abroad especially those who are likely to face difficulties in the US.”

On visit of Kuwaiti FM to Iran and the news that he is carrying a message from his country’s Emir on intervention between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Ghasemi asserted “Kuwait is our neighbor and we presume specific policies and stances towards it though the Islamic Republic of Iran is eager to hold logical, appropriate and balanced ties with all neighboring countries.”

“Iran and Kuwait have always had relations and collaborations,” underscored the official saying “the current visit needs to be evaluated within framework of bilateral ties and a response Zarif’s visit to the Persian Gulf littoral state last year.”

FM spokesperson reiterated that the Kuwaiti FM carried a message from his country’s Emir on economic and political issues as well as that views were exchanged on regional issues like Syrian and Iraqi crises which exert effects of both sides.

The visit also dealt with factors which could promote stability and prevent further challenges inside the region, he continued.

Bahram Ghasemi said he could not confirm intermediary of Kuwait between Iran and Saudi Arabia; “issues related to regional countries could be resolved through bilateral negotiations without the need for mediators.”

He went on to clarify that “should Saudis be ready to take steps to compensate for earlier lapses and express readiness for further cooperation, Iran would definitely welcome these initiatives.”

In response to the question whether Iran would pursue Trump’s visa ban order in international organizations, the official said “as announced in an earlier statement, Iran will prepare solutions as appropriate responses to the US action one being formation of a committee on conditions of Iranians residing in foreign countries.”

Ghasemi refused to provide further details on possible actions to be taken by Iran.

Touching upon details of President Rouhani’s visit to Moscow as announced by the Iranian ambassador to Russia, he stated “Iran’s ties with the Eurasian country are improving as bilateral relations are being pursued with determination.”

“Tehran and Moscow have always exchanged delegations as visits of various ministers and especial envoys of Vladimir Putin will continue,” highlighted FM spokesman commenting “visit of Mr. Rouhani to Moscow remains on the agenda though the exact dates will be announced in a suitable time.”

When asked on the phone agreement reached by US President Donald Trump and King of Saudi Arabia Salman on confronting Iran, Ghasemi asserted “we only know that a telephone conversation has been held between the two sides though no reasonable mind would ever think of confronting a capable country like Iran who enjoys an age-old history in West Asian.”

A good example of US foreign policy establishment realism was evident at the January 27 Center For The National Interest (CFTNI) panel discussion on US-Russian relations.

At this gathering, former George W Bush administration officials George Beebe and Paul Saunders, suggest a Capitol Hill limit in discussing Russia related issues. Saunders negatively referenced the McCarthy era period, relative to how some in the present day US disparage individuals, second guessing much of the negative commentary on Russia.

Besides US foreign policy establishment realists, this panel discussion included invited personnel from the neocon/anti-Russian leaning Washington Post and Atlantic Council. At this particular event (unlike some other past CFTNI events), there weren’t any folks who spoke from a constructively critical pro-Russian realist position, that has some differences with the US foreign policy establishment realists.

Saunders’ reference to the Russian government funded RT as “propaganda”, serves to feed the anti-Russian biases. RT is less propagandistic than the largely US government funded RFE/RL. The Russian TV network in question includes half hour one on one (host to guest) shows with the likes of James Woolsey, Michael O’Hanlon, Kenneth Roth and Dick Pound. These guests get to express themselves without the rude interruptions that CNN hosts Christiane Amanpour and Chris Cuomo engage in when interacting with RT hosts and others thinking similarly. When compared to neocon and neolib leaning perspectives, the pro-Russian perspective gets considerably less time on CNN and other leading US media venues. On the matter of propaganda, Saunders would do a service by noting the numerous propaganda segments on CNN, MSNBC and US mass media at large.

Consistent with his December 16, 2016 National Interest article, Beebe (who has a CIA background) provided a detailed breakdown on the lack of conclusive evidence, concerning the claim that the Russian government had interfered in the 2016 US presidential election to benefit Donald Trump. Beebe said that Russia has unrealistically upbeat views of the Trump administration. On that last point, there’s good reason to disagree.

Russians at the higher levels of government have a keen sense that the newly inaugurated US President Donald Trump, faces noticeable opposition (from inside and outside his party) to his stated desire to improve US-Russian relations. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, has cautioned to not get too rosy about improved US-Russian ties. Medvedev has been considered to be more agreeable to the Western establishment than Putin. The Russian president’s decision to not retaliate against Barack Obama’s expulsion of Russian diplomats is premised on a wait and see approach to how US-Russian relations develop with the Trump administration.

Among US foreign policy establishment realists, there’ve been limits to confronting the wrongheaded anti-Russian stances. The CFTNI panel supported the continuation of US sanctions against Russia – noting that the state of US-Russian relations isn’t good enough for a dramatic change. If not now, when? What can be reasonably expected from the Kremlin?

Given the existing political climate in Washington, I regretfully concur that it’s unrealistic to expect the Trump administration to drop the sanctions on Russia at this point in time. For the purpose of change, gradual steps have to be taken to curtail the skewed mindset at play. In the US, there’s a good deal of talk about that nation needing to be inclusive by respecting diversity. Too often, that noble belief seems to be challenged, when it comes to loyal Americans having a constructively critical pro-Russian outlook.

It’s highly unrealistic to expect Russia to leave Crimea. The matter of hypocrisy relative to northern Cyprus and Kosovo should be enough to put the lid on actively opposing Crimea’s reunification with Russia.

The situation in eastern Ukraine concerns fault lines on the side of the Kiev regime. That entity has been coddled by the West – especially by Canada and the Obama administration. (As one case in point, the appointment of Chrystia Freeland as Canadian foreign minister, is an unnecessarily provocative act against Russia.)

Regarding Syria, the Russian government isn’t for keeping the US out of the negotiating process. The Kremlin talks to the Syrian government and the rebels without ties to Al Qaeda and ISIS. In contrast, the Obama administration sought to not engage the Syrian government, while being involved with some rebels having ties to terrorists, if not being terrorists themselves. Just how realistic is that?

Appearing on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio, Tom Switzer, has hosted some good segments, including a recent one, involving US political establishment pundit Eleanor Clift and Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Princeton University and New York University. From the perspective of good journalism on the subject of Russia: CNN, MSNBC and some others should take note of Switzer – unless of course the preordained aim is to engage in one-sided propaganda.

Clift wasn’t convincing in her belief that the reported “evidence” of Russian government involvement in support of Trump during the 2016 US presidential election is clear enough. On Syria, she expressed the subjectively faulty line about the presentation of Russian atrocities. It’d be objectively appropriate for a US political establishment journo to acknowledge that America’s distant and more recent past isn’t a glowing example of successfully avoiding many civilian deaths, referred to as collateral damage.

Elsewhere, a Trump supporter communicated to me a faulty theme about Putin which has appeared in US mass media. According to that take, Putin’s popularity in Russia is predicated on his being confrontational with the US.

Putin is popular because he doesn’t take BS from a pragmatic position. At the same time, Putin hasn’t gone out of his way to tweak the US in the manner that some erroneously claim.

For their part, the Russian public has leaned towards Trump because he favors improved US-Russian ties, as his main opponent Hillary Clinton got the support of the anti-Russian neocons.

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. This article initially appeared appeared at the Strategic Culture Foundation’s website on January 31.

Donald Trump has consistently identified Muslims as perpetrators of terrorism rather than victims of terrorism — despite the fact that by vast numbers the victims of terrorism are indeed overwhelmingly Muslims.

Trump has relentlessly fueled Islamophobia and insisted that the key to combating terrorism is to label it Islamic.

Trump chose as his closest national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who has described Islam as a cancer.

Trump just signed an executive order that singles out 200,000 Muslims as a potential threat to America.

Shortly after Trump signed this order, Alexandre Bissonnette, a vocal Trump supporter, known for his online attacks on refugees, went to a Quebec City mosque and carried out a mass shooting, killing six people and injuring 19 others.

As The Globe and Mail reports:

The suspect in the deadly attack on a Quebec City mosque was known in the city’s activist circles as an online troll who was inspired by extreme right-wing French nationalists, stood up for U.S. President Donald Trump and was against immigration to Quebec – especially by Muslims.

To fail to draw a connection between Trump’s campaign rhetoric, his choice of advisers, his executive order targeting Muslims and Bissonnette’s murderous rampage would be absurd.

In the hostile climate Trump has helped cultivate, there have been anti-mosque incidents in at least 41 states.

Within hours of Trump signing the executive order a mosque in Texas went up in flames.

The massacre in Canada could just as easily have happened in the United States. Indeed, the risk of a similar attack is so great that it seems less a case of if than when.

Donald Trump has promised to make America safe and yet through his words and actions has already done enough to suggest that the stable of Trump brands will sooner or later acquire one that he will vociferously disavow as a slur on his name: Trump terrorism.

That is not to suggest that Trump actually wants anyone to engage in acts of terrorism.

At the same time and for the same reasons as Alex Massie spelled out after Jo Cox’s murder in Britain last June, those who fuel anger cannot absolves themselves of responsibility for what follows:

When you encourage rage you cannot then feign surprise when people become enraged. You cannot turn around and say, ‘Mate, you weren’t supposed to take it so seriously. It’s just a game, just a ploy, a strategy for winning votes.’

When you shout BREAKING POINT over and over again, you don’t get to be surprised when someone breaks. When you present politics as a matter of life and death, as a question of national survival, don’t be surprised if someone takes you at your word. You didn’t make them do it, no, but you didn’t do much to stop it either.

Sometimes rhetoric has consequences. If you spend days, weeks, months, years telling people they are under threat, that their country has been stolen from them, that they have been betrayed and sold down the river, that their birthright has been pilfered, that their problem is they’re too slow to realise any of this is happening, that their problem is they’re not sufficiently mad as hell, then at some point, in some place, something or someone is going to snap. And then something terrible is going to happen.

Trump’s biggest lie is to promote the myth that the greatest threats to American lives reside outside this country’s borders.

Right now the very opposite is true as the most incendiary catalyst of violence sits in the Oval Office.

Sri Lanka is planning on banning the fishing of parrotfish.

Even though parrotfish are not commonly consumed in Sri Lanka, in certain countries they are widely consumed. These fish are found in coral reefs, rocky coasts, and sea grass beds and they serve as a significant tourist attraction of Sri Lanka since many foreign tourists visit Sri Lanka to watch these fish, the government noted.

The government noted that parrotfish have been endangered due to fishing and many parties related to fisheries, environmental and tourism organizations have made a request from Minister to prohibit parrotfish fishing in Sri Lanka.

By Joshua Kucera

Turkmenistan has equipped its naval vessels with new anti-aircraft weapons, suggesting that Ashgabat may see a potential airborne threat to its coast or to its offshore oil and gas infrastructure.

According to recently published photos, Turkmenistan has armed at least two of its new Turkish patrol boats with French-produced SIMBAD-RC naval surface-to-air missiles. The missiles are produced by MBDA, which has not publicly acknowledged the sale to Turkmenistan, though Jane’s reported on it, citing unnamed sources, in October.

The missiles were noticed by the invaluable Russian military blog BMPD, which saw the photos on a post by exile oppositon website chrono-tm.org. The photos came out of a visit by Turkmenistan President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov to some of the newly armed ships on January 17.

Turkmenistan has ten of the Turkish-made patrol boats, known as the Tuzla class, and it seems to be one of the priority projects for the Turkmenistan armed forces. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, these patrol boats have almost all of Turkmenistan’s Western-supplied weaponry: in addition to these French missiles they are equipped with Dutch radars and Italian guns. SIPRI also reports that MBDA has sold 20 of the systems to Turkmenistan, which would suggest that all ten Tuzla ships are to be armed with them.

What’s particularly intriguing about this purchase is that it seems to envisage the possibility of Turkmenistan’s coastal areas being attacked by airplane. It’s not clear where that threat may come from, but for what it’s worth, BMPD’s commenters seem to think it has to do with Turkmenistan’s desire to build a gas pipeline under the Caspian Sea. That’s something Russia strongly opposes and against which it has occasionally issued veiled threats. The European Union, meanwhile, supports it.

Russia isn’t the only potential threat, though: according to U.S. diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks, Azerbaijani gunboats threatened Turkmenistan’s gas explorations on at least two occasions in 2008, and the two sides still dispute a small part of the sea. And Iran, which borders Turkmenistan on the Caspian, is widely mistrusted by all the post-Soviet Caspian states.

Turkmenistan, as per usual practice, has said nothing about all this.

“Its military doctrine is purely defensive in nature,” said the government’s news release reporting on Berdymukhammedov’s visit, “aimed at protecting the country’s national interests and to oppose the threats of modern time.”

As per the common understanding, it is believed that the rapid developments on the projects under CPEC are becoming a source of great insecurity among the official circles in Delhi.

India feels its security concerns are growing stronger. Simultaneously there is a widespread feeling among the Indian political leaders and locals alike that China is not taking Indian concerns seriously. Various headlines in Indian newspapers claim that the “Sino-Indian relations seem to be headed for freezer over the CPEC”.

However, China and Pakistan both have offered India to join hands in this mega project. China claims that this is not a state-centric project, but holds huge promises not just for the region but beyond. China rightfully maintains that the basic purpose of CPEC is to being about regional integrity through generating economic activity. However India doesn’t seem to be too convinced and claims that CPEC violates the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India as it plans to pass through Jammu and Kashmir, which it claims to be India’s terrorist.

Nor does India look eager to join any setup which has Pakistan at the center stage. This doesn’t seem to be a very positive trajectory of relations for China and India to move along. In addition to this, another traditional ally Russia is increasingly warming up to China. Russia, feeling a great discomfiture at the hands of US-India growing closeness, feels naturally upset. This could very well be one of the possible reasons as to why Russia is showing interest in establishing closer ties with Pakistan.

The regional and global reshufflings are shaping up the broader shifts in the strategic outlook of the states. Russia’s concerns despite being the close ally of India sometimes have been over looked and India’s self interests with the US generally have taken the lead. Now since China apparently has found a new ally in Russia, where both have joined hands to reap economic benefits from joint collaborative ventures, another common objective is to block Western influence and interests regionally as well as globally.

This might be a reason as to why one doesn’t see any active support from Russia for India’s allegations against China’s intents behind CPEC. India claims that China is bent upon bringing infrastructural development and self sufficiency into Pakistan and ultimately letting it have inroads into Indian claimed territory of Kashmir. India views the CPEC as an insidious attempt by China and an attempt to change the ground realities.

The Chinese offer to India to join CPEC has been met with a question from Indian counterpart about how China would feel if the same situation arises in Tibet.

Nonetheless, China believes that India joining the CPEC would “boost its export and slash its trade deficit with China” and “the northern part of India bordering Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir will gain more economic growth momentum”. Mehbooba Mufti’s statement about opening up trans-Kashmir trade routes as a supplement to CPEC, further give a hard blow to India’s territorial claims over Jammu and Kashmir.

The wise move today as is being interpreted by many states is to embrace the CPEC not just to make it into a reality but because it promises huge benefits to all the participant states. Hence it serves everyone’s interests.

Simultaneously Russia and Pakistan have once again embarked upon the renewal of their bilateral ties after a long gap. The two held their first joint military exercise in September last year, succeeded by their first bilateral consultation on regional issues.

Although the arms embargo was lifted back in 2014, it will be this year that Russia plans to deliver four Russian-made Mi-35M attack helicopters to Pakistan. The news is also doing the rounds that Russia might merge Eurasian Economic Union with CPEC.

China’s refusal to grant a membership status to India in the NSG has further caused deterioration of relations between the two. One cannot rule out the possibility that testing of long range ballistic missiles Agni IV and V is India’s way of showing annoyance. However that led to an inevitable reaction from Pakistan in the form of testing its first sea cruise missile that could be eventually launched from a Pakistani submarine.

In addition to this China has expressed the willingness to help Pakistan increase the range of its nuclear missiles. As per the editorial section in China’s Global Times, “If the Western countries accept India as a nuclear country and are indifferent to the nuclear race between India and Pakistan, China will not stand out and stick rigidly to those nuclear rules as necessary. At this time, Pakistan should have those privileges in nuclear development that India has.”

India however is not just banking on Russia or China but is simultaneously strengthening its partnerships with countries like United States, Japan, Australia and Vietnam. Not only is it resorting to increasing its nuclear capabilities on regular basis, but has also fortified its military along the Chinese border.

While the presence of nuclear weapons serve the purpose of assuring regional deterrent guarantees, the shifting geopolitical alignments in Asia could lead to growing tensions in the Indian subcontinent and might add to the volatility.

Obamacare’s most popular provision is its prohibition against health insurers charging higher premiums for pre-existing conditions. It is so popular that Republican politicians have promised to keep it! (Or, at least bring it back once they repeal and replace Obamacare.)

Scholars at the Kaiser Family Foundation have estimated that 27 percent of American adults had pre-existing conditions that would have made them uninsurable in the individual market pre-Obamacare. Of course, nowhere near that many adults were in that situation.

Most of us get coverage in the employer-based market, in which we are protected from underwriting as long as we stay employed and move from one employer to another without a gap in coverage. (The law regulating this is called HIPAA.) However, protection this is not free: Although most Americans do not think of it this way, the trade-off is that you must allow a corporate bureaucrat in your employer’s HR department choose your health insurance.

In the individual market, there was no such protection if you switched carriers. Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant-governor of New York, estimates that maybe 500,000 people would be uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions if Obamacare were repealed. Before Obamacare, people who could not pass underwriting were covered by high-risk pools, which enrolled 226,000. However, there were waiting lists for these high-risk pools, such that when the Affordable Care Act established a temporary high-risk pool before Obamacare plans were available in 2014, it enrolled another 135,000.

As McCaughey points out, it is unfair effectively to force only people in the individual market to pay for these “uninsurables” by allowing everyone to enroll in the individual market without underwriting. This is what has driven Obamacare premiums up. In Alaska, writes McCaughey:

…the cost of caring for just 500 chronically ill patients was making premiums unaffordable for all 23,000 Alaskans enrolled in the state’s ACA plans. As healthy people refused to enroll, too few were left to shoulder the burden of the seriously ill. That threatened to push up premiums 40 percent for 2017.

To halt Alaska’s insurance death spiral, state authorities agreed to pay for the care of the highest cost patients. In effect, Alaska created a separate high-risk pool for the sickest.

The cost of caring for people in this pool—a staggering $55 million—would be shared by all Alaska taxpayers, instead of being thrust on the small number of people using the individual insurance market. As a result, premiums will only rise seven percent for 2017.

I suppose if we have to socialize the costs of health care, we might as well socialize them properly. So, within the margins of Obamacare, the Alaska reform makes sense to me. It also shows states are the best jurisdictions for society to resolve this somewhat intractable issue.

Nevertheless, Republican politicians have been too glib with happy talk about how high-risk pools will solve the problem of uninsurable Americans. Recall these people are uninsurable because they did not maintain continuous coverage and then fell sick. If high-risk pools offered the same coverage as the commercial market, there would be little if any incentive for individuals to maintain continuous coverage. So, we can expect future high-risk pools will have waiting lists and other shortcomings.

This article was published at The Beacon.

By Hani Al-Masri*

There have been developments regarding moving the embassy, as there has been a trade-off between the Israeli government and American administration involving postponing the move of the embassy in exchange for the White House giving Israel the green light to execute its largest colonial settlement attack. This began with the construction of over 3,000 settlement units as part of a plan that includes 11,000 settlement units. In light of such a development, despite the danger it poses, moving the embassy has become less costly and harmful than not moving it.

What prompts me to say this is how the Palestinian leadership has dealt with this issue, as it made a long list including 26 steps it would take if the embassy were moved. However, they did not explain the steps they would take in response to this recent settlement craze, accompanied by legally legitimizing settlements, as well as Israel’s implementation of plans to annex parts of the West Bank.

Those observing current Palestinian politics notice that it is suffering from improvisation and confusion and is governed by showing reactions without having a forward-looking vision capable of confronting the present and confidently progressing towards the future. This is apparent from its adoption of a policy based on two elements: survival and waiting. The survival of the PA and leadership and the renewal of its legitimacy are paramount, while waiting is the prevalent position at the moment and there has been no considerable action.

This explains why it continued to adopt the policy of relying on the path set out by the Oslo Accords and adhering to it, despite its threats to deviate from it for many years. It also explains why it continues the policy of managing the division and not working hard to end it, as well as postponing convening of the PNC, keeping the PLO on ice, and dealing with things as they come without launching an initiative capable of true change.

What mostly highlights the Palestinian policy’s shortsightedness when dealing with the possibility of moving the embassy is the fact that the leadership’s position initially underestimated the matter and considered the idea of moving the embassy as nothing more than electoral promises that wouldn’t actually be implemented. President Mahmoud Abbas expressed this in his meeting with Israel’s Meretz party.

Then there was a sudden 180 degree change resulting from uncertain information leaked by a businessman close to Donald Trump. This information was the elected American president would announce in his inauguration speech that he has decided to move the embassy. We then saw verbal warnings from the Palestinians, who would consider this step a declaration of war and as crossing a red line. They also said that this would lead to the withdrawal of the Palestinian recognition of Israel, the filing of a complaint against the US in the UN, implementing the Central Committee resolutions, adopting comprehensive popular resistance, boycotting Israel as a whole, and not only the settlements, working on freezing Israel’s membership to the UN, ending the division, restoring unity, changing the PA’s tasks, embodying the international recognition of Palestine, etc.

The PA’s lack of seriousness is reflected in the fact that one of the points on the leadership’s agenda is “Making 2017 the year in which the Israeli occupation ends and establishing a regional and international plan for this.” However, the Palestinian cause this year is facing the danger of erasure and liquidation. This means the goals that can actually be achieved at the moment are to keep the cause alive, enhance people’s resilience, resistance, thwarting hostile plans, and doing what is needed to end the division and restore national unity.

After the inauguration passed without the announcement that the embassy would be moved, the situation changed suddenly. The White House announced that the issue of moving the embassy is still in the early stages of discussion, and Trump made a statement that moving the embassy would be premature (while sources leaked that the postponement was issued after receiving permission and approval from Israel in exchange for the aforementioned trade off). Palestinian politician, Ahmed Majdalani, who is close to President Abbas, said that the Trump administration backed down from moving the embassy and reassured the Palestinians in this regard, while Saeb Erekat denied receiving any assurances.

The faltering Palestinian politics are apparent from the fluctuation between ruling out the possibility of moving the embassy and exaggerating the possibility of it occurring, and then back to ruling it out. There has even been a list of steps that the Palestinian side would take if the embassy is moved, but most of them are not related to the side actually moving the embassy, i.e. the American administration. Instead, the steps are directed against Israel. Decisions and resolutions were already passed in this regard by the Central Committee, but they were not implemented and no one knows when they will be, especially since implementing them requires the provision of factors, requirements and conditions conducive to doing so.

The steps announced by Erekat on behalf of the president did not include any steps directed at the American administration, such as shutting down the PLO’s office in Washington, refusing it as a mediator in the peace process or as a member of the Quartet, or filing a complaint in the Security Council on the basis of Article 27 of the UN Charter which halts a Security Council member’s ability to use their veto as long as there is a complaint is related to the member violating its commitments.

What is important at the moment is that the postponement of moving the embassy, which may be temporary for a year or six months according to multiple sources, has made the delusions of resuming the so-called peace process replace the state of shock and surprise.

The Palestinian leadership is downplaying the danger of what may occur in light of the trade-off between Trump’s administration and the Israeli government, and is resorting to silence and waiting until the resumption of negotiations, which is what it hopes for. This harmful policy ignores the fact that the most Trump can do is seek to reach a peace agreement that secures the Israeli interests and requirements, as evidenced by his insistence that the negotiations occur without outside interference.

This potential development would put the Palestinian side in a very awkward situation, as it is facing the resumption of negotiations with a lower ceiling of expectations than the previous negotiations, and therefore it is facing two possibilities. The Palestinian side may either surrender by agreeing to what Israel is offering, or reject what Israel is offering, which means that the negotiations have failed and the Palestinians would be held responsible for this, this would allow for the moving of the embassy and the imposition of the Israeli solution by force, with American support.

There is a third possibility that the Palestinian leadership must not rule out. The Trump administration may favour the Israeli approach proposed by Israel in recent years, in which it promotes a regional solution with the Arabs and gives them the priority of resolving the conflict with the Palestinians. Therefore, the Palestinians would be forced to accept the solution or face complete isolation.

This last possibility seems more likely in light of Netanyahu’s recent announcement regarding his impossible conditions to negotiate with the Palestinians, including their acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state, Israel’s continued control over the territories extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea in exchange for a Palestinian “state” without sovereignty over the land classified as Areas A and B, i.e. about 40 per cent of the occupied West Bank.

It is shameful that the Palestinian leadership is threatening national unity, resistance, and boycott if the embassy is moved, as they are essential requirements that are imperative, regardless of whether the embassy is moved or not. The embassy issue is being used as a cover for not taking the required and immediate steps to address the dangerous threats, including the danger of the settlements that are expanding strongly.

A concrete plan is required that outlines the Palestinian policy in the event that the embassy is moved and in the event that it isn’t, if the Maale Adumim settlement is annexed or if it isn’t, and in light of the continued settlement expansion and Israel’s denial of all agreements and commitments.

This must be met with a Palestinian willingness to violate the Oslo Accords and its commitments, and not by demanding that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all other factions agree to the national unity government and adhere to these commitments despite the fact that everyone admits Israel does not adhere to them. This has led to killing the so-called two-state solution by means of negotiations and good intentions.

It is a possibility that this solution may be unapologetically buried during Trump’s rule. As for the option of realizing national rights by means of fighting and changing the balances of power all at once or in stages, it will always be an option and will never be disregarded.

(Translated by MEMO from Masarat January 31, 2017)

Deborah Lipstadt, who’s been bequeathed the mantle of Holocaust sainthood from Elie Wiesel, penned a strong denunciation of the Trump administration’s erasure of Jews from the Holocaust in its recent statement honoring Holocaust Remembrance Day.  In a piece in which she manages to promote the new movie based on her libel trial against David Irving, she coins a new term to portray it on the spectrum of Holocaust Revisionism.  She calls it “softcore Holocaust denial.”

While the term is both provocative and apt in these circumstances, one part of her argument is not.  Among the examples of Holocaust denial she offers is this:

Softcore denial uses different tactics but has the same end-goal [as hardcore denial, represented by Irving]. (I use hardcore and softcore deliberately because I see denial as a form of historiographic pornography.) It does not deny the facts, but it minimizes them, arguing that Jews use the Holocaust to draw attention away from criticism of Israel.

Being the patron saint of Holocaust studies doesn’t grant her permission to abuse of history on behalf of pro-Israel hasbara.  It is a fact, disputed only by propagandists like her, that Israel itself abuses the Holocaust and accompanying charges of anti-Semitism against its critics.  Also, Israel mistakenly appropriates the Holocaust as a historical event, arguing not only that it justified the creation of the State (debatable, but justifiable), but that any enemy or critic of Israel could threaten Israel with a new Holocaust (unjustifiable).

Every Israeli enemy becomes a harbinger of a new Holocaust.  Remember Shimon Peres, like Wiesel another hasbarist of ‘sainted memory,’ saying that the (non-existent) Iranian Bomb was a “flying Holocaust (original source)??”

Note above, that Lipstadt cleverly inserts the word “Jews” so as to distort the actual content of the accusation against Israel.  It is not “Jews” who accuse pro-Israel advocates of invoking the Holocaust to stifle criticism of Israel.  It is Israel’s right-wing government and the Israel Lobby abroad.  “Zionists,” yes.  “Israelis,” yes.  But “Jews?”  That’s one bridge too far.

Deborah Lipstadt may be an expert in her field of Holocaust studies.  But when it comes to Israel she is a cheap shill.  She should stick to what she knows.

This article was published at Tikun Olam.