Disney’s “Zootopia” is on a roll, following up its Golden Globes victory by topping the 44th Annual Annie Awards with six wins, including best animated feature, Variety said.

As a studio, Disney racked up 10 awards total on the animation industry’s big night, presented by ASIFA-Hollywood on Saturday, February 4 at UCLA’s Royce Hall.

“Zootopia” directors Byron Howard and Rich Moore as well as writers Jared Bush and Phil Johnston took trophies, as did Cory Loftis for character design, Dean Wellins for storyboarding, and Jason Bateman, the voice of fox Nick Wilde, who shared the voice acting in a feature win with “Moana” star Auli’i Cravalho.

In addition to Cravalho’s win, Disney’s “Moana” took home an Annie for animated effects in a feature (Marlon West, Erin V. Ramos, Blair Pierpont, Ian J. Coony, and John M. Kosnik).

Disney rounded out its night with wins for its TV series “Disney Mickey Mouse” (Illya Owens for editorial in a TV/broadcast production) and for character animation in a live-action production for “The Jungle Book” (Andrew R. Jones, Peta Bayley, Gabriele Zucchelli, and Benjamin Jones).

Laika’s stop-motion “Kubo and the Two Strings” picked up three wins. Jan Maas nabbed an award for character animation in a feature, Christopher Murrie for editorial, and Nelson Lowry, Trevor Dalmer, August Hall, and Ean McNamara for production design.

“The Red Turtle,” a co-production by Studio Ghibli and Wild Bunch directed by Michael Dudok de Wit, took the prize for best animated feature, independent, and Pixar’s “Piper,” directed by Alan Barillaro, won for short.

In the TV/broadcast categories, “Bob’s Burgers” from Bento Box won best production for general audiences, while Bix Pix Entertainment’s “Adventure Time” and “Tumble Leaf” won children’s production and pre-school children’s production, respectively.

Picking up three TV/broadcast awards each were Google Spotlight Stories’ “Pearl” and “DreamWorks Trollhunters.”

Patrick Osborne, who won an Oscar for the Disney short “Feast,” took home the directing prize for the 360-degree short film “Pearl,” while Scot Stafford, Alexis Harte, and JJ Wiesler won for music and Tuna Bora for production design.

“DreamWorks Trollhunters,” created by filmmaker Guillermo del Toro, picked up Annies for Mike Chaffe (character animation); Victor Maldonado, Alfredo Torres, and Jules Rigolle (character design); and Hyunjoo Song (storyboarding).

Carlos Alazraqui’s vocal work as Ponce de Leon in DreamWorks Animation’s “The Mr. Peabody & Sherman Show” gave DWA its fourth Annie of the night, the second-highest total overall.

Juried awards were also presented. Animator Dale Baer, animation champion Caroline Leaf, and anime director Mamoru Oshii were presented with the Winsor McCay Award for their contribution to the art of animation. Google Spotlight’s Virtual Reality Platform received the Ub Iwerks Award for technical achievement. Documentary “Life, Animated” was honored with a Special Achievement Award. The June Foray Award for benevolence in the animation community went to to Bill & Sue Kroyer. Certificates of merit were given to ASIFA-Hollywood volunteer coordinator Leslie Ezeh and ASIFA-Hollywood office manager Gary Perkovac.

By Hossein Kebriaeizadeh

Due to historical, cultural and political reasons, relations among countries in the Middle East are bugged with numerous and a diversified set of differences as well as ethnic, religious, racial and other tensions. One of those deep-rooted tensions is the existing differences between Iran and Arab countries in the Middle East part of which, of course, stems from the Sykes-Picot Agreement and another part has its root in bygone past.

In order to allay these differences, Iran’s Islamic Culture and Relations Organization, as the authority in charge of cultural relations between the Islamic Republic and other countries, organized the first round of dialog between Iran and the Arab world through a meeting held in cooperation with a set of prominent academic centers and institutions in Iran and the Middle East. By doing this, the organization intended to boost the role played by the elite and thinkers on both sides in order to pave the way for the assessment of the existing challenges with the goal of developing cultural relations and resolving those challenges.

The current formula for dialog between the two sides was drawn up and implemented at a time that the United States, under its new President Donald Trump, and the UK, under Prime Minister Theresa May, have been practically launching a new round of Iranophobia in the Middle East regardless of sensitive conditions that currently govern the region.

The meeting, which was attended by 85 scholars from various countries in the Arab world, was organized by people, who believed that dialog is the sole effective solution to existing differences and maintained that elites on both sides will more easily commit to necessity of dialog. As a result, they argued that this formula would enable all countries to live more comfortably in a common geographical expanse.

It must be noted that the background of relations between the two sides goes back to three centuries before the advent of Islam and they still consider dialog as an effective strategy, which has reliable social and cultural grounds, in order to promote peace and stability in the region and, of course, overcome all forms of extremism.

This is why Iranian leaders, in a bid to attract attention of leaders of the Arab world and regional nations, have been frequently pointing to the concept of reviving the growth of the Islamic civilization, and achieving this goal needs establishment of rational, philosophical, ethical, scientific and artistic relations between the two sides. History also attests to this fact showing what logical relationship existed between Iranians and Arabs during the middle of the seventh and through the eighth centuries A.D., which allowed for the Islamic civilization to thrive.

Although conditions have basically changed during the 21st century, the two sides can still define major components of their identity, at least at the level of their scholars, in a two-way manner free from common conflicts. By doing this, they will be able to replaced convergent approaches for divergent approaches that are based on ethnic, racial and other differences.

Although some people believe that tension between Iran and some Arab countries has reached such a high level that it is impossible to do away with it over short or medium terms, a review of history of relations between the two sides would reveal that similar conditions governed the two sides’ relations under the rule of the Umayyad caliphs. However, under their predecessors, the Abbasid Caliphate, Iranian and Arab elites emerged and started effective interaction, which brought about conditions quite different from what existed under the Umayyad rule. The result of that change was evident in the form of a clear civilizational progress in the Islamic world. Believing in these changes could be the first positive step that can be taken through interactive meetings based on dialog. In the meantime, offering an unbiased reading of history without focusing on challenging points can add to the number of convergent factors and cause, at least, the two sides’ elites to overcome factors that cause divergence.

Meanwhile, due to West’s colonialist policies, Iran needs continued relations with these countries in order to fill the existing information gaps about goals and regional policies of the Islamic Revolution and to remove ambiguity about Shia Islam and introduce dignified culture of Iran. In doing this, Iran should avoid condescending or seasonal approaches and take advantage of all its material and spiritual capacities.

It is clear that Iran’s task for creating and establishing relations with Arab countries would not be easy in view of the existing suspicions that surround relations between the two sides. In order to achieve its goal, Iran is faced with limitations removal of which would need bilateral and multilateral efforts along with Arab countries.

Unlike the seventh and eighth centuries in which relations among countries were based on political elites and scholars and pivoted around suitable governance, at present, grounds and networks for contacts between some Arab and Persian elites are not provided due to policies adopted by Arab countries. Absence of common academic circles, existence of conflicting approaches adopted by think tanks, and absence of friendship associations as major pivots of cultural and public diplomacy are among barriers on the way of bolstering relations among the two sides’ elites.

On the other hand, despite the past history, Iran is currently not faced with a single Arab world. There are various Arab worlds today each of which needs different planning and grouping and, of course, a different formula for interaction.

Absence of a common language is another limitation faced by Iran in its bid to establish contacts with elites from the Arab world. While Iran keeps stressing the need to revive Islamic civilization and indigenous development models, this issue is not of much importance to Arabs and they mostly believe in Western models of development.

Existence of divergence factors on both sides and in nations, which are committed to conflicting identity elements that are against each other, is another factor restricting this bilateral dialog. Such divergent behaviors, which are a result of politicization of culture on both sides, can reduce the lasting effect of dialog.

Despite all these limitations, a history of relations, which date back to 1,400 years ago, common geography, common religious and language commonalities, and most importantly, the age of communications in which access to culture of all societies is unbridled and easy, all give rise to new hopes about holding of future successful meetings for promoting dialog between Iran and the Arab world.

By Thomas J. Shattuck*

(FPRI) — Last week, Secretary of Defense James Mattis made his first official foreign visit as a member of the Trump administration. It was also the first overseas visit by any member of the new cabinet. The new Defense Secretary spent time in both South Korea and Japan, two of America’s most important allies in Asia. The choice of these two countries was deliberate: both countries are needed to help contain the nuclear threat of North Korea, and Japan is facing an encroaching Chinese presence in the East China Sea. Mattis’ goal was to reassure Seoul—which is currently facing a full-blown political crisis—and Tokyo of American commitments to their security.

Despite Trump’s rhetoric during the campaign about certain allies not pulling their weight, as president, he must now work with these two countries to keep the region stable. The trip could be described as quite successful. Mattis reaffirmed American commitments to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system (THAAD), a missile defense system that could protect South Korea from a potential attack by North Korea. His comments about U.S. commitments were clear: “Any attack on the United States or on our allies will be defeated and any use of nuclear weapons will be met with a response that will be effective and overwhelming.” That’s about as stalwart of a commitment or reassurance as any country can get. The secretary’s visit to Japan struck similar tones. In a joint press conference with Tomomi Inada, the Defense Minister of Japan, Mattis specifically mentioned U.S. policy toward  islands that both Japan and China claim sovereignty over: “I made clear that our long-standing policy on the Senkaku Islands stands — the US will continue to recognize Japanese administration of the islands and as such Article 5 of the US-Japan Security Treaty applies.” Article 5 “recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes” If the U.S. recognizes Japanese sovereignty over these islands, then the U.S. would have to use force to defend the Japanese territory if the Chinese attacked in some way.

While Mattis reaffirmed American commitments to both countries, China expressed concern and outrage over his comments in both South Korea and Japan over THAAD and the Senkaku Islands. In regards to THAAD, China believes its implementation would “undermine the strategic security interests of regional countries including China, disrupt regional strategic balance, and help in no way peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.” The Chinese see THAAD as not limited to containing the North Korean threat. THAAD potentially could be used to take out or track Chinese missiles in the region. The United States and South Korea are not likely to heed Chinese complaints. China released a statement challenging Mattis’ remarks about U.S. commitment to Japanese sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands: “Diaoyu [the Chinese name for the Senkaku Islands] and its affiliated islands have been Chinese territory since ancient times. These are historical facts that cannot be changed. The so-called US-Japan security treaty was a product of the Cold War, and it should not harm China’s territorial sovereignty and legitimate rights.” This statement is nothing new, and the issue will not go away any time soon, so it is important to Japan to receive such unwavering reassurance from the United States.

As China continues to contest sovereignty over islands in the East China Sea and the South China Sea and build artificial islands in the South China Sea, it is necessary not just for Asian nations to receive American reassurances of support, but also for the United States to continually and explicitly express its commitment to maintaining a major role in the region, especially with the transition between administrations. China will likely attempt to take advantage of the Trump administration while it is still getting its feet on the ground and begins to formulate Asia policy. Having Secretary Mattis make a trip to South Korea two weeks into the new administration demonstrates continued understanding of America’s role in keeping the Asia-Pacific region stable. While the Defense Secretary offered firm reassurances to both nations, Mattis also expressed hesitation to escalate beyond the status quo. In Japan, he also noted that the administration does not “see any need for dramatic military moves” and that both the U.S. and China should “exhaust all diplomatic efforts to try and resolve this properly and maintain open lines of communication.”

Unfortunately, other cabinet members and advisors have made troubling remarks about the region and U.S.-China relations. Though Mattis made the most recent of statements in regards to U.S. policy towards Asia, in the very recent past, other people in the administration have made remarks that undercut and conflict with what Mattis said. During his confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, “Building islands and then putting military assets on those islands is akin to Russia’s taking of Crimea. Its taking of territory that others lay claim to. . . .We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands also not going to be allowed.” Such a policy would be a dramatic change from previous administrations. In December 2016, it was revealed that China had installed anti-aircraft and other weapons systems on its artificial islands in the South China Sea. If the United States were to adopt Tillerson’s policy of denial of entry, then confrontation of some sort will likely erupt since China has a significant military presence on its islands. Is the Trump administration willing to risk war to prevent China from doing what it has already done for years? What positive outcome can the new administration expect by adopting such a policy? It is especially unnerving because a Chinese official at the Central Military Commission noted that “A war within the president’s term’ or ‘war breaking out tonight’ are not just slogans, they are becoming a practical reality.”

Moreover, in March 2016, Steve Bannon, President Trump’s chief strategist and now a member of the National Security Council, remarked that war between the United States and China in the South China Sea is inevitable: “We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years, aren’t we? . . . There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face — and you understand how important face is — and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.” Although Bannon’s remark predated his joining the Trump campaign in August 2016, it is dangerous for a key member of the Trump administration to have such hawkish views on China. With Bannon in the White House and influencing national security policy, such an opinion could become a self-fulfilling prophecy: Bannon thinks war is inevitable, so he purposefully or accidentally makes it so.

Different members of the administration have made conflicting statements about China and the Asia-Pacific region in general. Is diplomacy possible or not? Is war inevitable? Will the United States needlessly antagonize China? What are Japan and South Korea supposed to believe is the prevailing opinion or policy stance of the Trump administration? It appears that the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.  As Mattis was visiting Asia, the news broke about Bannon’s previous statements. Can U.S. allies in Asia count on Mattis’ reassurances and commitments? Now that Tillerson has been confirmed as Secretary of State, we must hope that he listens to his diplomats—and Secretary Mattis—and does not advocate for such an aggressive stance in the South China Sea. Branding China as the enemy this early in the administration limits how the United States can cooperate with China on important issues, including the nuclear threat from North Korea. What the United States and its allies can hope for is that Secretary Mattis’ reserved and cautious approach prevails.

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

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

By Jim Baer*

The United Kingdom and Argentina have argued about the sovereignty of the Falkland island archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean for more than one hundred and eighty years. The British-dominated territory is known as the Islas Malvinas in Argentina. For most of the period of dispute the two nations have argued and negotiated over the status of the islands. However, in April 1982 the Argentine military, which had ruled the country as a repressive dictatorship, suddenly invaded the islands, leading to a war that lasted until June of that year with a loss of approximately nine hundred lives.

In response, the U.K. granted the residents of the islands, known informally as Kelpers, greater protection and some local autonomy to counter Argentine claims that the islands were a colony. After the fall of the Argentine military regime, subsequent governments in Buenos Aires have peacefully insisted on new negotiations to resolve the issue.

Now, with the advent of Brexit, a term describing the process of British disengagement from the European Union, there is a renewed focus on the islands’ status by locals, British politicians and Argentine leaders.

One member of the local island government, Michael Poole, was quoted in the London Daily Mail before the June 2016 referendum on whether the U.K. should break ties with the EU. “If there is a decision to leave, if we suddenly lost that tariff free and quota free access to that major market then that could be catastrophic,” he said.[i]

There are two main reasons for Kelpers to fear Brexit. First, the economy of the islands depends heavily on exports to Europe, especially Spain and Italy. As long as the U.K. is part of the EU, goods and commodities from the Falkland Islands can be exported to Europe as part of a single market, with no tariffs or restrictions. Once the U.K. exits the EU, these products will lose their trade advantage. Approximately 60% of the islands’ income comes from exports of fish, bringing in more than 100 million U.S. dollars each year. If this market is reduced or lost, the islands economy will suffer. There are other elements of the local economy that will not be affected so severely. Meat and wool exports are not as heavily concentrated in the EU. It should be noted that tourism does not rely on EU membership. Nevertheless, Brexit will pose serious problems for the island economy and the process of British withdrawal is full of uncertainty.

The other fear among Kelpers is for their security as a British territory. By far the majority of the 2,000 island residents wish to remain British citizens, and they appreciate the expense born by the U.K. for their defense. In 2012 Business Insider magazine estimated that the cost of defending the Falkland/Malvinas was a staggering 96 million U.S. dollars per year, or roughly 31,000 dollars per person.[ii] So far, British politicians are willing to bear the expense for largely symbolic reasons. However, if Brexit noticeably weakens the British economy, these defense costs may be reviewed, and that gives concern to island residents.

The second area of tension over Brexit is related to maintaining island security. Gavin Short, a Falkland Islands lawmaker, has expressed concern that the government of Argentina may try to exploit the support it has received from some EU members over the issue of sovereignty. The Spanish government has consistently criticized the U.K. over Gibraltar, and that territory is also in the middle of the Brexit issue. In early 2016 the Spanish foreign ministry stated that Spain “shares in the calls of Argentine government for the United Kingdom to return the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) to Argentina.”[iii]  In 2013 a member of the European Parliament (MEP) and head of the EU delegation, Yañez Barnuevo, affirmed that for the European Parliament “British sovereignty over the (Malvinas) Islands as such, is not accepted”.[iv]

Argentine president, Mauricio Macri, stated that Brexit will not change the claim his country has for the islands, but insists that he will pursue negotiations peacefully on the issue. [v] This does not entirely satisfy Kelpers or British politicians who feel that circumstances surrounding Brexit could challenge Britain’s hold on the islands as its citizens search out new economic opportunities with Mercosur, a free trade area encompassing much of South America. As a Mercosur member, Argentina may seek to increase economic ties to the islands, weakening British control.

It is too early to determine the long-term impact of Brexit on the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas, as the United Nations has termed the territory. The Kelpers face uncertainty about their future economic ties with the EU and their relationship with Argentina. Brexit has initiated a period of fear as well as hope.

* Jim Baer, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[i]  “Brexit would be ‘catastrophic’ for the Falklands and could push the islanders closer to Argentina, warns top politician,” Daily Mail, January 17, 2017. Accessed January 27, 2017. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3451442/Brexit-catastrophic-Falklands-push-islanders-closer-Argentina-warns-politician.html

[ii] “The UK’s Defense Of The Falkland Islands Costs A Staggering Amount Per Islander,” Business Insider, February 14, 2012. Accessed January 27, 2017. http://www.businessinsider.com/falkland-islands-cost-2012-2

[iii] “Spain voices support for Argentina’s claim over Falkland Islands,” Latin Correspondent, January 7, 2016. Accessed January 27, 2017. http://latincorrespondent.com/2016/01/spain-voices-support-for-argentinas-claim-over-the-falkland-islands/

[iv] “Falkland Islands: ‘British sovereignty over the Islands as such, is not accepted by the European Parliament,’” MercoPress, May 6, 2013. Accessed January 27, 2017. http://en.mercopress.com/2013/05/06/falkland-islands-british-sovereignty-over-the-islands-as-such-is-not-accepted-by-the-european-parliament

[v] “Macri insists in Brussels: ‘Brexit or not, our Malvinas claim will never change,’” MercoPress, July 5, 2016. Accessed January 27, 2017. http://en.mercopress.com/2016/07/05/macri-insists-in-brussels-brexit-or-not-our-malvinas-claim-will-never-change

The scale of violence against the Rohingya community in Myanmar’s Rakhine state documented in a recent United Nations human rights report is a level of dehumanization and cruelty that is “revolting and unacceptable,” the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide said Monday, underlining the Government’s responsibility to ensure that populations are protected.

In a statement, Special Adviser Adama Dieng said the flash report issued last week by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) gave further credibility to allegations that security forces were committing serious human rights violations against civilians in northern Rakhine state from the very beginning of the recent escalation of violence, which was precipitated by attacks on border posts in early October 2016 and the ensuing operations by those forces.

According to the findings contained in the OHCHR report, human rights violations committed by the security forces include mass gang-rape, extra-judicial killings – including of babies and young children, brutal beatings and disappearances.

“If people are being persecuted based on their identity and killed, tortured, raped and forcibly transferred in a widespread or systematic manner, this could amount to crimes against humanity, and in fact be the precursor of other egregious international crimes,” said Mr. Dieng.

“This must stop right now!” he declared.

Current panel not a credible option to carry out new investigation

Mr. Dieng also expressed concern that the commission previously appointed by the Government to investigate the allegations and which, despite having unhindered access to the region, found no evidence, or insufficient evidence, of any wrongdoing by Government forces.

“[However,] OHCHR, which was not given access to the area, found an overwhelming number of testimonies and other forms of evidence through interviews with refugees who had fled to a neighbouring country,” the Special Adviser added. “The existing Commission is not a credible option to undertake the new investigation.”

“I urge that any investigation be conducted by a truly independent and impartial body that includes international observers,” he noted, welcoming the Government’s commitment to open an immediate probe.

“If the Government wants the international community and regional actors to believe in their willingness to resolve the matter, they must act responsibly and demonstrate their sincerity,” Mr. Dieng said.

“There is no more time to wait. All of this is happening against the background of very deeply rooted and long-standing discriminatory practices and policies against the Rohingya Muslims and a failure to put in place conditions that would support peaceful coexistence among the different communities in Rakhine state,” he concluded.

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

Teams led by the vice-presidents of the Social Democratic Union, SDSM, and the Democratic Union for integration, DUI, met on Monday in Skopje to resume talks on forming an opposition-led government in Macedonia.

After the talks with the SDSM, DUI vice-president Teuta Arifi briefly told media that they had been “constructive” and would continue.

A source from within the SDSM told BIRN under condition of anonymity that they hoped the ongoing talks would end with a coalition agreement.

“Talks with the DUI at all levels are ongoing and we are very hopeful they will result in an agreement. But we decided not to feed any speculation until we have something solid that we can present,” the source told BIRN on Monday.

Over the weekend, media speculation suggested a deal on forming an SDSM-led government could be expected within days. News outlet 24vesti TV cited an unnamed source from the SDSM as saying that they expected to receive support from the DUI by Tuesday.

Some media outlets also cited unnamed sources as saying that the main point of discussion between the DUI and the SDSM was only whether to immediately send the list of MPs’ signatures confirming a majority to parliament, or wait until all open issues between the two parties had been ironed out.

According to these reports, the SDSM has in principle accepted most of the demands contained in the so-called “Albanian platform”, but the modalities for their implementation are still up for discussion.

“The talks are now in a very delicate phase,” the SDSM source told BIRN.

The so-called Albanian platform reached between all the main ethnic Albanian parties in Macedonia after the December 11 election focuses on demands for improvement of the political, economic and lingustic rights of the community in Macedonia.

The DUI has also stayed silent about the talks during the past couple of days.

Last weekend, the DUI leader Ali Ahmeti told Albania’s Top Channel TV that he had “not reached a definitive decision on a coalition with the SDSM as yet”.

All options, including a renewed alliance with the DUI’s former government partner, VMRO DPMNE, remained open, he added.

Xhelan Neziri, from the Center for Investigative Journalism SCOOP-Macedonia, says the chances of an alliance between the SDSM and DUI are realistic if they engage in honest talks.

“Such a coalition is possible because the two main points that the DUI insists on as non-negotiable – extension of the mandate of the Special Prosecution, SJO, and the wider use of the Albanian language – pose no problem for the SDSM.

“I have the impression that the SDSM is primarily interested in the SJO, but at the same time this party came out with election promises and a readiness to close all issues that produce ethnic tension in Macedonia,” he told Deutsche Welle on Monday.

The SDSM started talks on forming a government last week after their bitter rivals in Nikola Gruevski’s VMRO DPMNE failed to meet the deadline to form a government.

President Ivanov then decided not to give the mandate to the opposition straight away but said he wanted proof of a parliamentary majority before handing any party or alliance a mandate to form a government.

In the December 11 elections, VMRO DPMNE won 51 of the 120 seats in parliament, while the SDSM won 49.

Either side needs the support of at least 61 MPs to have a majority. This makes both parties dependent on the support of ethnic Albanian parties who together control 20 seats.

The Albanian opposition Besa party and the DPA – Movement for Reforms, who together control eight seats, last week said they would back a SDSM-led government.

But decisive support from the DUI, which controls ten seats, is still lacking.

It had been hoped that the December 11 elections would resolve a prolonged political crisis that revolves around opposition claims that as Prime Minister, Gruevski illegally wiretapped thousands of people.

The claims emerged from tapes revealed by the SDSM in 2015. Gruevski says foreign intelligence services gave the wiretaps to the opposition in order to destabilize the country.
– See more at: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/secrecy-shrouds-macedonia-govt-talks-02-06-2017#sthash.WOrXFuel.dpuf

By Michael Bowman

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking Senate vote Tuesday to confirm President Donald Trump’s education secretary nominee, Betsy DeVos. It was the first time in American history that a vice president has been needed to get a Cabinet pick approved.

Two Republicans voted with a united Democratic caucus in opposition to DeVos, a champion of allowing families to use public school funds to send their children to private schools, resulting in a 50-50 split before Pence cast the deciding vote as the Constitution mandates when the chamber is evenly divided.

“She [DeVos] will be an excellent education secretary,” said Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who served as President George H.W. Bush’s education secretary in the early 1990s. He argued that the school-choice initiative DeVos supports will bring competition to public education and put lower-income students on a more equal footing with those from well-to-do families.

“The idea that a low-income child should have the same opportunity [to go to a private school] that a wealthy family has would seem to me to be a very all-American idea,” the senator said.

“She [DeVos] is committed to improving our education system so that every child, every child has a brighter future,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.

Vice President Mike Pence presides over the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 7, 2017, during the Senate’s vote on Education Secretary-designate Betsy DeVos.

Democrats held the Senate floor for 24 consecutive hours ahead of the vote to argue against the education nominee and plead for at least one more Republican to join them in opposing her.

“Public education, from the very beginning of this country, has been at the root of that American idea that you can succeed despite any barriers of circumstance or birth,” said Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who noted that DeVos has described public schools as a “dead end” for many students.

“When you say that pubic schools are a dead end and then, as Ms. DeVos has, spend your entire career trying to empty out public schools and put kids into private schools, it hurts,” Murphy said, adding that he attended public schools in his youth. “Public education wasn’t a dead end for me – I get to be a United States senator.”

A wealthy businesswoman, DeVos has never been a teacher or a school administrator. During her Senate confirmation hearing, she said that guns might be needed at some remote schools to ward off grizzly bears, prompting expressions of disbelief and scorn from Democrats.

DeVos joins just four other Trump Cabinet nominees confirmed to their posts.

“More than two weeks into his term, President Trump has the fewest Cabinet secretaries confirmed at this point than any other president since George Washington,” McConnell complained. “The president deserves to have his Cabinet in place.”

Democrats are making no apologies for attempts to slow or derail Trump nominees.

“These are very exceptional times and they call for exceptional tactics, and probably [there will be] a few more exceptional moments on the floor of the Senate,” said Murphy.

It is often not fully understood just how ignorant most US Representatives are when it comes to the finer details of foreign policy. Members get their news from an even narrower pool of information than many Americans, who are by and large abandoning the mainstream media. They read the Washington Post or they rely on their staffers, who read the Washington Post. Most Members enjoy being considered experts in the issues upon which they are voting, but the fact is they are very poorly informed.

However, there are gradations of moderately badly informed to “whaaat??!?? Did she really say that???” badly informed.

Those are the murky waters we often navigate when we sample the wit and wisdom of Rep. Maxine Waters, a 13 term Democrat from Los Angeles.

In a press conference last Friday, Rep. Waters did not disappoint. Asked by the media why she called for the impeachment of President Trump when he has not yet been a month in office, Rep. Waters replied, “I am not calling for the impeachment yet. He’s doing it himself.”

She continued:

Let me just say the statement I made was a statement in response to questions and pleas that I am getting from many citizens across this country. What are we going to do? How can a president, who is acting in the manner that he’s acting, whether he’s talking about the travel ban, the way that he’s talking to Muslims, or whether he’s talking about his relationship to Putin, and the Kremlin — and knowing that they have hacked our D-triple-C  — DNC, and knowing that he is responsible for supplying the bombs that killed innocent children and families in, um – in, um– yeah, in Aleppo.

And the fact that he is wrapping his arms around Putin while Putin is continuing to advance into Korea — I think that he is leading himself into that kind of position where folks will begin to ask, what are we going to do? And the answer is going to be, eventually, we’ve got to do something about him. We cannot continue to have a president who’s acting in this manner.  It’s dangerous to the United States of America.

Watching the video, the word “Aleppo” was thrown at her from the press corps when she couldn’t remember where she was (falsely) accusing Putin of killing innocent women and children.

But what was a real attention-getter was her accusation that President Trump must be impeached because President Putin invaded Korea. The conspiracy theorists angry about Hillary’s loss have invented all manner of bizarre explanations accusing Putin of masterminding the Trump victory, but thus far no one has accused Putin of invading Korea.

She meant “Crimea” you might say. Don’t be so sure. Members should be given a blank map whenever they talk with presumed authority about anywhere abroad. They should be forced to find the place they are about to start talking about before the microphone is switched on. If they can’t, they shouldn’t.

Watch for yourself:

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

“You’ve seen what happened in Paris and Nice. All over Europe it’s happening. It’s gotten to a point where it’s not even being reported,” Trump told military leaders and troops during his first visit as president to U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla.

“And in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it. They have their reasons and you understand that.” — USA Today

The White House then followed up with “evidence” to prove Trump’s point — a list of terrorist attacks that the media deliberately failed to adequately report.

The list includes Amedy Coulibaly’s attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris (Wall Street Journal, USA Today, CNN, Huffington Post, New York Daily News, New York Times, Fox News etc).

In fairness to Trump, media coverage of the supermarket attack was indeed overshadowed by coverage of the Charlie Hebdo shooting (with which it was connected) that happened two days earlier.

It’s possible Trump feels like that attack, in which three times as many people were killed, got too much coverage since the victims were mostly journalists. Does Trump mourn the deaths of people who he despises and denigrates every day? Surely not.

Moving down the list we come to another attack in Paris — this one occurred in November 2015 resulting in 129 deaths and 400 wounded.

When Trump says “you’ve seen what happened in Paris,” this is the attack he’s referring to… the one we’ve “seen”… on media reports… lots of them — but apparently not enough for Trump.

It’s hard not to wonder whether, more than two weeks into his presidency, Trump is disappointed that there has yet to be a major act of terrorism in the United States.

The only attack that has taken place is one that has indeed received inadequate attention both from the U.S. media and Trump himself: the Quebec City mosque massacre carried out by Trump/Le Pen supporter, Alexandre Bissonnette.

In spite of the criticism Trump has faced as a result of the chaotic nature of his first days in office, he and those around him have remained resolute and focused on promoting terrorism.

It is surely just a matter of time before Trump declares to those gathered in excitement around him: “this is what we’ve been waiting for.”

The new Trump administration has made the eradication of “radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth” a policy priority. However such terminology reveals a flawed understanding of the true nature of the ongoing transnational terrorist threat.

By Kumar Ramakrishna*

New US President Donald J. Trump has made it very clear that a central focus of his tenure will be, in his own words, to “eradicate radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth”. In adopting such rhetoric Trump has gone further than Barack Obama and George W. Bush, his immediate predecessors. Both took care to avoid associating Islam with the terrorist threat posed by the likes of Al Qaeda and later the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). That Trump means business was illustrated by the attack by US Navy Seals on 28 January 2017 on the Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) network in Yemen, in which 14 militants were reportedly killed, along with an American soldier.

The raid demonstrated that Trump not only has ISIS in his crosshairs; other terrorist networks with transnational reach such as AQAP – which was implicated in the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris two years ago – are being targeted as well. In keeping with a campaign promise, Trump has given the Pentagon 30 days to come up with a strategy for defeating ISIS. Trump even mentioned that he has an “extremely tough secret plan” to defeat ISIS that will “knock the hell out of them”. When such a plan does materialise, it will likely be one in which military force will play the dominant role in the ongoing struggle against “radical Islamic terrorism”. But how effective will it be?

The Metastasising Threat

Since the Twin Towers tumbled, transnational terrorism remains a concern and has even metastasised. A 2016 study by the US-based Investigative Project on Terrorism showed that in the five years after September 11 there was an annual average of 2,508 terrorism-related deaths globally. In the following five years till 2011, another 3,284 were killed annually. By 2013, the annual terrorist death average had tripled to 9,537 and another two years on, that number tripled yet again, hitting an unprecedented 28,708 annually.

The study attributed this exponential rise to the fact that more terror groups ideologically similar to Al Qaeda have emerged in the Middle East and Africa. Moreover, ISIS – a particularly brutal offshoot of Al Qaeda – has itself expanded its influence in the Middle East, Africa and even Southeast Asia. Thanks to the emergence of cheap smartphone technology and Internet broadband access, the rise of popular social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, WhatsApp and Telegram for instance, violent narratives of such terror networks have been enabled to fuel the rise of low-signature lone wolf attacks over and above the residual threat from established terrorist networks.

Against this backdrop, the Trump administration’s designation of “radical Islamic terrorism” as the threat and the likely emphasis on a largely militarised strategy targeting it, is unlikely to be an optimal response. There is a need to unpack the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” itself to gain deeper insights into this matter.

Problematic Assumptions Underlying “Radical Islamic Terrorism”

Firstly, the phrase “radical” needs re-examination. Terrorism scholar Alex Schmid suggests that an analytical distinction between “radical” and “extremist” is important. While radicals preach a root-and-branch transformation of society, they need not necessarily do so violently. They may be debated with and even won over to one’s side, such as the former British Hizbut Tahrir activists Maajid Nawaz and Ed Husain, who nowadays engage in the ideological counter-attack against the likes of ISIS with the needed familiarity and nuance.

Schmid reckons that it is rather the extremists – those activists who possess supremacist leanings twinned with ideological justifications for the violent seizure of power – that pose the real threat. They should never be negotiated with, and the full force of the law should be applied against them. Anjem Choudary in the United Kingdom and Aman Abdurrahman in Indonesia are examples of such extremists in recent times.

Secondly, use of the term “Islamic” is unhelpful. Islam the religion is not the problem. It is the power-driven, organised violent Islamists who are. Technically therefore the Trump administration should be targeting Islamism and not Islam. At the moment, though, ambiguity seems rife. While some senior officials have apparently identified the religion itself, rather mistakenly, as a “cancer”, others argue the real problem is “enemy doctrines” and the “ideology”.

Whatever the case, semantic ambiguity is problematic. It can influence policy – such as the highly controversial travel ban affecting citizens from seven Middle Eastern countries – that unwittingly suggests that all Muslims are the enemy. The impression of Islamophobia encouraged by such heavy-handed policy measures is highly counterproductive. It merely reinforces the violent Islamist narrative that the US and its allies are indeed at war with the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims, the vast majority of whom reject the invidious supremacist goals that animate Al Qaeda and ISIS networks.

Thirdly, the term “terrorism” seems rather narrow. The administration appears aware that it is not just the physical networks but the “enemy doctrines” driving them that are of concern. Terror cells and extremist Islamist ideology aside, what terrorism scholar Scott Atran calls the “passive infrastructure” or the supporting ecosystem of Islamist extremism should also be targeted.

Hence closer intelligence co-operation with precisely those “countries of concern” on whose citizens the travel ban has been imposed, remains critical. These national jurisdictions should be mapped much more granularly to identify specific smaller “communities of concern”. They are where extremist ideology – for historical, socio-economic and political reasons – have incubated within closed networks of individuals, educational institutions, places of worship and other social spaces.

In turn this suggests that military force mounted by any additional “boots on the ground” must be closely calibrated and integrated with political, socio-economic, educational and counter-ideological efforts. This should be done in partnership with local communities, businesses, municipalities and other relevant stakeholders, customised to each specific locale. This entails hard work and resources, but really, that is the only sustainable way to “eradicate” the threat.

The Real Enemy: Extremist Islamist Ecosystems

In short, the term “radical Islamic terrorism”, while perhaps a pithy sound bite, is nevertheless not optimal policy-wise. While the Trump administration is energetically engaging with this issue, what it really should be targeting is more precisely termed “extremist Islamist ecosystems”. Furthermore, rather than raw military power alone, a judicious and customised use of hard and soft power – “smart power” if you like, remains the way forward.

If 16 years of the struggle against extremist Islamist terror networks have taught us anything, it is that no “secret plan” based largely on military force can bomb them into oblivion. They will merely mutate into something else. Sun Tzu’s ancient adage thus remains as pertinent as ever: “Let us fight with wisdom, and not just force alone”.

*Kumar Ramakrishna is Associate Professor, Head of Policy Studies and Coordinator of the National Security Studies Programme in the Office of the Executive Deputy Chairman, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Around thirty police officers were injured in the north Moroccan town of al-Hoceima on Monday, after tear gas and rubber bullets were deployed against thousands of mostly young men.

The police closed down all roads entering into the small town after a memorial event for Rif nationalist, Mohammad ben Abd al-Karim al-Khattabi, erupted into violence.

Dozens of flags representing the local minority Berber (Amazigh) population and the independent Rif Republic state were visible in the crowd.

Interior Minister Mohamed Hassad held emergency talks with security chiefs in Rabat in response to the protests.

The town has witnessed a number of similar protests break out since the death of the fishmonger, Mohsen Fikri in October.

The local political party, Popular Movement, which organised the protests via social media has expressed feelings of frustration against the authorities in Rabat, who have imposed martial rule on the minority Amazigh population.

A leader of the Popular Movement, Nasser Zafzafi, 37, was arrested by police on Sunday after protests became violent.

The protests come amid decades of economic under-development and a high rate of unemployment, especially among young people.

Original article

An international team led by researchers at Nagoya University, along with US and Swiss colleagues, has identified a new type of solar event and dated it to the year 5480 BC; they did this by measuring carbon-14 levels in tree rings, which reflect the effects of cosmic radiation on the atmosphere at the time. They have also proposed causes of this event, thereby extending knowledge of how the sun behaves.

When the activity of the sun changes, it has direct effects on the earth. For example, when the sun is relatively inactive, the amount of a type of carbon called carbon-14 increases in the earth’s atmosphere. Because carbon in the air is absorbed by trees, carbon-14 levels in tree rings actually reflect solar activity and unusual solar events in the past. The team took advantage of such a phenomenon by analyzing a specimen from a bristlecone pine tree, a species that can live for thousands of years, to look back deep into the history of the sun.

“We measured the 14C levels in the pine sample at three different laboratories in Japan, the US, and Switzerland, to ensure the reliability of our results,” A. J. Timothy Jull of the University of Arizona said. “We found a change in 14C that was more abrupt than any found previously, except for cosmic ray events in AD 775 and AD 994, and our use of annual data rather than data for each decade allowed us to pinpoint exactly when this occurred.”

The team attempted to develop an explanation for the anomalous solar activity data by comparing the features of the 14C change with those of other solar events known to have occurred over the last couple of millennia.

“Although this newly discovered event is more dramatic than others found to date, comparisons of the 14C data among them can help us to work out what happened to the sun at this time,” Fusa Miyake of Nagoya University said.

She added, “We think that a change in the magnetic activity of the sun along with a series of strong solar bursts, or a very weak sun, may have caused the unusual tree ring data.”

Although the poor understanding of the mechanisms behind unusual solar activity has hampered efforts to definitively explain the team’s findings, they hope that additional studies, such as telescopic findings of flares given off by other sun-like stars, could lead to an accurate explanation.

Starting today, Facebook, in conjunction with Google, will be blocking unsavory news from their platforms in France — thanks to the very generous and progressive assistance of 8 liberal news agencies — including the far left Le Monde. Having learned his lesson during the US elections, CEO Mark Zuckerberg wants to ensure the people of France only get to see the right news and information — generously shielding them from fake news and right wing disinformation campaigns — like global warming is a hoax.

Effective immediately, users will get to mark news articles they deem to be fake. Partners will pass judgment upon them and also get to tag them with an icon — all for the benefit of the 24 million idiot users in France who are, seemingly, unable to decipher the news themselves.

Similar projects are being launched in Germany and the United States — fettering out hoaxes and fake news — with the help of ultra left wing Snopes, ABC News and Associated Press.

It’s ‘their’ platform and can do with it as they like. If you do not like it, don’t use the platform.

A Saudi man, believed to be in his 40s, was captured by police as he was pouring gasoline on himself near the most sacred site in Islam, the Kaaba, just moments before he was able to set himself ablaze in a crowd full of pilgrims.

The footage of the dramatic incident, which unfolded on Monday evening, shows the Grand Mosque’s worshipers screaming in panic while several members of the public together with the security guards rounding up the man and restraining him.

While it is not clear what had triggered the suspect’s apparent attempt at self-inflammation, Saudi police said he appeared to be suffering from mental issues.

“He was held before he went on with his dramatic self-immolation act and his behavior indicates that he is mentally ill,” Major Sameh al-Salami, media spokesman for police, said in a statement on Tuesday, as cited by Press TV, adding that the appropriate legal action will be taken against him.

While the police have not shed much light on the possible motives of the suspect, they dismissed claims that the man had intended to inflict damage on the holy shrine.

Unconfirmed reports citing eyewitnesses said that the man aimed to set fire to Kiswah, a silk and gold curtain with embroidered verses from the Koran, which covers the Kaaba.

No group has immediately taken responsibility for the alleged attempt. Speculations pointed to a possible role of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), as the destruction of places of worship as well as cultural and historic sites is the group’s signature tactic.

Back in 2015, the terrorist group’s leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi encouraged his henchmen to destroy the historic monuments, calling such vandalism a “religious duty.” In a radical interpretation of Islam, imposed by IS, no objects, including stones, should be idolized.

The call was echoed by Islamist preacher from Kuwait, Ibrahim Al Kandari, who lamented that “early Muslims who were among prophet Mohammed’s followers did not destroy the pharaohs’ monuments upon entering the Egyptian soil,” adding that their mistake “does not mean that we shouldn’t do it now.”

The Kaaba is a cube-shaped structure, built around a black stone, whose origin is traced back to the ancient times of Adam and Eve. Every year, millions of Muslims set off to Mecca on a pilgrimage known as Hajj. The Hajj is considered to be one of the five pillars of Islam, and is mandatory for every Muslim to undertake for at least once in a lifetime.

US President Donald Trump’s recent Executive Order is attempting to close U.S. borders to citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, with the rationale that it would make Americans safer against the threat of terrorism. But new research from the University of Pennsylvania and Northwestern provides evidence that this action may do just the opposite.

The study, “Backlash: The Politics and Real-World Consequences of Minority Group Dehumanization,” looked at Americans’ dehumanization of Muslims and Mexican immigrants during the 2016 U.S. Republican Primaries, and the consequence that feeling dehumanized had on these minority groups.

In the study, the authors presented American participants with the popular ‘Ascent of Man’ diagram, and had each participant place groups of people where they thought they belonged on this scale, from the ape-like human ancestor (0) through modern human (100). They found that participants placed Muslims and Mexican immigrants significantly lower on the scale than Americans as a whole.

Even after controlling for conservative views and racial prejudice, the authors found that Americans who held dehumanizing views of Muslims or Mexican immigrants were also more likely to cast them in threatening terms, withhold sympathy for them and support tactics toward them like increased surveillance, restricted immigration and deportation.

Overall, support for Donald Trump, who was a candidate for President at the time the data were collected, was strongly correlated with dehumanization of both Muslims and Mexican immigrants. In fact, the correlation between dehumanization and Trump support was significantly stronger than the correlation between dehumanization and support for any of the other Democratic or Republican candidates.

Crucially, the researchers found that these dehumanizing perceptions had consequences. When they asked Latinos and Muslims to report how dehumanized they felt by Donald Trump, Republicans, and Americans in general, they found that perceived dehumanization (or ‘meta-dehumanization’) was high, and the greater this perception, the more inclined individuals were to support violent versus non-violent collective action. Muslims who felt dehumanized also were less willing to assist law enforcement in counterterrorism efforts.

“Feeling not only disliked, but dehumanized by another group has a profound effect on people,” said Emile Bruneau, PhD, the study’s co-author and Director of the Peace and Conflict Neuroscience Lab at the Annenberg School for Communication. “Our past work has shown that Americans who feel dehumanized by Iranians strongly oppose the Iran Nuclear deal and prefer instead to consider military options. It is no different for American Muslims.”

According to Bruneau and his co-author, Nour Kteily, PhD, of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern, dehumanization can establish a vicious cycle. “If we use rhetoric and enact policies that make Muslims feel dehumanized, this may lead them to support exactly the types of aggression that reinforce the perception that they are ‘less civilized’ than ‘us.’ In this way, dehumanization can become self-fulfilling in the minds of the dehumanizers and justify their aggression,” Bruneau said.

The authors also noted that American-born Muslims were more likely than foreign-born Muslims to respond to feeling dehumanized with hostility.

“Although speculative,” they write, “it may be that those who were born in the United States have a greater expectation than those born elsewhere (and who may not be U.S. citizens) that they will be treated by the rest of their society as fully human.”

According to the authors, dehumanizating views can lead to policies like the present immigration ban, but by making Muslims feel dehumanized, these policies increase the very danger against which they purport to safeguard.

The study was published in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

By Lisa Ferdinando

US Defense officials are concerned about the recent violence in eastern Ukraine, a Defense Department spokesman said Tuesday.

The violence has been largely centered around Avdiivka-Yasynuvata, Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, the director of defense press operations, told reporters at the Pentagon.

“We’re deeply concerned with the recent spike in violence in eastern Ukraine,” he said. “We reaffirm U.S. support for full implementation of the Minsk agreements and we continue to provide security assistance to Ukraine.”

Assistance for Ukraine

Davis pointed out the 2016 package of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine was $335 million. The training program is being conducted by about 350 U.S. soldiers in cooperation with other allies and partners, he said.

“We have a robust advisory effort to advance the implementation of key defense reforms and equipment to support the operational needs of Ukraine’s security forces,” he said.

“We do however continue to believe that there’s no military solution to the crisis and that the Minsk agreements are the only way to resolve the conflict peacefully,” he said.

“Our focus has been on supporting Ukraine and pursuing a durable diplomatic solution that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” he said.

Davis described the violence as the most significant flare up there since 2015.

“We’re troubled by it, we’ve taken note of it,” he said. “I can tell you what we haven’t seen is any sort of large-scale movement of Russian forces that would suggest that this is part of something bigger.”

Europeans will soon be able to fully use their online subscriptions to films, sports events, e-books, video games or music services when traveling within the EU, according to the agreement reached Tuesday by negotiators of the European Parliament, the Member States and the European Commission.

This is the first agreement related to the modernization on EU copyright rules as proposed by the Commission in the Digital Single Market strategy.

Vice-President in charge of the Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip welcomed the agreement, reached just one week after a deal on wholesale roaming charges.

“Today’s agreement will bring concrete benefits to Europeans. People who have subscribed to their favorite series, music and sports events at home will be able to enjoy them when they travel in Europe. This is a new important step in breaking down barriers in the Digital Single Market,” Ansip said, “Agreements are now needed on our other proposals to modernise EU copyright rules and ensure a wider access to creative content across borders. I count on the European Parliament and Member States to make it happen.”

Commissioner Tibor Navracsics, in charge of Education, Culture, Youth and Sport, said, “Digital technologies provide new opportunities to enjoy cultural content on the go, and people are eager to use them. Today’s agreement opens new doors to citizens while at the same time protecting creators and those investing in the production of cultural or sport content. This balanced solution is an encouraging sign for our efforts to build a Digital Single Market that offers new opportunities for both creators and consumers.”

The new portability rules will fit to new ways Europeans enjoy cultural and entertainment content. In 2016, 64% of Europeans used the internet to play or download games, images, films or music. They did it increasingly through mobile devices. In a survey carried out in 2015, one in three Europeans wanted cross-border portability. For young people, this possibility is even more important. Half of people aged between 15 and 39 years old thought that portability and accessing the service they subscribe to when traveling in Europe is important.

The future regulation will enable consumers to access their online content services when they travel in the EU the same way they access them at home. For instance, when a French consumer subscribes to Canal+ film and series online services, the user will be able to access films and series available in France when he or she goes on holidays to Croatia or for a business trip to Denmark.

The online content service providers like Netflix, MyTF1 or Spotify will verify the subscriber’s country of residence by using means such as payment details, the existence of an internet contract or by checking the IP address. All providers who offer paid online content services will have to follow the new rules. The services provided without payment (such as the online services of public TV or radio broadcasters) will have the possibility to decide to also provide portability to their subscribers.

The agreed text must now be formally confirmed by the Council of the EU and the European Parliament. Once adopted, the rules will become applicable in all EU Member States by beginning of 2018 as the Regulation grants providers and right holders a 9 month period to prepare for the application of the new rules.

Amid temperatures of -20°C people in Eastern Ukraine were cut off from electricity, heating and water after pro-Russian rebels broke the ceasefire and started shelling the area last week.

The European Parliament’s security and defence subcommittee discussed on Monday Russia’s influence in Ukraine and Southern Caucasus and how to react to it.

Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister for European and Euro-Atlantic integration, attended the meeting to talk about the latest deterioration of the situation in east Ukraine.

“The bell tolls for all of us,” she said. Tsintzade warned that the situation on the ground in the Avdiivka area of Donetsk province had turned into a humanitarian crisis due to intensified shelling combined with electricity outages and temperatures as low as -22°C.

Committee vice-chair Jaromír Štětina, a Czech member of the EPP group, said, “Those brave Ukrainians are not only defending their country, but all of us, because this is not a civil war. This is an attack on a sovereign state by another state.“

Ioan Mircea Pașcu, a Romanian member of the S&D group, referred to the current operation as, “political probing because militarily it does not make sense in the midst of winter.”

Committee members said they were convinced that Russia was testing to find out the reaction of the new US administration. Many of them called on the EU to ensure that the Minsk peace agreement was implemented and that sanctions against Russia would continue until then.

Petras Auštrevičius, a Lithuanian member of the ALDE group, said, “We should do everything to prevent this war turning into a frozen conflict.”

Some, however, questioned the viability of the Minsk agreement.

Rebecca Harms, a German member of the Greens, called for its re-assessment. “We are no closer to achieving that Ukraine has control of its borders,” Harms said.

Committee members agreed to initiate a Parliament resolution on the latest developments in Ukraine.

Georgia

Natalie Sabanadze, Georgian’s ambassador to the EU, discussed Moscow’s approach to neighboring countries.

“Russia’s attitude to the Southern Caucasus and the neighborhood is rooted in a very specific understanding of international system as an area of hostile international competition where its neighborhood should fulfill the function of a buffer zone,” Sabanadze said.

However, she stressed her country’s will to decide alone over its strategic orientation. “Georgia wants to do so not against Russia, but for Georgia,” Sabanadze said.

The European Parliament recognized Georgian reforms and its pro-European orientation when MEPs approved last week a visa waiver for Georgians so that they are able to enter the EU for short stays without needing a visa.

Strategy

During the meeting many discussed the implications of US president Donald Trump’s stance on Russia.

Herbert Salber, the EU’s special representative for the South Caucasus and for the crisis in Georgia, alluded to possible division of zones of interests in the region. “There is a lot of tension and a big elephant in the room,” he said, “But at this point we simply do not know.”

According to a Parliament study, Russia is ready to assert its role as a global centre of influence. The West, including the EU, is perceived as the major challenger to both Russia’s great power ambition and security.

Against this backdrop, the military and humanitarian situation in Crimea and eastern Ukraine will continue to be monitored closely. The EU’s economic sanctions against Russia, first introduced in July 2014, are due to be extended again in June and December of this year. Meanwhile France and Germany – the two EU countries involved in negotiating the Minsk agreement – face elections in 2017 and the results could affect their policies towards Russia and the broader EU strategy.

By Ghazanfar Ali Khan

The US diplomatic missions in Saudi Arabia announced that they have resumed processing existing visa applications and schedule appointments for new ones after a US federal court order effectively suspending the travel ban for citizens of Muslim-majority countries imposed by President Trump.

“The US Department of State had, under the executive order, provisionally revoked all valid visas of nationals of those seven countries, with limited exceptions. That provisional revocation is now lifted, and those visas are now valid for travel to the United States if the holder is otherwise eligible,” said Johann Schmonsees, a spokesman for the US embassy here, on Tuesday.

Schmonsees said that “individuals whose visas are expired, or were canceled, must apply for a new visa at a US embassy or consulate, absent a Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) decision to grant parole or waive the visa requirement at the port of entry.”

The applicants can submit their applications at the Riyadh-based US embassy or at the Jeddah-based US Consulate.

A statement posted by the US embassy on its website said that “we are working closely with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security and we will provide further updates as soon as information is available”.

“On Jan. 27, 2017, President Trump signed the ‘Executive Order 13769 on Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals,’ which directs us to review current screening procedures,” the statement added.

The statement further said that the US government’s screening and vetting procedures for visitors are constantly reviewed and refined to improve security and more effectively identify individuals who could pose a threat to the US.

“We welcome every opportunity to continue to review and improve our systems and procedures,” said the statement.

The US embassy, located in Riyadh in the Diplomatic Quarter, and the Jeddah consulate offer visa services from Sunday through Thursday.

The US diplomatic missions will be closed on Feb. 19, a holiday in the US, according to the US embassy website.

Trump’s order applied to Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, all Muslim-majority countries that the administration said raise terrorism concerns.

The US State Department said last week that as many as 60,000 foreigners from those seven countries had had their visas canceled.

The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) celebrates its 20th anniversary in June. BIMSTEC needs to engage in maritime security cooperation to meet the challenges of a changing strategic landscape.

By Rajni Gamage*

BIMSTEC, the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation, celebrates its 20th anniversary in June this year. It is well-positioned to engage in maritime security cooperation to face the challenges of a changing strategic and economic landscape.

Although BIMSTEC was initially established to tackle sub-regional economic and social development issues, its potential for sub-regional security cooperation has come to the fore in the past decade. While BIMSTEC started with six economic-related priority areas in 1998, security issues were included since the 8th Ministerial Meeting in 2005, including counter-terrorism, transnational crime, and disaster management.

Increased Profile of BIMSTEC

In October 2016, India hosted a joint BRICS-BIMSTEC Outreach Summit for the first time, effectively increasing BIMSTEC’s profile as a sub-regional economic and security organisation. A number of factors facilitate this increased profile and potential of BIMSTEC.

Firstly, the Bay of Bengal is increasing in economic and strategic significance. The sub-region is marked as a cockpit for economic growth, driven by the growing economies of India and Myanmar. It also lays claim to critical sea lines of communication for the transit of trade and energy supplies from the Middle East, Europe, and Africa to the economic powerhouses of East Asia.

Secondly, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has been moribund as a regional organisation. India has for some time been looking to engage more deeply with sub-regional initiatives that exclude Pakistan, its deadlock with the latter being a major impediment to the progress of SAARC. While a number of sub-regional groupings have emerged, such as SASEC (South Asia Sub regional Economic Cooperation), BIMSTEC stands out in being more comprehensive in its membership and comprising a good mix of coastal South Asian and Southeast Asian states.

Thirdly, the intensification of the India-China great power rivalry in the Indian Ocean Region provides greater impetus for India to engage more deeply with the Bay states so as to not lose out to China. The more recent issues of contention include border stand-offs and the strategic inroads made by China into India’s neighbouring states through defence ties and port development.

Foremost among these is the operationalisation of Pakistan’s Gwadar port (financed by interest-free Chinese loans) in November 2016, as part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the associated maritime security cooperation between the two navies.

BIMSTEC & Maritime Security Governance

The importance of maritime security governance is increasingly recognised by coastal and island states in the Bay of Bengal, which deal with similar threats, both traditional and non-traditional in nature. There is every likelihood of BIMSTEC becoming an instrument for sub-regional maritime security governance.

Recent economic and political developments within the member states augur well for the prospects of maritime security cooperation. These include India’s maritime-related domestic and foreign initiatives since 2014 (e.g., ‘Sagar Mala’, ‘Project Mausam’); and Myanmar’s ‘strategic realignment’ following internal political reforms since 2011.

Sri Lanka’s strategic ‘rebalance’ since 2015 (evident in its increased participation in regional maritime-related initiatives) and Bangladesh’s strong advocacy of the ‘blue economy’ in the recent past, alongside efforts towards naval modernisation within most of the Bay states, have also helped. Meanwhile, Thailand and India have held bilateral discussions on maritime security, trade, and connectivity in January 2017, while the former signed an MOU with Myanmar on the joint development of marine tourism in January this year.

Maritime Security Issues

There are a number of serious maritime security issues in the Bay of Bengal which require timely and coordinated responses. These include firstly, the 2015 Rohingya refugee crisis which saw thousands of ‘boat people’ being stranded on the Andaman Sea, and made vulnerable to recruitment by criminal networks, sea pirates, and Islamist militants. The Bay is also prone to some of the most severe natural disasters, incidents of sea piracy, and illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

At present, maritime security cooperation initiatives within the sub-region do not include all the coastal Bay states while including states from outside the sub-region – for instance, CORPAT exercises, Milan exercises, and the ‘IO 5’ grouping. It is the Bay states that have the largest stakes in their surrounding waters, and a sub-regional maritime security governance mechanism within BIMSTEC is essential.

Maritime security cooperation also provides BIMSTEC members an avenue for making inroads into Southeast Asia (or other sections of the Indian Ocean Region for Thailand and Myanmar). Recent statements made by leaders and officials from India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka all reflect the awareness that there is a need to break out of the confines of South Asia and to engage more deeply with the more prosperous countries to the East.

BIMSTEC’s key challenges in the past have been the lukewarm attitude of India, and the internal preoccupations and limited capabilities of member states towards regional instruments. With a changing strategic and economic landscape, coupled with increasing maritime security threats, BIMSTEC may be well-placed to become involved in and engaged with broader security cooperation among its member states.

*Rajni Gamage is a Senior Analyst in the Maritime Security Programme at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.