Far too often, the world views Africa through the prism of problems. When I look to Africa, I see a continent of hope, promise and vast potential.

I am committed to building on those strengths and establishing a higher platform of cooperation between the United Nations and the leaders and people of Africa. This is essential to advancing inclusive and sustainable development and deepening cooperation for peace and security.

That is the message I carried to the recent African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia — my first major mission as United Nations Secretary-General.

Above all, I came in a spirit of profound solidarity and respect. I am convinced that the world has much to gain from African wisdom, ideas and solutions.

I also brought with me a deep sense of gratitude. Africa provides the majority of United Nations peacekeepers around the world. African nations are among the world’s largest and most generous hosts of refugees. Africa includes some of the world’s fastest growing economies.

The recent resolution of the political crisis in the Gambia once again demonstrated the power of African leadership and unity to overcome governance challenges and uphold democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

I left the Summit more convinced than ever that all of humanity will benefit by listening, learning and working with the people of Africa.

We have the plans in place to build a better future. The international community has entered the second year of implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, an all-out effort to tackle global poverty, inequality, instability and injustice. Africa has adopted its own complementary and ambitious plan: Agenda 2063.

For the people of Africa to fully benefit from these important efforts, these two agendas need to be strategically aligned.

It starts with prevention. Our world needs to move from managing crises to preventing them in the first place. We need to break the cycle of responding too late and too little.

Most of today’s conflicts are internal, triggered by competition for power and resources, inequality, marginalization and sectarian divides. Often, they are inflamed by violent extremism or provide the fuel for it.

The United Nations is committed to working hand-in-hand with partners wherever conflict or the threat of conflict endangers stability and well-being.

But prevention goes far beyond focusing solely on conflict. The best means of prevention and the surest path to durable peace is inclusive and sustainable development.

We can speed progress by doing more to provide opportunities and hope to young people. More than three out of five Africans are under 35 years of age. Making the most of this tremendous asset means more investment in education, training, decent work, and engaging young people in shaping their future.

We must also do our utmost to empower women so they can play a full role in sustainable development and sustainable peace. I am pleased that the African Union has consistently placed a special focus on gender equality and women’s empowerment.

I have seen it again and again: When we empower women, we empower the world.

I travelled to Africa as a partner, friend and committed advocate for changing the narrative about this diverse and vital continent. Crises represent at best a partial view. But from a higher platform of cooperation, we can see the whole picture – one that spotlights the enormous potential and remarkable success stories in every corner of the African continent.

With that perspective, I have no doubt we can win the battle for sustainable and inclusive development which are also the best weapons to prevent conflict and suffering, allowing Africa to shine even more vibrantly and inspire the world.

*António Guterres is Secretary-General of the United Nations

By Dr Subhash Kapila*

The United States Forward Defence Perimeter in the Western Pacific ever since 1945 has been an effective shield and a first line of defence for Mainland USA, first against the Soviet Union and now against an increasingly belligerent China’s geopolitical designs.

China as a military threat weighs heavily in threat perceptions of not only the Asia Pacific nations but increasingly also in threat perceptions of the United States. Militarily, China can be assessed as not being powerful enough to militarily challenge the United States directly. China’s immediate priority, in the interim, is to dilute US Forward Military Presence in the Western Pacific by subtle political and military coercion of US traditional allies in the region like Japan, South Korea and the Philippine. These nations are essential components of the US Forward Defence Perimeter and the United States should never ever allow a rising militaristic China to breach this Perimeter. The United States must guard against any acts of commission or omission in US policies which could facilitate such a breach.

US Forward Defence Perimeter comprises of nearly 100,000 Forward Military Presence deployed on a network of military bases hosted by South Korea and Japan primarily, and a complete US Marines Division-sized Expeditionary Force based in Okinawa, Japan. Supplementing this presence are sizeable US Air Force assets based in both these countries and US Navy Seventh Fleet. Philippines, despite current strains in relationship is likely to fall back in line, once again, as another important component of this network.

Reviewing the United States Forward Defence Perimeter in the Western Pacific in February 2017, just a month away from US President Trump’s inauguration, it is assuring for Asian nations to note that no changes have occurred in terms of dilution of US deployments or putting US traditional security ties with Japan and South Korea under strain, as President Trump’s election rhetoric indicated.

Political dispensations in the United States of any political hue need to recognise that Japan and South Korea hosting sizeable US Forward Military Presence in their respective countries does not amount to one-way street calculations. The United States needs the willing readiness and acceptability of Japan, South Korea and the Philippines to host US military presence at their military bases. Hence, for the US to argue that these nations should bear the increasing costs of US military presence is self-defeating. Simply, because without US Forward Military Presence in these countries, the Forward Defence Perimeter shield in the Western Pacific would crumble. Does the United States have any other viable options to substitute this vital security architecture in the Western Pacific crafted ever since 1945, and which has stood the test of time.

China for the last decade and a half has been assiduously working politically, economically and using coercive brinkmanship against the Western Pacific nations, including those on the littoral like Vietnam to prompt a US-exit from the Western Pacific. It has failed to achieve this so far as a result of the determination of countries like Japan and South Korea not to falter in their security commitments to the United States and also the resilience of successive US Administrations to pivot back to reinforcing its Forward Defence Perimeter after periods of strategic neglect like in the first decade of the 21st Century.

It has therefore been heartening to note that within a month of the Trump Administration assuming office in Washington, the US Defence Secretary, General Mattis has paid visits to South Korea and Japan for defence consultations with his South Korean and Japanese counterparts. It needs to be remembered that the US Defence Secretary has vast powers over the US military machine, second only to those of the US President.

Similarly, Japanese Prime Minister Abe had meetings with President Trump before his election and now stands invited to visit Washington on February 10 for a summit meet. The meetings with the Japanese Prime Minister of the US President are not about economics and trade but more significantly on the security and stability of the Western Pacific.

That the Trump Administration is not faltering in its commitments and its determination to enforce US security guarantees in the region was evident from recent statements by the US Defence Secretary and also the US Foreign Secretary, both of whom put China on notice on Chinese belligerence on the South China Sea and the East China Sea.

More noticeably, no media reports indicate President Trump making a telephonic call to the Chinese President or inviting him to visit Washington. In contrast, the Japanese Prime Minister will be visiting the United Sates twice in recent months. Chinese President’s may happen anytime later but the political and strategic significance in terms of signalling to China should not be lost.

The Philippines which had strayed off its traditional US security commitments need to be brought back on track. The recent China-deviation by its new mercurial President appears to be short lived and US influence should again prevail. The Japanese Prime Minister who paid an official visit to the Philippines in recent months announced sizeable Japanese economic aid and also aid for building up the capacity of the Philippines Navy. This should also be viewed as steps taken by Japan for its own national security interests and furthering US security interests overall.

The United States emphasis on reinforcing its Forward Defence Perimeter in the Western Pacific which had been North-East-centric has in the past decade or so acquired a balance towards the Southern segment also. The build-up of Guam as a major US military base has been done to add more balance in US military capabilities against any potential military adventurism by China in the South.

This segment could be additionally strengthened by the United States by a robust strategic partnership with Vietnam and Indonesia, both being powerful nations in the region, and also being subjected to Chinese military adventurism.

In conclusion, it needs to be stressed that neither the United States nor the nations in the Western Pacific should ever doubt the value of each other’s intentions and commitments to jointly and strongly hold this Defence Perimeter in the Western Pacific. The value is never at stake though nuances could vary. Contemporary geopolitical situation in the Western Pacific in 2017 of an unrestrained and belligerent China bent on revising the status quo reinforces the call for such an unwavering determination.

*Dr Subhash Kapila is a graduate of the Royal British Army Staff College, Camberley and combines a rich experience of Indian Army, Cabinet Secretariat, and diplomatic assignments in Bhutan, Japan, South Korea and USA. Currently, Consultant International Relations & Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. He can be reached at drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com

Iran said on Monday that a recent missile trial launch was not intended to send a message to new U.S. President Donald Trump and to test him, since after a series of policy statements Iranian officials already “know him quite well,” Reuters reports

Iran test-fired a new ballistic missile last week, prompting Washington to impose some new sanctions on Tehran. Trump tweeted that Tehran, which has cut back its nuclear program under a 2015 deal with world powers easing economic sanctions, was “playing with fire.”

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi was quoted by Tasnim news agency as saying: “Iran’s missile test was not a message to the new U.S. government.

“There is no need to test Mr Trump as we have heard his views on different issues in recent days… We know him quite well.”

Iran has test-fired several ballistic missiles since the 2015 deal, but the latest test on January 29 was the first since Trump entered the White House. Trump said during his election campaign that he would stop Iran’s missile program.

Qasemi said The U.S. government was “still in an unstable stage” and Trump’s comments were “contradictory”.

“We are waiting to see how the U.S. government will act in different international issues to evaluate their approach.”

Despite heated words between Tehran and Washington, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Saturday he was not considering strengthening U.S. forces in the Middle East to address Iran’s “misbehavior”.

Hamid Aboutalebi, deputy chief of staff of Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani, tweeted on Monday that the U.S. government “should de-escalate regional tension not adding to it”, and Washington should “interact with Iran” rather than challenging it.

Iran announced on Saturday that it will issue visas for a U.S. wrestling team to attend the Freestyle World Cup competition, reversing a decision to ban visas for the team in retaliation for an executive order by Trump banning visas for Iranians.

I fear that many of us are hating US President Donald Trump for the wrong reasons. Multitudes are being swayed by mainstream media-inspired demonization of him, based on selective assumptions and half-truths. US mainstream media, which rarely deviates from supporting the American government’s conduct, however reckless, is presenting him as an aberration of otherwise egalitarian, sensible, peace-loving US policies at home and abroad.

Trump may be described with all the demeaning terminology that one’s livid imagination can muster. But if you chant in the street “I’m with her,” in reference to defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, it means you are entirely missing the point.

To reminisce about the days of Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama, his oratory skills, clean diplomacy and model, “relatable” family, means you have bought into the mass deception, intellectual demagoguery and stifling group-think that pushed us to these extremes in the first place. Within this context, missing the point can be dangerous, even deadly.

It is interesting how Yemeni lives suddenly matter, referring to the US military’s botched raid late last month on an alleged Al-Qaeda stronghold in Yemen, killing mostly civilians. A beautiful 8-year-old girl, Nawar Al-Awlaki, was killed in the operation, planned under the Obama administration but approved by Trump. Many chose to ignore that her 16-year-old brother, also a US citizens, was killed by the US military under Obama a few years earlier.

Yemen has been a target in America’s so-called “war on terror” for many years. Many civilians have been killed, their deaths only questioned by human rights groups, seldom by mainstream media. Yemen is one of seven Muslim-majority countries whose citizens were subject to being barred from entering the US. The emotional mass response by hundreds of thousands of protesters rejecting such an abhorrent decision is heartening but also puzzling.

The US military, under Obama, shied away from leading major wars, but instead instigated numerous smaller conflicts. “The whole concept of war has changed under Obama,” the LA Times quoted a Middle East expert as saying. Obama “got the country out of ‘war,’ at least as we used to see it,” said Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We’re now wrapped up in all these different conflicts, at a low level and with no end in sight.”

The Obama administration dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016 alone. Countries that were bombed included Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Somalia, five of the seven countries whose citizens were denied entry by Trump. The harm that Obama did to some of the poorest war-torn countries in the world far exceeds what Trump has done so far.

Iraq and Libya were not always poor. Their oil, natural gas and other strategic resources made them targets for US wars, under four administrations prior to Trump’s infamous arrival. Libya was the richest country in Africa, and relatively stable until Clinton — secretary of state during Obama’s first term in office — decided otherwise.

In 2011 she craved war. A New York Times report, citing 50 top US officials, left no doubt that Clinton was the catalyst in the decision to go to war. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, furious about her support for a “broader mission” in Libya, told Obama and Clinton the US army was already engaged in enough wars. “Can I finish the two wars I’m already in before you guys go looking for a third one?” Gates reportedly asked.

Now we are being led to believe that the war enthusiasts of the past are peacemakers, because Trump’s antics are simply too much to bear. The hypocrisy of it all should be obvious, but some insist on ignoring it.

Party tribalism and gender politics aside, Trump is a mere extension and natural progression of previous US administrations’ agendas that launched avoidable, unjust wars, embedded fear, and fanned the flames of Islamophobia, hate for immigrants, etc. There is hardly a single bad deed that Trump has carried out, or intends to carry out, that does not have roots in a policy championed by previous administrations.

His intention to build a wall along the US-Mexico border is the brainchild of former President Bill Clinton, who got a standing ovation from Democrats when he proposed the wall and a crackdown on illegal immigrants in his 1995 State of the Union address.

Muslims have been an easy target for at least 20 years. They were mainly the target of the Secret Evidence law in 1996, and “suspected” Muslims were either jailed indefinitely or deported without their lawyers being informed of their charges. It was then called the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, later expanded to give immigration authorities the right to deport even green-card-holding permanent residents.

Few protested the undemocratic, no-due-process law, and the media barely covered it, as most of those held were Palestinian activists, intellectuals and university professors. The 1996 act morphed into the Patriot Act following the Sept. 11 attacks. The new act undermined the US constitution, giving the government unprecedented domestic authority to arrest and detain people, and spy on whoever it wished, with no legal consequences.

The Obama administration had no qualms using and abusing such undemocratic, unconstitutional powers. But where were the millions protesting “fascism,” as they are doing now? Was Obama simply too elegant and articulate to be called fascist, even though he engendered the same domestic policy outlook as Trump?

Trump is extremely wealthy, but if one examines the US wealth inequality gap under Obama, one perceives some uncomfortable truths. While the rich got richer under Obama, “inequality in America (grew) even at the top,” reports Inequality.org. The gap between the rich and super-rich continued to expand, barely phased out by the Great Recession of 2008.

In 2014, a Mother Jones headline summed up the tragic story of unfair distribution of wealth in the US: “The Richest 0.1 Percent is About to Control More Wealth than the Bottom 90 Percent.” Trump is but one profiteer from an economy driven by real-estate gamblers and financial chancers. Today’s political conflict in the US is not a clash over values, but a war between elites par excellence. It is also a war of brands.

Obama spent eight years reversing George W. Bush’s bad brand, but without reversing any of his disreputable deeds. On the contrary, Obama redefined and expanded war, advanced the nuclear arms race and destabilized more countries. Trump is also a brand, an unpromising one. The product — whether military aggression, racism, Islamophobia, anti-immigration policies, economic inequality, etc. — remains unchanged. That is the uncomfortable truth.

Amid rampant euroskepticism, it’s worth recalling the euro-optimism felt between 1985 and 2005. EU members were buoyed by hopes surrounding the euro, the union’s expansion, the draft Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Agenda, which promised an economy that would be competitive, sustainable, and above all, socially fair.

Then, in 2005, the proposed Constitutional Treaty was voted down in referendums in France and the Netherlands. In 2007, the financial crisis began, and in 2010, the debt crisis took hold, which many point to as a prelude to the end of the European Union, because it has spawned crises in EU institutions, its leadership, its narrative and its very legitimacy.

However, Europe’s future has yet to be written. So argues IESE professor Víctor Pou in his 2017 book, which analyzes the causes of this perfect storm.

An Ambitious Project

The European Union was born of a shared political vision based on peace, prosperity and the reconciliation of former enemies after World War II. With the welfare state and the redistribution of income as pillars to support economic growth and social peace, the EU combines idealism, technocracy and a decidedly economic focus.

Additional members and treaties, coupled with a greater transfer of sovereignty by the member countries, led to the current EU, governed by the Treaty of Lisbon since 2009.

Mounting Challenges

The Brexit vote has been one of the most resounding blows dealt in recent years: for the first time, a member country will exercise the exit clause. It may not be the last to do so: until Greece stabilizes its economy, the threat of Grexit will continue to linger.

Outside the EU, pressures also mount. The election of Donald Trump threatens the traditional U.S.-EU alliance; meanwhile, Putin-led Russia works to recreate the former Soviet empire at Europe’s expense. Terrorism, the failure of the Arab Spring, and the war in Syria and resultant migrant crisis also threaten European stability.

Faced with this reality, the EU has no choice but to revise its foreign and security policies — including the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), which looks to countries to the east and south. It must rise to the challenge of turning threats into opportunities: after all, both Russia and the countries of North Africa and the Middle East still have great potential for positive interaction with Europe.

Solutions to the Migrant Crisis

In 2014, the EU had 507 million inhabitants, of which only 20 million (4 percent) were non-EU residents. Therefore, says the author, taking in two million refugees is not only feasible; it is a legal and humanitarian imperative and an opportunity to rejuvenate an aging Europe.

However, this will be difficult without proper border control, which the EU has lost due to a lack of coordination. The Schengen Agreement, which had abolished border controls in 26 European countries, seems on the verge of collapse: Germany, France, Denmark, Austria, Norway and Sweden have restored border controls while others, such as Hungary and Slovenia, have put up fences and deployed armed forces along their borders.

To save Schengen, the EU must manage migration flows and ensure the security of Europeans by implementing a series of urgent measures, until longer term policies are in place. These include:

• Sending money, other resources and personnel to immigration processing centers in Greece and Italy to ensure that immigration control and asylum claims are properly managed.

• Convincing member countries to fulfill their commitments and take in their already-agreed-upon numbers of refugees.

• Establishing better readmission agreements with non-EU countries to repatriate those who don’t have the right to be in Europe.

• Establishing legal pathways to enter Europe, including establishing refugee processing centers in countries such as Turkey, Egypt and Jordan.

• Making better use of Schengen, Eurodac (the EU asylum fingerprint database) and data exchanged per the Prüm Convention to reduce the threat of terrorists entering Europe from abroad.

The Road to Integration

There is a solution to the euro crisis, says Pou. Member countries must relinquish some sovereignty and adopt a fiscal union with the ability to transfer resources and mutualize at least part of the debt.

What’s essential, says the author, is that the founding members leave the door open for the rest to gradually settle into their respective levels of commitment until eventually constituting a real European federation.

Onwards and Upwards

As Pou says, the history of EU integration shows that its greatest crises have always been followed by great progress. Now the first step is to win back citizens’ trust and then work on rebuilding the EU based on its traditional values.

More European Union is needed: major crises will not be solved unless members agree to hand over more sovereignty. EU institutions must also become more transparent, more democratic, more efficient and closer to ordinary citizens. Crucially, imaginative institutional solutions must be translated into a new and improved treaty.

Brexit and the Trump phenomenon may be just the push the EU needs. Now more than ever, the world needs the EU to be a bastion of democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It must stand against the perils of populism, the autocracies of China and Russia, and the unpredictability of Trump’s United States.

By Hunter Lewis*

CNBC claims that the Fed has been “crying wolf” and will back off raising interest rates even a tiny bit more. There are reasons why they might want to back off. China is selling US securities, other central banks are selling, and the Fed might be afraid to sell any of their holdings, which would have to accompany a rate increase. It was fear of a collapse in the federal bond market in the first place that brought us all the frantic QE bond buying with newly created money.

Even so, it is much more likely that the Fed will raise rate anyway, at least a little. Why? Because Yellen and the board are still clinging to the rationalization that holding rates so artificially low helps the economy as well as the government, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

This is the great irony. The Fed thought it was helping Hillary Clinton by holding rates so low when it actually might have elected her by raising them. Now the last thing it wants to do is help Trump, so it will raise rates, but actually that will help the economy and therefore help Trump and the hated Republicans. The Fed is so blinded by false theory that it cannot even get an illegal political intervention right.

About the author:
*Hunter Lewis is author of nine books, including Where Keynes Went Wrong, Free Prices Now! and Crony Capitalism in America: 2008-2012. Lewis is co-founder of Against Crony Capitalism.org as well as co-founder and former CEO of Cambridge Associates, a global investment firm.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

The CO₂ level in Mars’ primitive atmosphere 3.5 billion years ago was too low for sediments, such as those found by NASA’s Curiosity exploration vehicle in areas like the Gale Crater on the planet’s equator, to be deposited.

This and other conclusions are drawn from a paper written with the participation of researchers from the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) and published in the latest issue of the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The area Curiosity has been analyzing since 2012, as part of NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory mission, is composed primarily of sedimentary sequences deposited at the bottom of a lake 3.5 billion years ago. These sediments contain various secondary minerals, such as clays or sulphates, which indicate that the primitive surface was in contact with liquid water.

The existence of liquid water requires a warm surface temperature brought about by a minimum content of CO₂ in the atmosphere. Yet this was not the case with Mars in its beginnings.

“This contradiction has two possible solutions. Either we have not yet developed climatic models which explain the environmental conditions on Mars at the beginning of its history, or the Gale sedimentary sequences really did form in a very cold climate. The second option is the most reasonable”, explained CSIC researcher Alberto Fairén, who works at the Centre for Astrobiology near Madrid (a joint centre run by CSIC and Spain’s National Institute of Aerospace Technology).

A very cold environment

“However, the rover has not found carbonates, thereby confirming the results of studies by all previous probes: carbonates are very scarce on the surface of Mars and, therefore, the CO₂ level in the atmosphere was very low,” added. Fairén.

Specifically, the direct analysis of samples on the surface of Mars carried out by these researchers shows that the level of CO₂ in the atmosphere at the time the Gale Crater sediments were deposited was between 10 and 100 times less than the minimum required for the surface temperature to be above the freezing point of the liquid water.

On Earth, carbonate deposits form on lake and sea beds when CO₂ in the atmosphere interacts with liquid water. Carbon dioxide is a gas capable of generating a powerful ‘greenhouse effect’ and, therefore, of heating the planet.

According to the scientists, the image that would best describe Gale in the early days of Mars would be that of a glacial lake, surrounded by huge masses of ice, which would be partially or seasonally frozen.

“The environment would have been similar to the Canadian Arctic or to Greenland today,” said the CSIC researcher.

In addition, although ice would have dominated, it would also have been common to find liquid water present in abundance. The formation of clays and sulphates would have occurred at specific places and times, seasonally, or under an ice cap in liquid water lakes.

A compound found in green tea could have lifesaving potential for patients with multiple myeloma and amyloidosis, who face often-fatal medical complications associated with bone-marrow disorders, according to a team of engineers at Washington University in St. Louis and their German collaborators.

Jan Bieschke, assistant professor of biomedical engineering at the School of Engineering & Applied Science, studies how proteins fold and shape themselves, and how these processes can contribute to a variety of diseases. He says the compound epigallocatechine-3-gallate (EGCG), a polyphenol found in green tea leaves, may be of particular benefit to patients struggling with multiple myeloma and amyloidosis. These patients are susceptible to a frequently fatal condition called light chain amyloidosis, in which parts of the body’s own antibodies become misshapen and can accumulate in various organs, including the heart and kidneys.

“The idea here is twofold: We wanted to better understand how light chain amyloidosis works, and how the green tea compound affects this specific protein,” Bieschke said.

Bieschke’s team first isolated individual light chains from nine patients with bone marrow disorders that caused multiple myeloma or amyloidosis, then ran lab experiments to determine how the green tea compound affected the light chain protein.

Bieschke previously examined EGCG’s effect in both Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, and found it prevented dangerous buildups of protein present in both diseases. His team had a similar conclusion in this study: In bone marrow patients, the EGCG transformed light chain amyloid, preventing the misshapen form from replicating and accumulating dangerously.

“In the presence of green tea, the chains have a different internal structure,” Bieschke said. “The ECGC pulled the light chain into a different type of aggregate that wasn’t toxic and didn’t form fibril structures,” as happens to organs affected by amyloidosis.

While Bieschke is gaining a greater understanding at the intracellular processes involved, his partners at the University of Heidelberg are working in tandem with him, running clinical trials.

“My group is looking at the mechanism of the protein in a test tube; we are studying how it works on a foundational level. At the same time, clinical trials at the Amyloidosis Center in Heidelberg, with Alzheimer’s in Berlin and with Parkinson’s in China examine the process in people. We all want this compound to work in a patient.”

The research was recently published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

Researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have developed a way to produce a cheap and reusable diagnostic “lab on a chip” with the help of an ordinary inkjet printer.

At a production cost of as little as 1 cent per chip, the new technology could usher in a medical diagnostics revolution like the kind brought on by low-cost genome sequencing, said Ron Davis, PhD, professor of biochemistry and of genetics and director of the Stanford Genome Technology Center.

A study describing the technology will be published online Feb. 6 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Davis is the senior author. The lead author is Rahim Esfandyarpour, PhD, an engineering research associate at the genome center.

The inexpensive lab-on-a-chip technology has the potential to enhance diagnostic capabilities around the world, especially in developing countries. Due to inferior access to early diagnostics, the survival rate of breast cancer patients is only 40 percent in low-income nations — half the rate of such patients in developed nations. Other lethal diseases, such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV, also have high incidence and bad patient outcomes in developing countries. Better access to cheap diagnostics could help turn this around, especially as most such equipment costs thousands of dollars.

“Enabling early detection of diseases is one of the greatest opportunities we have for developing effective treatments,” Esfandyarpour said. “Maybe $1 in the U.S. doesn’t count that much, but somewhere in the developing world, it’s a lot of money.”

A two-part system

A combination of microfluidics, electronics and inkjet printing technology, the lab on a chip is a two-part system. The first is a clear silicone microfluidic chamber for housing cells and a reusable electronic strip. The second part is a regular inkjet printer that can be used to print the electronic strip onto a flexible sheet of polyester using commercially available conductive nanoparticle ink.

“We designed it to eliminate the need for clean-room facilities and trained personnel to fabricate such a device,” said Esfandyarpour, an electrical engineer by training. One chip can be produced in about 20 minutes, he said.

Designed as a multifunctional platform, one of its applications is that it allows users to analyze different cell types without using fluorescent or magnetic labels that are typically required to track cells. Instead, the chip separates cells based on their intrinsic electrical properties: When an electric potential is applied across the inkjet-printed strip, cells loaded into the microfluidic chamber get pulled in different directions depending on their “polarizability” in a process called dielectrophoresis. This label-free method to analyze cells greatly improves precision and cuts lengthy labeling processes.

The tool is designed to handle small-volume samples for a variety of assays. The researchers showed the device can help capture single cells from a mix, isolate rare cells and count cells based on cell types. The cost of these multifunctional biochips is orders of magnitude lower than that of the individual technologies that perform each of those functions. A standalone flow cytometer machine, for example, which is used to sort and count cells, costs $100,000, without taking any operational costs into account.

Potential to democratize diagnostics

“The motivation was really how to export technology and how to decrease the cost of things,” Davis said.

The low cost of the chips could democratize diagnostics similar to how low-cost sequencing created a revolution in health care and personalized medicine, Davis said. Inexpensive sequencing technology allows clinicians to sequence tumor DNA to identify specific mutations and recommend personalized treatment plans. In the same way, the lab on a chip has the potential to diagnose cancer early by detecting tumor cells that circulate in the bloodstream. “The genome project has changed the way an awful lot of medicine is done, and we want to continue that with all sorts of other technology that are just really inexpensive and accessible,” Davis said.

The technology has the potential to not only advance health care, but also to accelerate basic and applied research. It would allow scientists and clinicians to potentially analyze more cells in shorter time periods, manipulate stem cells to achieve efficient gene transfer and develop cost-effective ways to diagnose diseases, Esfandyarpour said. The team hopes the chip will create a transformation in how people use instruments in the lab. “I’m pretty sure it will open a window for researchers because it makes life much easier for them — just print it and use it,” he said.

The work is an example of Stanford Medicine’s focus on precision health, the goal of which is to anticipate and prevent disease in the healthy and precisely diagnose and treat disease in the ill.

The Amazonian rainforest was transformed over two thousand years ago by ancient people who built hundreds of large, mysterious earthworks.

Findings by Brazilian and UK experts provide new evidence for how indigenous people lived in the Amazon before European people arrived in the region.

The ditched enclosures, in Acre state in the western Brazilian Amazon, were concealed for centuries by trees. Modern deforestation has allowed the discovery of more than 450 of these large geometrical geoglyphs.

The function of these mysterious sites is still little understood – they are unlikely to be villages, since archaeologists recover very few artefacts during excavation. The layout doesn’t suggest they were built for defensive reasons. It is thought they were used only sporadically, perhaps as ritual gathering places.

The structures are ditched enclosures that occupy roughly 13,000 km2. Their discovery challenges assumptions that the rainforest ecosystem has been untouched by humans.

The research was carried out by Jennifer Watling, post-doctoral researcher at the Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, University of São Paulo, when she was studying for a PhD at the University of Exeter.

Dr Watling said: “The fact that these sites lay hidden for centuries beneath mature rainforest really challenges the idea that Amazonian forests are ‘pristine ecosystems`.

“We immediately wanted to know whether the region was already forested when the geoglyphs were built, and to what extent people impacted the landscape to build these earthworks.”

Using state-of-the-art methods, the team members were able to reconstruct 6000 years of vegetation and fire history around two geoglyph sites. They found that humans heavily altered bamboo forests for millennia and small, temporary clearings were made to build the geoglyphs.

Instead of burning large tracts of forest – either for geoglyph construction or agricultural practices – people transformed their environment by concentrating on economically valuable tree species such as palms, creating a kind of ‘prehistoric supermarket’ of useful forest products. The team found tantalizing evidence to suggest that the biodiversity of some of Acre’s remaining forests may have a strong legacy of these ancient ‘agroforestry’ practices.

Dr. Watling said: “Despite the huge number and density of geoglyph sites in the region, we can be certain that Acre’s forests were never cleared as extensively, or for as long, as they have been in recent years.

“Our evidence that Amazonian forests have been managed by indigenous peoples long before European Contact should not be cited as justification for the destructive, unsustainable land-use practiced today. It should instead serve to highlight the ingenuity of past subsistence regimes that did not lead to forest degradation, and the importance of indigenous knowledge for finding more sustainable land-use alternatives”.

The full article will be released in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA and involved researchers from the universities of Exeter, Reading and Swansea (UK), São Paulo, Belém and Acre (Brazil). The research was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, National Geographic, and the Natural Environment Research Council Radiocarbon Facility.

To conduct the study, the team extracted soil samples from a series of pits dug within and outside of the geoglyphs. From these soils, they analysed ‘phytoliths’, a type of microscopic plant fossil made of silica, to reconstruct ancient vegetation; charcoal quantities, to assess the amount of ancient forest burning; and carbon stable isotopes, to indicate how ‘open’ the vegetation was in the past.

Two experts at the Minsk Center for Strategic and International Research say that Vladimir Putin may use the current policy disarray in Washington to launch an attack on Belarus, one that could range of a “hybrid” one to the open use of massive military force.

In an interview with Radio Liberty’s Kseniya Kirillova, Arseniy Savitsky, the director of that center, and Yury Tsarik, head of the Russian studies program there, say that confusion in Washington and Donald Trump’s focus on other issues may open the way for Putin to make Belarus his next foreign target (ru.krymr.com/a/28281405.html).

At the same time, the two say, many in Moscow believe that the price Donald Trump may require Russia to pay will exceed Moscow’s willingness or even ability to do so and that Russia should take advantage of the current confusion about how much the US will now support NATO or how far a US-Russian rapprochement will go to press its advantages in the region.

If such people gain the upper hand or if Putin concludes that he can win a quick victory and boost his standing at home, then Moscow will likely launch a “hybrid” war against Belarus in the near future, a war in which Moscow has some advantages but one, the two experts suggest, it has less than a 50 percent chance of success.

If Moscow did succeed, Belarus would become a place des armes for further Russian military moves against Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia; and if NATO tried to block that, Sivitsky says, “Moscow could use tactic nuclear weapons in the region,” a possibility that was considered at recent war games in Warsaw.

(On those games and that possibility, see my essay, “Are Moscow and the West Swapping Positions on Belarus?” Jamestown EDM, January 31, 2017, at jamestown.org/program/moscow-west-swapping-positions-belarus/.)

Moscow’s efforts to promote a hybrid war are unlikely to succeed and even its open use of massive military force there might not produce the outcome it wants because there would not only be resistance from Minsk and the Belarusian people but also from cooperation with Ukraine, Poland and possibly others as well.

“Therefore,” Savitsky says, “Moscow’s chances for a repetition of the Crimean or Donbass scenario in military terms are very low,” especially because Belarus has been paying attention to what Moscow has done in Ukraine and is taking steps at home to be ready to oppose similar things on its own territory.

Nonetheless, Tsarik says, there are numerous signs of Russian activity inside Belarus that show Moscow plans to apply the scenario it did in Ukraine, including disordering the elite and penetrating various social and political organizations, including false flag financing of supposedly nationalist groups to set the stage for provocations Moscow can try to exploit.

Far from the corrosive political circus unfolding in Washington, DC, local citizen groups are improving  conditions for the people in their own backyards. Although they receive almost no national media attention, these stalwart citizens work tirelessly to make their country a safer, cleaner and more just place to live.  One shining example of such a citizen is Tom “Smitty” Smith of Texas, who has advanced this noble work for the last 31 years.

As director of Public Citizen’s Texas office (see citizen.org), Smitty has an uncanny civic personality that has helped win victory after victory for the people of the Lone Star State.

Here is his basic, motivating philosophy: “The only way to beat political corruption and opposition is with organized people. Time after time I have seen a small group of citizens organize and speak out, and change happens. Our job as citizens is to take back our government and keep our government open, honest and responsive.”

Smitty is too modest to add that this is what he’s done for the past three decades working out of Austin, Texas. He is a symbol of integrity and hard work, walking the corridors of the state capitol with his signature big white cowboy hat.

Smitty practices what he preaches! He has co-founded and mentored 13 nonprofit organizations including Solar Austin, Clean Water Action in Texas, Texas ROSE (Ratepayers Organized to Save Energy) and the Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) coalition.

He keeps democracy in motion with what Texas State Representative Rafael Anchia calls the “wisdom of Yoda and the dogged determination of the Lorax…together with boundless knowledge, grace, good humor and patience.” Mr. Anchia might have added that Smitty has substantial legislative expertise and detailed knowledge of each legislator’s interests, strengths and weaknesses.

He has testified about 1,000 times before the Texas legislature on reforms that have improved public health, safety, consumer well-being, and have helped make Texas the top wind energy producer in the country, with a large solar energy building boom underway.

Again and again, he and his wife Karen Hadden have championed strategies to curb existing and forthcoming sources of toxic pollution. As just one example, Smitty worked to start the Texas Emissions Reduction Program (TERP), whose awards have replaced 10,000-plus diesel engines and have cut some $160,836 tons of smog-forming NOx from the Texas air.

With Karen of the SEED coalition and local groups, 12 of 17 proposed coal plants and four proposed nuclear plants have been stopped. To replace this generating capacity, Smitty and SEED worked to pass the state’s building energy code and more energy is being saved than coal plants would have produced.

To paraphrase an old adage; a thousand megawatts saved are a thousand megawatts that do not have to be generated.

Spot a consumer rip-off pattern and see Smitty swing into action. Over his career he has backed much-needed insurance reforms, improved the state lemon law (for defective motor vehicles) and pushed through major ethics reforms that also created the state’s ethics commission.

Smitty has trained over 300 interns to become activists. That project alone has led to the passage of numerous of laws, including a patients’ bill of rights and the smoke-free University of Texas campuses. A state office of administrative hearings also owes its existence to Smitty and his protégés.

“Our goal,” says Smitty, “has been to give the next generation the tools they need to keep perfecting democracy – and to stand up for the little guys.” Such words reveal the depth of his focus on building democratic institutions to forge and utilize the tools of democracy.

Long ago Smitty discovered that “showing up” is the predicate for the pursuit of a more just society. Upon this foundation, he has utilized his wealth of knowledge, data and articulate passion to both inform and hold accountable those who make the public decisions in the state Capitol.

Smitty knows the difference between charity and justice, between discriminatory injustice against certain groups and indiscriminate justice favoring all the people. Opposition is diminished when the latter policies are advanced like clean air, clean water, more job-producing efficient energy investments and open government.

But, you may say, look at Texas, its poverty, its pollution, its oil and gas barons controlling so many politicians, its crumbling infrastructure. Sure. But think how these conditions could be diminished with  1,000 Smitties doing the daily work of democratic citizenship and creative watchdogging.

Full-time citizens like Smitty exemplify the kind of dedication to civic life to which we should all aspire to some degree. Want to guess how many more serious bird watchers there are in that sprawling region than activists? Let’s face it. If It’s time that we join in their efforts and realize that important changes, supported by a public opinion majority, are easier than we think to achieve (See my new short book, Breaking Through Power: It’s Easier Than We Think).

Departing with such plaudits as this observation of Austin Mayor Steve Adler that “his impact on our lives may well live forever,” Smitty is retiring from civic active duty this year. At least he thinks he is.

By Jim Garamone

The United States will stand with those who stand in the defense of freedom, President Donald J. Trump told service members at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, Moday.

The president visited U.S. Central Command and U.S. Special Operations Command personnel and received briefings from Army Gen. Joseph L. Votel and Army Gen. Raymond Thomas.

The two commands work hand-in-hand to protect America and its vital interests. Special Operations Command has a worldwide mission. U.S. Central Command is especially focused on the threats emanating from the Middle East and Central Asia.

Gratitude

Trump visited the base to express his and the nation’s gratitude to the men and women of the commands. He also wanted to recognize the military families and spouses who shoulder the burdens of war. “I want every military family in this country to know that our administration is at your service,” he said. “We stand with you 100 percent. We will protect those who protect us, and we will never, ever let you down.”

The president also thanked the representatives of the 52 nations in the coalition that work with personnel at Centcom. He said the nation is “very proudly standing with you.”

Protecting the United States and its vital interests was at the heart of Trump’s remarks at the base. He said he has no higher responsibility than the protection of the American people.

“Each and every one of you is central to that mission,” the president said. “The men and women serving in Centcom and Socom have poured out their hearts and souls for this country.”

The sacrifices that service members and their civilian support make are real, the president said. “You’ve shed your blood across continents and oceans,” he said. “You’ve engaged the enemy on distant battlefields, toiled in the burning heat and bitter cold and sacrificed everything so that we can remain safe and strong and free.”

He promised to not forget those sacrifices.

Promises Tools, Equipment

He also promised to provide the tools, equipment, resources, training and supplies needed to accomplish the missions given to the commands. “We are going to be making a really historic investment in the armed forces of the United States and show the entire world that America stands with those who stand in defense of freedom,” Trump said.

The United States will support its allies, but the president said he also wants partner nations “to pay their fair share.”

Trump added, “We strongly support NATO. We only ask that all the NATO members make their full and proper financial contributions to the NATO alliance, which many of them have not been doing.”

Centcom and Socom are central to the fight against radical Islamic terrorism, the president said.

“We are up against an enemy that celebrates death, and totally worships destruction,” Trump said. “[The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] is on a campaign of genocide, committing atrocities across the world. Radical Islamic terrorists are determined to strike our homeland as they did on 9/11, as they did from Boston to Orlando to San Bernardino.”

The president’s message to those forces of death and destruction is simple: “America and its allies will defeat you,” he said. “We will not allow it to take root in our country.”

(Civil.Ge) — The National Center for Education Quality Enhancement (NCEQE), an agency at the Georgian Ministry of Education, which studies conformity of educational institutions with the standards set by the Georgian legislation, decided to close down the Batumi Refaiddin Şahin Friendship School, operated by the Chaglar Educational Institutions, a Gülen-affiliated network in Georgia.

The NCEQE authorization council cancelled the school “authorization,” a certificate required for any institution to carry out high educational activities in Georgia, at its meeting on February 3, citing “significant problems with respect to student enrolment.”

The decision led to an outcry among teachers, parents and students of the school, who are arguing that the move is “politically-motivated.”

Principal of Batumi Refaiddin Şahin Friendship School, Elguja Davitadze, issued an open letter to the Prime Minister of Georgia, naming the NCEQE decision as “illegal.”

“The reason for cancelling the authorization was the transfer of six non-Georgian students from Turkish-language classes to Georgian-language classes, in the absence of any law or regulation with respect to changing the sectors, but the termination of the Turkish sector and [the subsequent] transfer of students to the Georgian sector was implemented in accordance with the decision of the very same authorization council on September 4, 2015,” Davitadze stated in the letter.

Davitadze added that the NCEQE conducted “unplanned” monitoring process ”three times in the past few months” based on “artificially-created” and “non-existent” reasons. “The decision raises questions that it is part of a deliberate policy of restricting and barring the work of the Şahin School in Georgia,” he added.

Davitadze called on the Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili to “protect rights of 340 students, their parents and teachers” and do not allow “illegal closure of the school, which has been in the country’s service for many years.”

Education Minister Aleksandre Jejelava, who commented on the issue February 6, said that the school violated “concrete” legal requirements.

“Unfortunately, the school, as well as other schools, the authorization of which was also cancelled, did not meet concrete, very concrete legal requirements and you can verify this with the NCEQE, that Georgian schools are also monitored just like the Turkish and French schools,” Jejelava stated.

He also added that the school documentation “did not comply” with legal requirements, “in other words the documentation of school students was not complete.”

Public Defender Ucha Nanuashvili, who commented on the issue on February 6, linked the decision to “the political processes” in Turkey.

“Political processes of the neighboring country should not be reflected on the country’s educational institutions, which are registered by our legislation, have certification and work in compliance with legislation,” Nanuashvili explained.

The Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI), Tbilisi-based religious and ethnic minority rights group, who met the school principal on February 4, issued a statement s day later, saying that the decision “raised questions” and that it “might be politically-motivated.”

“The school was granted authorization for a five-year term on September 4, 2015. The decree of the National Center for Education Quality Enhancement on October 5, 2015 ordered the school to cancel the Turkish sector and gradually transfer the students to the Georgian sector. After that, the school administration and the National Center for Education Quality Enhancement elaborated a joint plan on transferring the students from the Turkish to the Georgian sector. In the 2016-2017 academic year, remaining 10 Turkish-speaking students were enrolled in the Georgian sector, which was positively assessed by the National Center for Education Quality Enhancement at its monitoring conducted on November, 2016. The second and unplanned monitoring took place on January 20, 2017 and the January 24 monitoring report identified violations with respect to enrollment rules,” the statement reads.

The Tolerance and Diversity Institute noted “the concurrence between the authorization cancellation and the events in Turkey” and added that the organization will produce a detailed legal assessment later.

The NCEQE decision comes just months after Ankara has raised its “concerns” with Tbilisi over schools affiliated to U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gülen, whose followers Turkey blames for a failed coup.

When speaking about failed coup in Turkey and about Ankara’s official line accusing Fethullah Gülen of being behind the coup attempt, consul general Yasin Temizkan said on July 16, 2016 in an interview with two Batumi-based television channels, TV25 and Adjara’s public broadcaster, that followers of Gülen movement are “strengthening their positions through their schools and education institutions, raising generations serving not the state, but this terrorist group and regrettably there are schools of this group in Georgia” too.

He specifically named private Refaiddin Şahin Friendship School, which was opened in Batumi more than twenty years ago, and called on the Georgian parents not to send their children to this school. Temizkan also said that the Turkish side would soon appeal the Georgian authorities with the request to close down Gülen-affiliated education institutions in Georgia.

After meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Gigi Gigiadze on July 18, Turkey’s Ambassador to Georgia Levent Gümrükçü claimed that the consul’s remarks were “misrepresented” by media. “We conveyed to our Georgian partners our concerns as to the international activities of the Fethullah terrorist organization, including their links to and management of certain schools worldwide,” Gümrükçü said.

By Michael Lelyveld

In a sign of China’s growing dependence on foreign oil, the government has projected a double-digit jump in imports with a drop in domestic production for the next several years.

Implications of the five-year energy forecast issued last month by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the National Energy Administration (NEA) are likely to be far-reaching.

Edward Chow, senior fellow for energy security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said that “the Chinese and American relative positions on import dependency have flipped” since the U.S. development of shale oil and the drop in China’s high-cost production.

“The Chinese position is actually much worse than the American position ever was,” Chow said.

U.S. oil and gas gains recently made headlines with a report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) that the United States could become a net energy exporter by 2026.

“The U.S. could be completely … energy independent,” said EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski, while presenting the findings of the agency’s annual outlook report on Jan. 5.

But China is moving in the opposite direction with its rising reliance on imported oil.

The government’s energy plan sets the target for China’s oil production in 2020 at 200 million metric tons (4 million barrels per day), down 6.8 percent from 2015 and nearly even with last year.

Net imports would rise 17 percent over the five-year period to 390 million tons (7.8 million barrels per day), while demand would grow by 8 percent to 11.8 million barrels per day (mbpd), the agencies said.

The result is that import dependence would increase to over 66 percent from 64.5 percent last year, meaning that China will buy two barrels of oil abroad for every barrel it produces at home.

Looked at another way, China’s increase in oil consumption over the five-year span will have to come entirely from imports.

‘Not realistic at all’

China’s reliance on oil imports in 2020 could be even greater than the government’s plan suggests.

In its annual World Energy Outlook, the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) projected that China’s oil demand in 2020 will reach 12.6 mbpd with domestic production of 3.9 mbpd, implying import dependence of 69 percent.

Wood Mackenzie, an international energy consultancy, has estimated that China’s oil output will fall even further by 2020 to 3.5 mbpd, The Wall Street Journal said.

In a separate report, the Journal also cited skepticism among analysts about the government’s estimate of a 17-percent increase in foreign oil, noting that net imports climbed 41 percent during the previous five-year period from 2010 to 2015.

“It’s not realistic at all,” said Yen Ling Song, an analyst at S&P Global Platts, according to the paper. Song said she expects the government’s import forecast to be revised up.

Instead of increasing domestic production to meet the challenge, China has been cutting back due to price pressures on its national oil companies (NOCs), which have relied for years on high-cost fields.

China’s NOCs have reported steep drops at the country’s two oldest and largest production centers last year, while no major new resources have been found.

Output fell 4.8 percent at the Daqing oilfield in northern China’s Heilongjiang province, while production slumped 11.8 percent at the Shengli field in eastern Shandong province, based on data reported by the official English-language China Daily.

Total crude production dipped 6.9 percent in 2016 from a year earlier, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) said, as imports rose 13.6 percent, according to customs figures.

The NOCs have suffered from China’s slower-growing economy and have faced pressure from the government to avoid mass layoffs from steeper production cuts.

But the government’s concern over China’s capital outflow is only likely to grow if the country keeps paying for more oil from overseas.

At the government’s urging, the NOCs have invested heavily in foreign ventures to gain access to “equity” oil and gas under China’s “going out” strategy over the past two decades.

The state-owned companies spent U.S. $123.5 billion (850 billion yuan) on overseas mergers and acquisitions between 2005 and 2013 alone, according to a report by Beijing-based SIA Energy.

But China’s foreign assets, often purchased at a premium, have also come under pressure from lower energy prices, while the preponderance of oil imports has continued to climb.

‘Pressing need to secure oil’

The risks to China’s energy security and economy seem likely to rise if the trends continue.

In a recent paper for the Seattle-based National Bureau of Asian Research, Meghan O’Sullivan, a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, suggested that ample world energy supplies have reduced China’s worries.

“The shift from perceived global energy scarcity to actual energy abundance has not eliminated China’s pressing need to secure oil and natural gas. But it has eased concerns that finite resources would become the source of conflict and … increased the government’s confidence in the market as a means of delivering oil and gas resources,” the paper said.

But growing import reliance has raised concerns that China has become increasingly exposed to risks from oil suppliers in volatile regions including the Middle East and Africa.

China’s dependence could add to its motivations for projecting military power abroad, although few expect China’s buildup to have a significant effect on its energy security anytime soon.

“Obviously, America’s power projection capabilities were and are much stronger than China’s, even in the future,” said Chow in an email message.

“Chinese oil imports are from much more politically unstable and vulnerable countries farther away,” he said.

China’s own vulnerability makes it all the more remarkable that the government has kept silent about the energy security risks for the country of continually increasing oil imports.

Commentaries on the concern appeared in the official press periodically in the years before 2008, when China’s import dependence first reached 50 percent.

But similar expressions of concern have been notably lacking as the dependence ratio approaches 70 percent, raising the question of whether the government is ignoring the issue.

Chow said it seems more likely that the government is concerned but has decided not to call attention to the problem because it does not have a solution.

“So, they are not saying anything publicly, but are worried. So, what should they do?” he said.

Alternative is no solution

One alternative that China has tried—although it is unlikely to be a solution—is to increase its volume and share of oil imports from Russia by overland pipeline to Daqing and the nearby Kozmino port in the Russian Far East.

In 2016, Russian oil deliveries rose 23.7 percent to an average of 1.05 mbpd, taking the lead among China’s suppliers from Saudi Arabia for the first time. Saudi exports to China edged up only 0.9 percent to 1.03 mbpd, according to customs data.

China’s crude imports from Russia have climbed 165 percent by volume in three years, despite Beijing’s longstanding security concerns with relying on energy supplies from its powerful neighbor to the north.

Moscow has eagerly pursued links with China for the past decade as part of its Asia strategy to offset pressures from its main energy markets in Europe.

Russia’s crude deliveries to China last year accounted for 22 percent of its oil exports outside the CIS, based on official dispatch data reported by Interfax.

By Giancarlo Elia Valori*

Just a week after his official installation at the White House, Donald J. Trump lashed out at China, accused of manipulating its currency to “win the globalization game”, but also at Germany which, as the President of the new National Trade Council, Peter Navarro, said “is exploiting both its neighbours and the United States with the euro”.

The accusation is not new. In the early 1970s the United States accused the old European Monetary System (EMS) of keeping the currencies adhering to it artificially high.

Inter alia, the EMS – with fixed exchange rates but with predefined fluctuations within it – was the European response to the US-prompted end of the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement.

Nevertheless, it was also Europe’s reaction to the planned weakness of the dollar during Jimmy Carter’s Presidency, when precisely the dollar area sent huge capital flows into Germany, which had a “high” Mark, thus pressing it against the French Franc and hence destabilizing the entire European internal monetary exchange system.

Furthermore, in the early 1980s, the British Labour Prime Minister, Denis Healey, got convinced that the EMS was a real German “racket”, considering that the German Finance Minister had told him that his country planned to have a comparative advantage precisely by limiting the depreciation of the other European currencies.

This happened because Germany had lower labour cost-driven inflation rates and, hence, a currency with fixed rates would have anyway ensured export-driven surpluses only to Germany.

However also the G20 long negotiations have never led to any result: currently, in absolute terms, the German export-led surplus is much larger than China’s, namely 8.6% of the German GDP.

In fact, according to IMF estimates, the surplus is equal to 271 billion US dollars, a huge sum capable of changing all global trade flows.

Finally Chancellor Angela Merkel replied to Trump (and to Navarro) by recalling that the European Central Bank is the institution issuing the euro, but it is not lender of last resort. Nevertheless, she has not contradicted the US President about the fact that the Euro is really undervalued.

Furthermore, when we look at the currencies undervalued as against the US Dollar, we realize that the most undervalued currency is the Turkish Lira, followed by the Mexican Peso, the Polish Zloty, the Hungarian Forint, the South Korean Won and, finally, our own Euro.

Finally, when we look at the number and size of transactions denominated in euros, the European currency is already the second most traded currency in the world.

Hence, probably the undervaluation of the Euro against the US Dollar originates more from the expansionist policy of the European central Bank than from Germany’s actions for its exports and monetary parities.

Certainly Germany gains in having a currency that is much weaker than it would be if it were only a German currency but, on the other hand, with a Euro artfully devalued, the “weakest” Eurozone countries succeed in having lower interest rates than they could obtain with their old or new national currencies.

Moreover, it is worth recalling that Germany exports profitably both in countries where the currency is stronger than the Euro and in regions where the currency is even more depreciated as against the US Dollar, such as Japan.

According to last year’s data, the United States have a trade deficit with Germany equal to 60 billion US dollars.

Germany exports mainly cars, which account for 22% of their total exports to the United States.

It also exports – in decreasing order – machine tools, in direct competition with Italy, electronics, pharmaceuticals, medical technologies, plastics, aircraft and avionics, oil, iron and steel, as well as organic chemicals. All German exports are worth 35% of its GDP.

Why, however, is the Euro depreciated because of Germany?

Firstly, since 2000 the German cost of labour has grown by 20-30% less than in the Eurozone’s German competitors.

Hence German products were ipso facto 20% more competitive than those of the others, without any exchange rate manipulation.

If Germany still had had the Mark, it would have automatically appreciated by 20%.

The appreciation of this hypothetical Mark would have changed demand, by reducing exports and increasing imports by the same percentage.

In that case, the ideal would have been a floating exchange rate – and this should also be the case for a re-modulated Euro compared to the current situation.

A fluctuation prefiguring the creation of a new monetary “basket” with the major currencies, with exchange rates floating within a certain range, but much more realistic than the current ones.

A further cause of the current account surplus in Germany is the intrinsic strength of its exports – hence Germany does not suffer the competition of low-tech economies, such as Italy’s.

Another reason for the excessive German surplus is the low domestic demand, with the relative increase in private savings.

An additional cause of the surplus is the fact that savings have long been higher than investment.

In 2015, German savings amounted to 25% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while investment was worth only 16% of the GDP.

Obviously, another decisive reason for the accumulation of such a large German surplus was the fall in oil prices.

Therefore, the vast German surplus and the Euro undervaluation foster its exports, but block the exports of the other Eurozone countries.

In fact, according to our calculations, if Germany stimulated its domestic demand, thus allowing its inflation to increase, this would be enough for the final stimulus of global demand and, above all, it would make the Eurozone economies under crisis get out of their predicament.

Hence the real problem of too high a Euro is not so much for the United States, which can devalue as against the Euro whenever they want and anyway have still their own autonomous monetary policy, but rather for the single currency countries in the Mediterranean, which are experiencing a downturn caused by too low domestic demand.

Could we also do as Germany? No, we could not.

It is not possible for anyone in the Eurozone to create an 8% surplus, such as Germany, and not all countries could benefit from a devalued exchange rate of the European currency.

As many politicians say, restructuring the production system to increase productivity means – in a nutshell – years of deflation and high unemployment, which create a negative multiplier effect.

We cannot afford so – the social and economic conditions have already reached the breaking point.

Hence, let us put our minds at rest, the ”two-speed Europe” will last generations and it would be better if this could also be reflected in the single currency.

Or better in a series of two-three currencies deriving from the Euro with pre-fixed exchange rates floating within a range.

Furthermore, Germany will certainly replace China as the “bad” currency manipulator and there will be increasing competition between it and the rest of Europe.

Therefore, the German export surplus actually leads to an unfair competitive advantage over the Eurozone countries and, in other respects, over the North American exports.

This is the sense of the struggle against the Euro waged by President Trump and his future Ambassador to the EU, Ted Malloch, who has stated that the Euro may “collapse” over the next eighteen months.

The Euro is certainly undervalued.

According to a study carried out by Deutsche Bank, the Euro is allegedly the most undervalued currency in the world, according to the criteria of the Fundamental Equilibrium Exchange Rates (FEER).

And the Euro is undervalued even if we look at its external value and the mass of transactions of the individual countries currently adopting it.

Hence, not only can Germany be accused of managing an improper comparative advantage over the dollar and the other major currencies but, according to the FEER data, the accusation holds true even for Italy and for the other single currency European countries.

With a view to solving the issue, some analysts – especially North Americans – think it should be Germany to leave the Euro.

On the one hand, Germany cannot revalue its currency (which is also a political problem – suffice to think of German savers) without the Euro appreciating also for the Eurozone weak economies, such Italy and Spain.

The World Bank believes that the German trade surplus is at least 5% too high and, hence, the German exchange rate is largely undervalued by at least 15%.

In fact, the differential between the German Euro and the Euro of the Eurozone weakest countries is 20%.

This means that, in terms of Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), the Italian or Greek Euro is worth 20% less than the German one.

The issue could be solved with an equivalent 20% Euro revaluation, combined with an expansionary fiscal policy.

However, this cannot be done as long as Germany is within the Euro. This means that Germany cannot revalue the exchange rate without doing the same in the other 17 countries that adopt the European single currency.

This would mean definitively destroying the Italian, Greek, Portuguese and Spanish economies.

Therefore, if Germany came out of the Euro, its new currency would appreciate as against the non-German Euro and the other countries would have a devalued currency, which could help them in exports.

There are two ways in which the German trade surplus creates deflation – and hence crisis – in the rest of the Eurozone.

Obviously the first is by pushing up the value of the European currency.

A strong euro weakens the demand for European exports, especially for the most price-sensitive goods of the Eurozone Mediterranean economies.

Moreover, the high value of the European currency reduces the price of imported goods, thus negatively reinforcing the price fall – another deflationary mechanism.

And the German inflation which, as everyone knows, is lower than in the other Eurozone countries, further weakens the peripheral economies.

Hence a landscape marked by low domestic demand and national markets’ production crisis.

However, in Navarro’s and in Trump’s minds, there is the implicit belief that trade imbalances can be solved in a context of free-floating currencies.

It is not always so and, however, fluctuations apply only when there are structural changes in trade systems – in principle all players envisage and operate, for sufficient time, with fixed or maybe slightly floating rates.

Therefore, reading between the lines, what both Trump and Navarro really tell us is that the very Euro membership is an act of monetary manipulation.

Hence, what is done?

The unity of the European economy is broken, with unpredictable effects and further global chaos, while the United States acquire exports that were previously denominated in euros.

Or the United States could impose quotas or specific tariffs for Germany, which is illegal in WTO terms but, above all, would expose the United States to a series of reprisals and retaliation by Germany and probably also by the rest of the Eurozone.

There is no way out: therefore, again reading between the lines, probably Trump is telling to the Eurozone weak economies that they should leave the single currency, which is only in Germany’s interest, and create new post-Euro currencies, which will be somehow pegged to the US Dollar.

Or Trump and Navarro could define a new relationship between Euro, Dollar, Yuan, Ruble, Yen and some other primary currencies on the markets and impose a predetermined fluctuation between them, but obviously the Euro would enter this new “Bretton Woods” by being valued in line with the markets and not being overvalued as today.

Europe, however, shall put back in line and tackle all trade and political issues with Trump’s America, which will make no concession to anyone and, most importantly, does no longer want to favour Europe militarily, strategically, financially and commercially.

In particular, Donald J. Trump has in mind the big game with Russia and China. He is scarcely interested in a continent, such as Europe, which is not capable of defending itself on its own and shows severe signs of structural crisis.

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

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

By Pradeep Singh Chhonkar

The construction of border fence by Myanmar has led to resentment among the people on both sides of the Indo-Myanmar border. The affected people mainly are Konyak, Khiamniungan and Yimchunger Nagas who inhabit the areas of Eastern Nagaland in India and the Naga Self Administered Zone (NSAZ) in Myanmar. The formation of Myanmar as a separate State in 1935 and decolonisation of the sub-continent in 1947 divided ethnic communities living along the Indo-Myanmar border. These communities, particularly Nagas, found the newly created boundary to be inconsistent with the traditional limits of the region they inhabited. And they felt a deep sense of insecurity because they became relegated to the status of ethnic minorities on both sides of the border. To address their concerns and enable greater interaction among them, the Indian and Myanmarese governments established the Free Movement Regime (FMR), which allowed Nagas to travel 16 kilometres across the border on either side without any visa requirements.

The people living in the Eastern districts of Nagaland and in the areas of NSAZ in Myanmar have close family ties and engage in cultural and economic exchanges. In some instances, the imaginary border line cuts across houses, land and villages. People, especially those living on the Indian side, own land holdings including cultivated lands and forested areas across the border and are completely dependent on such areas for their livelihood. From the Myanmar side, a lot of villagers come to the Indian side to buy basic essentials. Taking advantage of the FMR, a sizeable number of students from NSAZ also study in schools on the Indian side of the border.

The four border districts of Eastern Nagaland – Mon, Tuensang, Kiphire and Longleng – are extremely remote and backward mainly due to lack of development and neglect by successive state governments. Mon district and corresponding areas across the border are mainly inhabited by the members of the Konyak tribe. Konyaks have the maximum representation in the population of Nagaland and also have substantial numbers within NSAZ. About three fourths of the total population of Khiamniungan tribals reside in NSAZ with the remainder being present in Tuensang district. The Yimchungers straddle the border areas with a sizeable presence in the Kiphire and Tuensang districts of Nagaland.

The ongoing activity of fence construction by Myanmar, which the locals perceive as being carried out with the concurrence of Indian authorities, has triggered apprehensions among the people living on either side of the border. They contend that the border fence would deprive them of the produce from their land and forest resources, which spread out on both sides of the border. From the security perspective, possible anti-establishment sentiments that could flow from such apprehensions, if unaddressed, could reinvigorate the presently weakening Naga insurgency in the region. An aggravation of this issue at a time when peace talks between the central government and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM) are being held in a congenial atmosphere may fuel discontent.

It is pertinent to note that the region presents serious security challenges. The FMR has been misused by locals to smuggle contraband in their head loads, which are not subject to inspection. Militant groups have been using the porous border for moving cadres and war-like stores. Along with other active Indian insurgent groups, the NSCN-Khaplang (NSCN-K), which had unilaterally abrogated the ceasefire with the Government of India (GoI) in 2015, maintains its camps and training bases in NSAZ. All these groups have benefited from the open border in terms of carrying out illegal activities including launching strikes against Indian security forces and returning to their safe havens in Myanmar. China has also been reportedly aiding some of these groups. Indian insurgent groups in the region are also known to collaborate with Myanmarese insurgent groups like the United Wa State Army (UWSA), Kachin Independent Army (KIA), among others.

Policing such a large area marked by harsh terrain and dense forest is difficult. The attempt to create physical infrastructure to secure the border in the midst of the prevailing public resentment presents a real challenge. Suitable measures aimed at addressing the people’s concern on the Indian side as well as on the other side in collaboration with Myanmarese authorities therefore need to be initiated in order to establish trust and confidence amongst the affected populace. Tripartite talks involving the local stakeholders (through the concerned state government), the Myanmarese government and the GoI could be organised to address extant concerns. Socio-economic initiatives on either side of the border aimed at benefitting the local inhabitants by alleviating poverty and bringing greater development in the region could be worked out. A mutually acceptable arrangement addressing the security concerns of both the countries with minimum discomfort to the local inhabitants would be prudent.

The GoI on its part could provide an assurance that no construction of border fence will be undertaken on the Indian side without taking the affected population into confidence. This is pertinent given that in March 2003 the GoI, in consultation with its Myanmarese counterpart, had attempted to erect a fence along the India-Myanmar border in Manipur. However, the work had to be stopped due to protests by local communities. It is therefore essential that the pros and cons on the requirement of border fencing in this region need to be deliberated upon in order to weigh the impact of action taken vis-a vis corresponding benefits accrued in the context of regional security and India’s ‘Act East’ policy initiatives.

In case national security concerns dictate the necessity of constructing a fence along the India-Myanmar border, options such as selective fencing, better use of technology, and regulated flow of cross-border movement, among other initiatives, can be examined. It is however essential to take into confidence the affected populace and the local stakeholders prior to the finalisation and implementation of such plans. Regulated borders with greater emphasis on developing people-to-people contact and cross-border trade initiatives are likely to yield greater security benefits as against a closed border that may lead to a disturbed security environment amidst popular discontent.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India. Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/idsacomments/border-fence-an-absolute-essential-india-myanmar-border_pschhonkar_060217

Two Chinese Christian human rights lawyers have become the latest victims of Beijing’s campaign against those it considers a threat to the state.

Li Heping’s and Wang Quanzhang had been subjected to electric shocks and other forms of torture, according to a report by Christian human rights group China Aid, citing comments made by Li’s wife, Wang Qiaoling.

The two lawyers had been charged with “subverting state power,” the China Christian Daily website reported.

In an apparent indication of the gravity of the torture, Li’s wife told China Aid that her husband fainted several times during one electric shock session.

Li and Wang were first to be taken into police custody in 2015 as part of a nationwide round-up of human rights lawyers in China who are considered a threat by the government.

However, Li reportedly “vanished” while in police custody that year. He apparently reappeared after a few months and was formally arrested on Jan. 20, 2016. Currently, he is locked up at the Tianjin Municipal Detention Center No.1.

Aside from Christian lawyers, human rights activists, pastors and churchgoers have also suffered in light of the government’s campaign.

In January, Pastor Yang Hua, also known as Li Guozhi, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for “divulging state secrets.” He too had reportedly been tortured.

Police arrested Yang after he reportedly tried to stop officials from confiscating church computer hard drives when they raided Huoshi Church in Guiyang, Guizhou province, in December 2015.

“This is nothing but purely barbaric religious persecution,” said Bob Fu, president and founder of China Aid.

By Hugh Williamson*

Things are getting serious again in western Kazakhstan. This oil-rich region on the Caspian Sea was the scene over several months in 2011 of prolonged labor unrest, culminating in clashes that December that killed at least a dozen people.

The shock waves from this violence led to government pledges to improve labor relations and to “modernize trade union institutions.” Now, again, in the midst of winter, there are more labor protests and another crackdown.

Kazakhstan sees itself as a regional hub for foreign investment, but Astana could experience unintended consequences if it continues on this path.

What went wrong?

The steps the government took after 2011 are a key source of the problem. Rather than improving conditions for labor organizing, a trade union law adopted in 2014 made it more difficult for independent unions to form and operate. The law is so restrictive it violates fundamental labor standards upheld by the International Labor Organization (ILO). Human Rights Watch research shows that the authorities have since 2014 placed repeated technical and legal barriers in the path of independent unions. Officials have harassed union representatives, some activists have been forced out of their jobs, and security services have spied on them.

One alarming consequence: The country’s largest independent trade union confederation, the Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Kazakhstan, has, despite repeated efforts, been unable to fully register under the law. As a result, a court in southern Kazakhstan on January 4 shut down the confederation, at the request of the Justice Ministry. The government also banned three affiliated unions – for domestic workers, health care employees and metalworkers.

The ruling to close down the union confederation triggered the recent protests. Within days, more than 400 oil workers went on a hunger strike in protest. They were also angry at criminal charges of embezzlement raised against the confederation president Larisa Kharkova. The charges appear aimed at forcing her to resign, which she has refused to do.

Authorities have now banned the hunger strike as “illegal,” charged a union leader with embezzlement and another with calling for an illegal strike. Officials also have handed down hefty fines to dozens of strikers. These are difficult times for Kazakhstan’s oil industry and its workers, and there was a wave of strikes in 2016. Lower oil prices have caused hardship and fears of job losses. In some cases local authorities, unions and companies have worked together to solve labor disputes. Yet the government’s aggressive response to the most basic demands of workers persists – in blatant violation of international labor rights norms Kazakhstan has voluntarily agreed to follow.

The government’s heavy-handed control of society, including on labor issues, has certainly been intensifying. This causes lots of experts to ask why Kazakhstan is taking such an approach, given that it appears to clash with the government’s best interests?

While clamping down on union activity, the government is also prioritizing its openness to international investment and readiness to take responsibility on the international stage, as this month’s Syria talks in Astana show. Its international plans could be undermined, if its abusive approach to labor rights persists.

Many foreign investors, in Kazakhstan and elsewhere, recognize the importance of upholding international labor standards. This approach sits awkwardly with Kazakhstan’s blatant labor restrictions. Foreign companies, like local ones, have their own problems with Kazakhstan’s laws, which force them to join a state-controlled employers’ association – a concern also highlighted by the ILO.

Kazakhstan has been a member of the UN Security Council since January 1. In his speech marking the country’s council membership, President Nursultan Nazarbayev listed human rights promotion as a key priority.

Yet now, Astana is facing renewed sanction from the ILO, another part of the UN. In 2015 and again in 2016, the ILO’s top decision-making body, the International Labor Conference, reprimanded Kazakhstan over violations of core ILO conventions, relating to the 2014 trade union law. In both years, it demanded that Astana change the law. Astana refused, irritating many governments active in the ILO.

The ILO concerns closely echoed the conclusions of a January 2015 country visit by the UN’s top expert on free association, who sharply criticized restrictions on nongovernmental organizations and trade unions. January’s intensified labor crackdown could mean Kazakhstan will again be in the ILO’s spotlight this year – hardly a positive prospect for a country determined to impress a global audience.

Kazakhstan’s top priority in the economic sphere is to join the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Paris-based club of rich nations. President Nazarbayev’s mantra – that Kazakhstan should be among the world’s top 30 economic powers by 2050 – hinges on hitting OECD targets.

Kazakhstan hopes this year to be allowed to join several OECD committees as a stepping stone to future membership. Yet this will also come at a price: respect for labor and social standards is judged important for OECD members, as is consultation with independent trade unions – so heavy restrictions on labor rights could count against Astana’s ambitions.

Kazakhstan may soon experience negative international blowback as a consequence of its crackdown on independent union organizing. Let’s hope the country’s leaders change course, to one that respects basic labor and human rights.

*Hugh Williamson is director, Europe & Central Asia division, Human Rights Watch.

The Saudi Cabinet on Monday approved an agreement between the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United States to improve compliance to international tax and implementation of Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.

The Cabinet, at the weekly meeting chaired by King Salman, also strongly condemned the attack targeting a Saudi frigate west of Hodeidah port in Yemen last month.

While expressing its condolences, the Cabinet reaffirmed its full support to the efforts of Saudi-led coalition aiming at restoring legality, peace and security in Yemen.

The Cabinet termed the suicide attack on the frigate launched by a boat of Houthi militia as a “terrorist attack,” which resulted in the deaths of two crew members and injuries to three others.

The Council of Ministers said “the attack was a dangerous development, which threatens international navigation in the Red Sea and impedes the flow of humanitarian and medical aids to Yemeni citizens.”

The Cabinet praised the bravery of the frigate’s crew and affirmed that “such an incident would not stop coalition forces supporting the legitimacy in Yemen from continuing military operations until the Yemeni government and people regain the state and protect its capabilities from the coup militias.”

Referring to the bombing incident in Bahrain, the Cabinet expressed grief and strongly condemned the attack.

It also denounced the attack that targeted the worshippers at a mosque in Canada.

The Cabinet slammed the attempted knife attack on a security patrol near Louvre Museum in Paris.

The Council of Ministers affirmed Saudi Arabia’s continued rejection of extremism and terrorism and its calls for concerted global efforts to combat and eradicate them.

The Cabinet also expressed appreciation for King Salman for patronizing the opening ceremony of the National Festival for Heritage and Culture nicknamed as Janadriyah festival.

Chaired by King Salman at Yamamah Palace here on Monday, the Cabinet also expressed thanks to the king for extending help to promote Islamic culture and for solidarity of scientists, scholars, thinkers, writers, intellectuals and media representatives to showcase heritage.

The Cabinet further commended the king’s keen interest in preserving the Arab and Islamic identity as well as heritage and culture.

A statement said that the identity of each nation is measured by its values, traditions and heritage.

The Cabinet also appreciated efforts exerted by the Ministry of National Guard in organizing Janadriyah festival, which has shown diversity in heritage and arts representing various regions of the Kingdom.

The Cabinet praised the festival “for inviting foreign writers and intellectuals, who are sharing efforts with their Saudi counterparts in the enrichment of culture and in the promotion of values and traditions.”