By Matt Hadro

A Washington state florist must pay fines and legal costs for conscientiously objecting to serving a same-sex wedding, as the state’s supreme court upheld a lower court’s decision on Thursday.

“It’s wrong for the state to force any citizen to support a particular view about marriage or anything else against their will. Freedom of speech and religion aren’t subject to the whim of a majority; they are constitutional guarantees,” Kristin Waggoner, senior counsel with the group Alliance Defending Freedom who argued the case before the Washington Supreme Court, stated Feb. 16.

“This case is about crushing dissent. In a free America, people with differing beliefs must have room to coexist,” she added.

In 2013, Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Wash., declined to serve the same-sex wedding of a long-time customer who had requested her service, citing her Christian religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman.

After hearing of the incident, the office of the state attorney general wrote her that she was violating the state’s law by discriminating on basis of “sexual orientation,” and asked her to stop declining such weddings. Stutzman refused out of conscience.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the state of Washington eventually sued her and a lower court ruled against her, ordering her to pay a fine and legal costs.

She appealed her case to the Washington State Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court’s desicion on Thursday, saying that as a business owner Stutzman had to abide by the state’s anti-discrimination law despite her religious beliefs.

“The State of Washington bars discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination based on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” the court’s opinion stated.

“We therefore hold that the conduct for which Stutzman was cited and fined in this case – refusing her commercially marketed wedding floral services to Ingersoll and Freed because theirs would be a same-sex wedding – constitutes sexual orientation discrimination under the WLAD.”

The law “does not compel speech or association,” the court added, stating that it “is a neutral, generally applicable law that serves our state government’s compelling interest in eradicating discrimination in public accommodations.”

Stutzman has announced that she will appeal her case to the U.S. Supreme Court. “We stand to lose everything we worked for and own,” she stated back in October, noting that legal fees from the case could top $2 million by the end of the case.

Religious freedom advocates decried the ruling.

Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said it “shortchanges our nation’s most fundamental freedom in favor of ideological conformity.”

With Stutzman facing the loss of her business and personal assets, “it’s no wonder that so many people are rightly calling on President Trump to sign an executive order to protect our religious freedom,” Waggoner stated.

“Because that freedom is clearly at risk for Barronelle and so many other Americans, and because no executive order can fix all of the threats to that freedom, we will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case and reverse this grave injustice.”

A growing number of people have expressed their concern about high levels of polarization in the society. For instance, the World Economic Forum’s report on global risks lists the increasing societal polarization as a threat – and others have suggested that social media might be contributing to this phenomenon. The article that received the best student-paper award in the Tenth International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM 2017) builds algorithmic techniques to mitigate the rising polarization by connecting people with opposing views – and evaluates them on Twitter.

The research models user interactions around a given topic such as US elections or Obamacare on Twitter as an endorsement graph, nodes representing the Twitter users. One commonly observed feature of such graphs is that, for controversial topics, the structure of the graph is strongly biclustered. The research suggests bridges between users of opposing sides, so as to effectively minimize the polarization. Bridges can be used to provide users with recommendations about who to retweet.

“We are the first to propose a thoroughly algorithmic solution, which can be applied on a large-scale and is language- and domain-independent. The main algorithm is based on the finding that for a special type of network simulating a polarized network, the best bridges we can add to the network are between the nodes with the highest degrees on either side,” explained professor Aristides Gionis from Aalto University Department of Computer Science.

Possible bridges in the case of US elections

Since the study deals with retweet networks, high-degree users usually are the ones who are well known and have many followers. In the case of US elections, the two sides would be the democrats and republicans and the highest degree users would be Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on either side, respectively.

It is not practical to recommend that Clinton would follow Trump, so even though in theory these are the best edges, they might not materialize in the real world.

“When applied on Twitter discussions around the US election results, the algorithm suggests that creating a bridge between @hillaryclinton and @breitbartnews would reduce polarization the most. However, taking into account how likely such a bridge is to materialize, the algorithm suggests that other bridges between less prominent Twitter accounts, for instance liberal journalist @mtracey and conservative activist @rightwingangel show better potential,” described researcher Kiran Garimella.

The research approach of Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis and Michael Mathioudakis performs better than existing ones, in terms of bringing the two sides closer.

Though earlier studies have tried to address the problem of how to recommend content to an ideologically opposite side, researchers of Aalto University, Helsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT and Qatar Computing Research Institute intend to move from who to what to recommend in their future studies.

What dimensions might create the most attractive lips in women? A new study published online by JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery used focus groups and morphed computed images to try to find out because established guidelines may help achieve optimal outcomes in lip augmentation.

In the study by Brian J.F. Wong, M.D., Ph.D., of the University of California, Irvine, and coauthors, faces of white women were ranked by attractiveness with varied lip surface areas created for the faces and upper to lower lip ratios manipulated.

As it turns out, lips with a 53.5 percent increase in surface area from the original image with a 1 to 2 ratio of upper to lower lip that make up about 10 percent of the lower third of the face were deemed to be the most attractive, according to the results.

The study noted limitations, including that because there is no established reference range for total lip surface area modification in the general population, the surface area percentage reduction and augmentation extremes in the morphed faces were generated based on clinical experience of what seemed to be feasible.

“We advocate preservation of the natural ratio or achieving a 1:2 ratio in lip augmentation procedures while avoiding the overfilled upper lip look frequently seen among celebrities,” the study concluded.

Recently, dietary guidelines for the general population have shifted towards a plant-based diet (rich in legumes, whole-grain cereals, fruits, vegetables and nuts) and low in animal-based foods (like red meat and pastries). Increasing evidence is suggesting that plant-based diets are beneficial for health and they also have less impact on the environment.

Researchers at the Unit of Human Nutrition of the Universitat Rovira i Virgili (Tarragona-Spain), in collaboration with other centers from the PREDIMED Study and Harvard University, have evaluated the associations between total and subtypes of fat intake and the risk of type 2 diabetes. In addition, they have evaluated the relationship between food sources rich in saturated fatty acids and the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

The research’s main findings showed that those participants who consumed higher amounts of saturated fatty acids and animal fat had a twofold higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those participants with a lower intake of saturated and animal fat.

The consumption of 12 grams per day of butter was associated with a twofold higher risk of diabetes after 4.5 years of follow-up, whereas the intake of whole-fat yogurt was associated with a lower risk. The present study analyzed data from 3,349 participants in the PREDIMED Study who were free of diabetes at baseline but at high cardiovascular risk. After 4.5 years of follow-up, 266 participants developed diabetes.

This study will be published in the scientific journal The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in February 2017 and was led by doctors Marta Guasch-Ferré;, researcher at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Nerea Becerra-Tomás, researcher at the URV’s Unit of Human Nutrition, and Jordi Salas-Salvadó;, who is head of the URV’s Unit of Human Nutrition, Clinical Director of Nutrition at the Internal Medicine Service of the Sant Joan University Hospital in Reus, principal investigator at the CIBERObn, and member of the Pere Virgili Health Research Institute (IISPV).

According to the researchers, these findings emphasize the healthy benefits of a Mediterranean diet for preventing chronic diseases, particularly type 2 diabetes, and the importance of substituting saturated and animal fats (especially red and processed meat) for those found in vegetable sources such as olive oil and nuts.

By Daniela Vincenti

(EurActiv) — The day after MEPs approved CETA, the landmark EU-Canada trade deal, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told MEPs in Strasbourg on Thursday (16 February) that trade had to work for people who are struggling to make ends meets and raise their families.

In the first visit to the European Parliament by a Canadian government chief, Premier Trudeau said that “The people we represent will support trade if it creates better jobs and makes their life more affordable. That is what they expect.”

“We have to make sure that we deliver,” he insisted, trying to calm protestors, who repeatedly slammed the deal as being designed to benefit multinationals.

MEPs gave the green light to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada, also known as CETA, on Wednesday (15 February), clearing the way for the deal to come into force provisionally this spring.

After seven years of negotiations, and a bumpy final landing, CETA was signed in October.

Backed by 408 MEPs and rejected by 254, with 33 abstentions, the deal will now face the hurdle of being ratified by the 28 member states. The ratification process varies from country to country, with some requesting approval in national parliaments.

On the back of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), CETA was criticised by activists, who have argued for years that it promotes business interests to the detriment of farmers and workers.

Last fall, the Belgian region of Wallonia also held up ratification proceedings claiming it was hardly given any time to read the agreement and work out the impact on its citizens.

Speaking at a press conference, the Canadian leader said people must be convinced that “Trade is not a zero-sum game but that it rather benefits both sides.”

During his speech, Trudeau said that the EU and Canada have built something important and “Now we need to make it work.”

Being able to point to a positive example on trade will be crucial, the prime minister emphasised. As the vast majority of provisions in CETA will come into force in April, tangible benefits from the deal will be perceived quite rapidly, said the premier, speaking to the press.

For example, the tariff reduction package is one of the most comprehensive the EU has ever achieved in the context of an FTA. Prior to CETA’s entry into force, only 25% of tariff lines on were duty-free. Upon CETA’s entry into force, both trade partners will remove tariffs on 98% of its tariff lines. Once CETA is fully implemented, the elimination of tariffs will go even higher to 99% of tariff lines.

Trudeau, who become prime minister on a platform that fought for fairness for the middle class, said that to create support for trade can only work if governments are able to show that it is inclusive and that trade works for everyone.

“At the heart, CETA is a framework that works for everyone,” he said.

Blueprint for other trade deals

Trudeau also hailed CETA as a potential “blueprint for all ambitious, future trade deals”.

“Make no mistake about it, this is an important moment,” he said.

The Canadian leader gave his speech fresh off of a trip to Washington, where he and President Trump attempted to bridge their many differences even as Trump threatens to scrap the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). CETA is in stark contrast to the policies of President Trump, who withdrew from the proposed Trans-Pacific free trade deal TPP.

Strong EU

Trudeau noted that “the European Union is a truly remarkable achievement and unprecedented model for peaceful cooperation”.

“Canada thinks that an effective European voice on the global stage is not just preferable but it’s essential,” he continued, stressing the EU is the largest donor and the world’s largest economy.

“You are a vital player in addressing the challenges that we collectively have as an international community. Indeed, the whole world benefits from a strong EU,” he insisted.

Trudeau continued by emphasising that the relationship between Canada and the EU is so resilient because of its common values.

“Collectively we believe in democracy, transparency and the rule of law. We believe in human rights. We believe in inclusion and diversity,” he added, making the link with the European motto: “United in diversity.”

Trudeau insisted that the role of the state is not only to support people but to create the conditions for trust.

The Canadian leader will next travel to Berlin, where he will meet with German President Joachim Gauck and have a working lunch with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Trudeau will also visit the Bundestag and the German Holocaust Memorial.

By Rajesh Rajagopalan

As US President Donald Trump slowly puts his administration in place, there is perceptible relief that some of his most extreme rhetoric about America’s global commitments are being reassessed and retuned.  At his summit meeting with Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, he reiterated Washington’s “unwavering” commitment to defend Japan “through the full range of US military capabilities, both nuclear and conventional.” This will no doubt ease some of the concerns in Tokyo, and in the capitals of other US allies and partners in Asia, about US commitment to staying engaged in the region and balancing China.  Of course, it is not just the US’s Asian partners that are worried: the latest Munich Security Report also worries about the consequence of Washington’s more nationalistic foreign policy on the entire edifice of the liberal international order.

Still, Asian powers will have to seriously consider the consequences of an eventual US withdrawal from the region and their strategic options if such an eventuality were to come to pass.  Though President Trump has been the most direct in questioning the value of US defence commitments to the region, Washington’s weariness about these commitments go back to the Obama administration, and arguably even to the George W. Bush administration.  That the Obama administration felt the need to pivot back (or rebalance) to Asia is a good indicator of this faltering strategic attention.  Even if the Trump administration engages fully, in a manner that satisfies its Asian partners, the fear of abandonment will continue to lurk just beneath the surface.

If such a US withdrawal were to take place, Asian powers face some unpalatable choices.  Asia is already heavily unbalanced as a consequence of China’s dramatic economic growth.  As its growth continues to outpace other Asian powers (save, possibly, India), the imbalance of power in Asia might very well come close to resembling the imbalance of power in the Western Hemisphere, where American dominance places even the most powerful states in the region at a serious disadvantage.  It is important to note that Asia is not as unbalanced as the Western Hemisphere yet, and it is possible that it will never become as unbalanced.  But Asian powers that are worried about China’s power and behaviour should consider the strategic consequences of such imbalance.  Looking at the international political consequence of American hegemony in the Western Hemisphere may hold some clues.

The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is a crude measure of national wealth (and hence, power) but it provides some indication of the relative capacity of states.  By this measure, according to World Bank, the US, with a GDP of slightly over US $ 18 trillion, accounts for 72% of the total GDP of the Western Hemisphere [This and all data that follows are from the World Bank, accessed on February 11, 2017, for 2015 and are valued in current US $].  The next biggest economy is Brazil, at a measly US $ 1.8 trillion.  Only three countries, other than the US, even have trillion dollar economies (in addition to Brazil, these are Canada and Mexico).

This gross imbalance has political consequences, as Latin America’s relations with the US and rest of the world clearly illustrates.  There is little that these countries can do to counter American power in the region.  Balancing against the US is not even a choice: Latin American powers are grossly outmatched even if they ally.  In addition, American regional dominance makes pursuing a balance with extra-regional powers a risky endeavour.  This is why no major Latin American power since 1945 seriously even considered such a strategy, despite the fact that much of the rest of the third world was busy playing the US off against the Soviet Union.  The US may no longer formally subscribe to the Monroe doctrine, but its hegemony over the region remains undiminished.

China’s dominance over Asia is as yet not comparable to that of the US over the Western Hemisphere, but it is still impressive.  With a GDP of slightly over US $ 11 trillion, China accounts for about 45% of the total GDP of the Indo-Pacific (East Asia & Pacific plus South Asia).  This is more than two-and-a-half times the size of Japan’s GDP (at US $ 4.4 trillion) and more than five times as large as India’s (at US $ 2.1 trillion), the next two biggest economies in Asia.  Moreover, at 2015 growth rates, China’s incremental annual growth will be almost thrice as much (and about US $ 500 billion more) as the next four Asian economies, combined.  In other words, each year China is adding about half a trillion dollars more to its wealth than the next four major Asian powers put together add to theirs.

Of course, China’s growth rates are already slowing down.  But unless there is a dramatic decline in its growth rate to about 2.5%, other Asian powers will not even be able to match China’s incremental annual growth, let alone begin to catch up.  No one expects such a dramatic decline in China’s growth rate.  Alternatively, the next four Asian economies will have to grow at an average annual rate of 8.5% between themselves to match China’s incremental annual growth rate.  That is even more unlikely.  Consequently, China should be expected to continue to put further distance between itself and the other major Asian powers for a considerable number of years.  It is possible that China might not reach the level of dominance that the US has in its region, but in the absence of any countervailing external power, its dominance over Asia is already established and will only deepen.

In addition, the geography of the region gives China greater capacity to put pressure on the rest of Asia.  The US borders only Canada and Mexico; it is physically much farther away from the rest of Latin America than China is from the rest of Asia.  American military and economic dominance meant that this was not a huge problem for the US.  But by the same token, China’s proximity to the other powers in Asia (save, possibly, Australia) gives it greater capacity to bring its weight to bear on its neighbours even if its economic and military dominance in Asia is not as total as that of the US in the Western Hemisphere.  Further, Asian powers that worry about China such as Japan, Australia and India are scattered far from each other, and are unlikely to be able to come to each other’s assistance, making them much more vulnerable to China’s pressure.

Such a heavily skewed Asian balance will have consequences that are similar to that in Latin America. This imbalance will make it difficult for Asian powers to resist China’s pressure.  If China plays its cards smartly, it will be able to make an offer that other Asian powers will have difficulty refusing: on the one hand, a profitable partnership with China (even if mostly on China’s terms) or on the other hand, an expensive and probably hopeless resistance to China.  Without credible regional or external partners, it is difficult to see how other Asian powers will resist the temptations to bandwagon with rather than balance against China.  In essence, the Japan, India and Australia could become the Asian versions of Brazil, Mexico or Argentina: strong states that are nevertheless forced to live under hegemony, to walk under the huge legs of the Colossus.

It is true that brute dominance by itself need not ensure compliance.  South Asia is even more unbalanced than the Western Hemisphere, with India accounting for about 78% of the total GDP of the region. Pakistan’s GDP is less than 13% of India’s.  Nevertheless, Pakistan has been successful in countering India, though at great cost to itself.  But an important part of the explanation for Pakistan’s capacity to balance India is the existence of external powers such as the US and particularly China, which were able to both bolster Pakistan and deter India.  No such external balancer will be available to the Asian powers to balance China if the US withdraws because there is no one else that has the capacity to do so.

A strong regional alliance that brings together the other major powers to contain China may help, but such a regional alignment will be difficult to establish, especially because the regional powers have little experience working together, with the possible limited exception of Australia and Japan.  It is unlikely, for example, that South Korea will join such an alignment.  But India, Japan and Australia have already started preliminary discussions along these lines, which is an indication of the pressure they feel.

The gross and growing imbalance of power will require that Asian powers worried about China do all they can to ensure that the US remains committed to the region.  But this is ultimately a decision that has to be made in the context of American domestic politics and economic capacity, and not something over which Asian powers have much say.  However, Asian powers can begin to develop their own capacities, and help strengthen each other’s capacities through strategic partnerships.  Such preparations will have another possible positive effect: they might even reduce the US incentive to withdraw.  But if the day should come when the US decides it is either unwilling or unable to put its thumb on the Asia balance, regional partnerships may be the only thing that prevents the Latin Americanization of Asia.

By Lisa Ferdinando

The United States and its NATO partners intend to intensify efforts to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Thursday in Brussels.

At the opening of a counter-ISIS ministerial meeting at NATO headquarters, Mattis said the nations in the 28-member bloc are “united in this fight to defeat ISIS.”

He thanked his defense counterparts for attending the session, saying the goal of the meeting is to “orchestrate the international pressure on our terrorist enemy and enhance the current counter-[ISIS] fight.”

The defense chief called for a sustained effort.

“This is not something that will be over with quickly, but we certainly intend to accelerate this fight, one of the reasons we’re here today is to lay this out to you,” Mattis said.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg commended the efforts of the alliance members, saying ISIS and terrorism are among the most pressing challenges NATO faces.

“This coalition has an unwavering commitment to see this fight to its conclusion,” he said, noting that is reinforced through the contributions by each of the nations.

Defeating ISIS “is a global generational challenge that requires a global generational response,” Stoltenberg added.

NATO Defence Ministers wrapped up two days of talks in Brussels on Thursday in which they focused on the Alliance’s adaptation to a more demanding security environment.

On Wednesday, Ministers discussed NATO’s role in the fight against terrorism and agreed to create a new regional Hub for the South, based at NATO’s Joint Force Command in Naples. The Hub will assess and address threats from the Middle East and North Africa, engaging with partner nations and organisations.

Ministers also addressed NATO’s Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance capability and agreed to develop a follow-on capability for NATO AWACS planes after they retire around the year 2035. This will help the Alliance tackle challenges from the South, and anticipate crises.

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stressed that NATO’s continuous adaptation requires fairer burden-sharing among Allies. He noted that, after many years of cuts, defence spending in 2016 increased in real terms by 3.8% among European Allies and Canada. “It amounts to roughly 10 billion dollars more for our defence. This makes a difference, but it is absolutely vital that we keep up the momentum,” he added.

On Thursday, Allies agreed on the next steps to modernise the NATO Command Structure and reviewed progress on the deployment of new deterrent forces in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. The Secretary General stressed that these deployments are defensive and measured, saying “our aim is to prevent conflict, not to provoke it.” Allies also took steps to enhance NATO’s presence in the region, with more maritime training, exercises and situational awareness.

In a ministerial meeting of the NATO-Georgia Commission, Ministers praised Georgia’s defence reforms. Mr. Stoltenberg noted that Georgia is making good progress, and NATO will continue to help Georgia advance on its path towards membership.

Apple will kick off this year’s Worldwide Developers Conference on June 5, when the company will take to the stage to present the next series of updates to iOS, macOS, and likely watchOS and tvOS as well, The Verge reports.

Recently, Apple has stuck to software and saved hardware announcements for other presentations.

WWDC is also a developer-focused event, and so far all Apple has published is some lofty language on its site about how developers need to combine technology and the arts to advance the world:

“Technology alone is not enough. Technology must intersect with the liberal arts and the humanities, to create new ideas and experiences that push society forward. This summer we bring together thousands of brilliant minds representing many diverse perspectives, passions, and talents to help us change the world. What it means is that you’ll have to pay $1,599 for a ticket.”

This year, the event is being held in a different venue: the McEnery Convention Center in San Jose. The event is typically held in the Moscone Center in San Francisco, but the building is currently under renovation for expansions. Daring Fireball points out that the convention center in San Jose is actually the original home of WWDC, hosting the event all the way through 2002.

Arab singing sensation Maya Diab is asking US President Donald Trump for an urgent favor. She is requesting him to grant her a US visa before starting “World War 3.”

During a show on MTV Lebanon, “Menna w Jerr” hosted by Pierre Rabat, Diab live tweeted to Trump: “@realDonaldTrump plz plz I want my well ‘deserved’ visa before u start the world war 3 ..need ur prompt answer asap.”

As expected, Diab’s tweet generated a wave of social media reactions, most asking Trump to immediately grant her a visa.

One user tweeted: “@mayadiab @realDonaldTrump hahahaha! Yes Donald you cant resist smart Lebanese” while another said: “she’ll make America great again Dodo.”

One user was not impressed with Diab’s attempt at humor. He tweeted:“world war 3 ? Thank your God visas aren’t granted based on the person’s IQ.”

Another had a practical suggestion for Diab: “@mayadiab go to Mexico and try to get into USA before Trump’s wall.”

Diab has been banned from entering the US since 2014 and was placed on a “terror list” at that time, reported Annahar.

The Lebanese diva is one of the most powerful and celebrated celebrities in the Arab entertainment world.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas fully supports Donald Trump’s call on Israel to “pull back” on settlement expansion, but is yet to comment on a trending idea that a peace deal might not necessarily include an independent Palestinian state.

The Palestinian presidency “demands that [Israelis] agree to [Trump’s call] and that of the international community, to halt all settlement activities including in occupied East Jerusalem,” a written statement issued by Abbas’ office said.

Trump on Wednesday asked the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to temporarily hold off on building new Jewish settlements on land claimed by Palestinians for their future state.

“I’d like to see you pull back on settlements for a little bit,” Trump said, instead promising to strike a deal that would bring an end to the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “I’m looking at two-state and one-state… I like the one that both parties like. I’m very happy with the one that both parties like. I can live with either one.”

“The United States will encourage a peace and really a great peace deal” between Israel and the Palestinians, but they have to negotiate it themselves, Trump said at a joint briefing with Netanyahu in Washington, DC.

Trump’s statement that the United States would no longer insist on an independent Palestinian state as part of a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians is a shift from the long-standing US policy which envisages a two-state solution. Before Netanyahu’s meeting with Trump, a White House official also noted that the US is serious about the Middle East peace process but is not insistent on a two-state solution.

While an anathema to some Palestinians, the Palestine Liberation Organization(PLO) Secretary-General, said that one state solution could be possible if that state extends equal democratic rights for all.

“Contrary to Netanyahu’s plan of one state and two systems, apartheid, the only alternative to two sovereign and democratic states on the 1967 border is one single secular and democratic state with equal rights for everyone, Christians, Muslims, and Jews, on all of historic Palestine,” Saeb Erekat said Wednesday during a meeting with the speaker of the UK House of Commons, John Bercow, in Ramallah.

“As we have constantly stated, the two-state solution is a Palestinian adoption of an international formula,” Erekat, the PLO’s former lead peace negotiator, continued. “In fact, it represents a painful and historic Palestinian compromise of recognizing Israel over 78% of historic Palestine. Today, almost six million Palestinians live under Israeli control in all of historic Palestine, while almost six million Palestinians live in exile.”

Erekat’s comments contradict Palestine’s official position which still imagines the establishment of an independent state within 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, but rampant Israeli settlement expansion has virtually rendered this dream unviable.

Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem following the 1967 Six Day War has been one of the major stumbling blocks in the peace negotiations. The last peace effort to reconcile the conflicting sides brokered by then Secretary of State John Kerry collapsed in April 2014.

The issue of settlements has been widely publicized in recent months after the Obama’s administration abstained from voting on what Tel Aviv called an “anti-Israel” UN Security Council settlement resolution.

Trump and his team voiced concern over the adoption of the UNSC document and sent out messages which indicated that the new administration would not oppose Israeli settlement expansion once in office.

While the official White House position has changed, Israel, prior to Netanyahu’s visit to the US, went on to approve some 6,000 new settlement homes since Trump’s inauguration. The Israeli parliament has also approved the legalization of nearly 4,000 settler homes in Area C of the West Bank as it passed a controversial retroactive bill.

It is yet to be seen if Ramallah changes its official position on the two-state solution. So far, some senior Palestinian figures and the UN Secretary General have reacted angrily to Donald Trump’s assertions that a sovereign Palestinian state is no longer an essential part of a peace settlement in the Middle East.

Hanan Ashrawi, a senior PLO politician, said Trump was pandering to Zionist nationalists with his about-turn of US support for the two-state solution, originally and publicly proclaimed by Bill Clinton.

“If the Trump administration rejects this policy it would be destroying the chances for peace and undermining American interests, standing and credibility abroad,” she said in a statement. “Accommodating the most extreme and irresponsible elements in Israel and in the White House is no way to make responsible foreign policy.”

The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also reaffirmed his commitment to giving Palestinians statehood as a result of any peace talks.

“There is no alternative solution for the situation between the Palestinians and Israelis, other than the solution of establishing two states, and we should do all that can be done to maintain this,” he said during a visit to Cairo.

A group of Russian and international economic experts assembled by Moscow’s Higher School of Economics say that Russia’s growth over the next seven years will lag behind the worldwide average even if oil prices rise, that Vladimir Putin’s targets will not be met, and that Russia will thus be further behind in 2024 than it is now.

That is the conclusion of a HSE report published yesterday compiled on the basis of input from Sberbank CIB, Alpha Bank, the Moscow Institute of Economics, the Boston Consulting Group, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley among other, Mikhail Sergeyev, the economics editor of Nezavisimaya gazeta, writes today (ng.ru/economics/2017-02-15/4_6930_russia.html).

The world economy is currently growing at approximately three percent a year, the 25 specialists the HSE consulted say, while the Russian one is now stagnating and will not expand by more than two percent a year even at the end of that period and even assuming an increase in the price of oil.

“The experts obviously do not expect an intensification of crisis phenomena in the Russian economy,” Sergey Smirnov of HSE says; but “the prospects for the restoration of stable and dynamic growth also seem to them extremely doubtful,” with only the most optimistic suggesting that Russia might approach international rates of growth.

“In December of last year,” the Nezavisimaya gazeta journalist says, “economic activity fell compared to November in 39 regions; in 31, it remained at the same level; but it rose only in 12.” It is still in a depressed state; and only one in every seven regions of the Russian Federation is currently showing signs of coming out of the crisis.

Empirical historical evidence combined with little common-sense are enough to tell us the type of future options that Israel has in store for the Palestinian people: perpetual apartheid or ethnic cleansing, or a mix of both.

The passing of the “Regularisation Bill” on 6 February is all we need to imagine the Israeli-envisaged future. The new law allows the Israeli government to retroactively recognise Jewish outposts built without official permission on privately-owned Palestinian land.

All settlements – officially recognised settlements and unauthorised outposts – are illegal under international law. The verdict has been passed numerous times by the United Nations and, more recently, pronounced with unmistakable clarity in UN Security Council Resolution 2334.

Israel’s response was the announcement of the construction of over 6,000 new housing units to be built throughout the Occupied Palestinian territories, the construction of a brand new settlement (the first in 20 years), and the new law that paves the way for the annexation of large swathes of the occupied West Bank.

Undoubtedly, the law is the “last nail in the coffin of the two-state solution”, but that is not important. It never mattered to Israel, anyway. The talk of a solution was mere smoke and mirrors as far as Israel was concerned. All the “peace talks” and the entirety of “peace process”, even when it was in its zenith, rarely slowed down the Israeli bulldozers, the construction of more “Jewish homes” or ended the unceasing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

Writing in Newsweek, Diana Buttu described how the process of building settlements is always accompanied by the demolition of Palestinian homes. 140 Palestinian structures were demolished since the beginning of 2017, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Territories.

Since Donald Trump was sworn in as president of America, Israel has felt liberated from its obligation to doublespeak. For decades, Israeli officials spoke passionately about peace, and did everything in their power to hinder its attainment. Now, they simply do not care. Period.

They have perfected their balancing act simply because they had to, because Washington expected it, demanded it. But Trump had given them a blank cheque: do as you please; settlements are not obstacles to peace; Israel has been “treated very, very unfairly” and I will correct that historical injustice, and so on.

Almost immediately after Trump was inaugurated as president on 20 January, all masks came off.

On 25 January, the real Benjamin Netanyahu resurfaced, dropping his act altogether, and declaring in enviable brazenness: “We are building, and we will continue to build” illegal settlements.

What more is there to talk about with Israel at this point? Nothing. The only solution that mattered to Israel is Israel’s own “solution”, always driven by blind American support, European uselessness and always imposed on the Palestinians and other Arab countries, by force if needed.

The guardians of the grand charade of the two-state solution, who shrewdly crafted the “peace process” and danced to every Israeli tune are now bewildered. They have been outed by Israel’s dreadful plans that shot their “solution” right between the eyes, leaving Palestinians to choose between subjugation, humiliation or imprisonment.

Jonathan Cook is right. The new law is the first step towards the annexing of the West Bank or, at least, most of it. Once small outposts are legalised, they would need to be fortified, (“naturally”) expanded and protected. The military occupation, in effect for 50 years, will no longer be temporary and reversible. Civil law will continue to apply to Jews in Occupied Palestinian Territories and military laws on occupied Palestinians.

It is the very definition of Apartheid, in case you are still wondering.

To meet the “security needs” of the settlers, more “Jewish-only” bypass roads will be constructed, more walls erected, more gates to keep Palestinians away from their land, schools and livelihood will be put up, more checkpoints, more suffering, more pain, more anger and more violence.

That is Israel’s vision. Even Trump is growing frustrated by Israel’s shamelessness and audacity. He called on Israel in an interview with Israel Hayom newspaper to “be reasonable with respect to peace”.

“There is so much land left. And every time you take land for settlements, there is less land left,” Trump said. He is backtracking on promises he made with regard to moving the US embassy and the unchecked expansion of the settlements and more, as he is realising that Netanyahu and his US supporters have led him to a cliff and are now asking him to jump.

The organization known as AVAAZ is best recognized for its involvement in regime-change actions overseas. The organization was founded in 2007 by ResPublica and MoveOn.org, two groups funded in the millions of dollars by billionaire troublemaker George Soros. Since then it has never seen a (US government-favored) overthrow overseas that it didn’t actively participate in.

When the “Green Revolution” broke out in Iran in 2009, AVAAZ was right there, acting as one would expect from covert foreign intelligence operatives rather than NGOs:

During the 2009 Green Movement uprising in Iran, for example, Avaaz set up a network of proxy servers to allow protesters to post videos from the streets.

AVAAZ has been a key player in establishing false narratives that push the US government toward intervention in places like Libya and Syria. The organization does this by spending millions on the ground in these countries targeted for US “regime change” smuggling in video equipment to create propaganda videos of questionable authenticity, which are then widely distributed by a mainstream media that never looks at motives.

In Syria, the group’s efforts were coordinated with and praised by armed opposition groups. As Time Magazine reported on the videos produced with equipment provided by AVAAZ:

Such imagery has been used by the Syrian opposition in their efforts to spur Western governments to action against the regime.

It is designed to make the case for regime change and for US military action overseas.

In Libya, AVAAZ was a leading voice mobilizing people to demand a no-fly zone, which set the stage for the eventual US intervention and destruction of the country.

It is important to understand that many thousands of innocent people have been killed worldwide when the policies espoused by AVAAZ have been followed.

Lately, AVAAZ has set its sights on the United States. It is pushing on its members a petition to the US House and Senate urging that President Trump be impeached and removed from office. The text of the petition reads as follows:

From the moment he’s taken office, Donald Trump and members of his family have been profiteering off the presidency at the expense of our democracy, and in violation of the Constitution. We call on you to begin impeachment proceedings against Trump immediately.

Convinced?

The petition has collected just short of a million signatures. The “regime change” operation has moved onshore and no matter what one thinks of Donald Trump, representative government is undermined far more by organizations like AVAAZ than a president subject to the vote of the American people.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

An unusually warm patch of seawater off the West Coast in late 2014 and 2015, nicknamed “the blob,” had cascading effects up and down the coast. Its sphere of influence was centered on the marine environment but extended to weather on land.

A University of Washington Bothell study now shows that this strong offshore pattern also influenced air quality. The climate pattern increased ozone levels above Washington, Oregon, western Utah and northern California, according to a study published Feb. 15 in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

“Washington and Oregon was really the bullseye for the whole thing, because of the location of the winds,” said lead author Dan Jaffe, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington Bothell. “Salt Lake City and Sacramento were on the edge of this event, but because their ozone is typically higher, those cities felt some of the more acute effects.”

The other author is Lei Zhang, a postdoctoral researcher at UW Bothell.

The study finds that terrestrial effects of “the blob” — warm temperatures, low cloud cover and calmer air — were the perfect ingredients to produce ozone. Ozone levels in June 2015 were between 3 and 13 parts per billion higher than average over the northwestern United States. The pattern pushed concentrations in Salt Lake City and Sacramento above federally allowed limits.

Ozone is an invisible component of smog that is a secondary pollutant formed by a chain reaction. Cars, factories and other sources emit pollution into the atmosphere. Solar rays then provide the spark for chemical reactions that produce the three linked oxygen atoms of ozone. This molecule is hazardous to human health and is subject to federal regulations.

Jaffe’s research group has been measuring ozone since 2004 atop Mount Bachelor in central Oregon to tease apart the sources of ozone and other pollutants, such as forest fires, transport of pollution from overseas and domestic pollution from the United States. In June 2015, members noticed a spike in ozone above any previous measurements.

“At first we were like ‘Whoa, maybe we made a mistake.’ We looked at our sensors to see if we made an error in the calibration. But we couldn’t find any mistakes,” Jaffe said. “Then I looked at other ozone data from around the Pacific Northwest, and everybody was high that year.”

Jaffe’s measurements are from the University of Washington’s Mount Bachelor Observatory in central Oregon. Members of his group use the ski hill’s lifts for transportation and electrical power to support year-round measurements at the 9,000-foot peak. Air is pulled with vacuum pumps into a room to be sampled by a variety of instruments in the summit’s lift house.

The June 2015 ozone levels at the observatory were 12 parts per billion higher than the average of previous observations for that time. Jaffe learned that air quality managers in Sacramento and Salt Lake City had several times recorded eight-hour averages above the 70 parts per billion limit set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

“This was a very widespread phenomenon going all the way to California,” Jaffe said. “Managers saw that air quality was violating the air quality standards on many days, and they didn’t know why.”

The new study analyzes larger-scale climate data to show that the areas that recorded higher-than-normal ozone were the same regions that had high temperatures, weak winds and low cloud cover.

“Ultimately, it all links back to the blob, which was the most unusual meteorological event we’ve had in decades,” Jaffe said. “Temperatures were high, and it was much less cloudy than normal, both of which trigger ozone production. And because of that high-pressure system off the coast, the winds were much lower than normal. Winds blow pollution away, but when they don’t blow, you get stagnation and the pollution is higher.”

The paper also finds an effect from higher biogenic emissions, the scented emissions from trees and plants that contain natural ozone-producing particles.

The study focuses on June 2015 because the wildfire season began in July and dominated conditions in the later summer. Jaffe’s group is exploring that effect in a separate project.

While it is generally understood that warmer temperatures will favor ozone production, Jaffe said, this study suggests that broader-scale climate patterns also play a role in air quality and human health.

“Our environmental laws need to be written with an understanding that there’s a lot of variability from one year to the next, and with an understanding of the long-term path of where we’re heading under climate change,” Jaffe said. “This work helps us understand the link between climate variability and air quality, and it can give us an idea of what to expect as our planet continues to warm.”

By Josef L. Altholz*

In the mid-1880s Lord Acton became one of the founders of the English Historical Review. When the editor, Mandell Creighton, invited Acton to review his own History of the Papacy, Acton produced a harsh review criticiz­ing Creighton’s failure to condemn the popes of the Reformation era. In the ensuing correspondence, Acton uttered his famous phrase about power tending to corrupt and absolute power corrupting absolutely. This is most commonly cited in a political context, as a condemna­tion of state absolutism, which Acton indeed abhorred. But in this instance his dictum was meant as a canon of historical criticism, a caution against the mitigation of judgment.

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. . . . There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. . . . The inflexible integ­rity of the moral code is, to me, the secret of the authority, the dignity, the utility of history. If we may debase the currency for the sake of genius, or success, or rank, or reputation, we may debase it for the sake of a man’s influence, of his religion, of his party, of the good cause which prospers by his credit and suffers by his disgrace. Then history ceases to be a sci­ence, an arbiter of controversy, a guide of the wanderer, the upholder of that moral standard which the powers of earth, and religion itself, tend constantly to depress.

This was the most noble mission ever assigned to the historian, but it may have been the most impossible. For one thing, there was no consensus as to how the moral standard was to be applied. More important, professional history is the study not of text but of context. Historians are trained to place actions and events in the context of time and place, considerations that are fatal to an absolute morality that is timeless and universal. As Owen Chadwick put it, there is a tension between “historical understanding and moral conviction”: “Moral judgment,” which is “the essence of the man . . . corrupts the historian.” The professionalization of the discipline of history meant that historians could not accept the moral role that Acton proposed for them. They were reduced from universal histories to monographs and from moral arbiters to a necessarily valueless objectivity. Yet Acton, isolated but admired, remained engaged with history and historians. He reaped his reward when in 1895 he was appointed Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, potentially the most influential position a historian can hold.

It is customary for Cambridge professors to begin their tenure with an inaugural lecture, and Acton seized the occasion to profess his historical creed. In the concluding sec­tion of his lecture, he asked himself if he had “any cardinal proposition, that might serve as his selected epigraph, as a last signal, perhaps even as a target.” His answer was to reassert his doctrine of the historian as moral judge: “I exhort you never to debase the moral currency or to lower the standard of rectitude, but to try others by the final maxim that governs your own lives, and to suffer no man and no cause to escape the undying penalty which history has the power to inflict on wrong,” for “if we lower our standard in History, we cannot uphold it in Church or State.”

This was a grand and noble ideal; it was expressed with an elo­quence unusual for Acton; but it was also hopeless. Working historians then and since have settled for mere objectivity as the best they can achieve. Acton must have known that he was uttering a hopeless protest against the inexorable tendency of the historical profession. Having uttered his protest, Acton spent the rest of his Cambridge career working with historians on their terms, accepting their limitations. His own lectures advanced his own themes, but the last great project of his life, the Cambridge Modern History, forced him to admit that objectivity (he preferred to say “impartiality”) was the most that he could ask of his colleagues.

By Justin Murray*

Donald Trump has been using and abusing national homicide statistics to suit his own political ends. But, using nationwide statistics — even correct ones — has long been problematic.

We’ve learned, for example, that when comparing the homicide rate in the US, comparisons with other countries of vastly different size and demographics are not particularly useful. Because of the vast geography of the United States, it is important to break down the homicide rate into smaller pieces, and this gives us insights into how statewide and nationwide gun regulations fail to account for large disparities in rates of violence.

One such method in breaking down the homicide numbers is to look at individual States. However, even this is problematic. If one is to look at a more detailed level, one finds that even neighboring jurisdictions can have wildly different homicide rates. One great example is the comparison of adjacent counties on opposite sides of the Mexico-US border. Further, if one were to visit the Trulia Crime Map, one can find that violent crime can vary depending on which block of a city you currently find yourself. This becomes evident in this map of Chicago —a city famous in the media for being a chronically violent place. Of course, if one goes to, say, the Avondale neighborhood or along Lake Michigan, the chances one will find himself a victim of a homicide is slim.

Breaking It Down to Metro Area and Beyond

So, just how many people live in these high homicide rate areas in the United States? The FBI keeps a record of the number of homicides and homicide rates of major Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) around the country. By using the 2014 MSA Homicide Statistics, we can find out just how many people live in relatively dangerous areas. For some context, we can then draw some comparisons with other parts of the world.

To do this, I’ve broken down the homicide rate in metro areas into eight separate classifications starting at 0 to 1 homicides per 100,000 people and increasing by one until reaching 6 to 7 with the remainder over 7. What this generated is the following table, including a comparable foreign nation that fits that homicide-rate classification.

What this shows is that a solid 46% of the United States population lives in an area that is similar to Liechtenstein, a European nation that does not have much of a reputation for being a particularly murderous place. If we add Latvia, the nation classified as Northern European with the highest homicide rate, the level of homicide safety in the United States jumps to 57% comparable to EU Member States.

An additional 22% are in what gun control proponents would consider marginal homicide rates, while 21% are living in areas much worse.

However, as noted above with Chicago, this level of detail is still insufficient to identify how homicide rates and population exposure really is. In fact, if we dig deeper still, we find that of all known relationships reported to the FBI between the culprit and victim, approximately 79% are people who live in the same residence or near the victim, such as family members, significant others, or neighbors. This indicates that it is particularly rare that someone will cross town to kill another person and murders of complete strangers are also relatively unusual.

Unfortunately, we don’t have a neighborhood-by-neighborhood homicide database nationwide to test this. However, we can get an idea by looking at the above breakout by NYPD Police Precincts. The NYPD is broken down into 76 precinct locations. These locations are fairly small geographically compared to the above MSA. Because of the much closer proximity, we can get a stronger measure of homicide distribution using the above methodology. The following are the results:

What this shows is that the City of New York has over half of its population within low-level homicide rate levels in 2014 and 65% is comparable to EU Member States. We would likely find similar results in most MSA areas around the country since crime tends to concentrate in small areas, such as a small band between Compton and East Hollywood in Los Angeles County.

Because of this severe fragmentation of homicides across the United States, it is difficult to argue that firearms are the culprit since, if they were, we would expect a more uniform homicide rate at least across MSAs and not highly concentrated into specific neighborhoods while the majority of the population is insulated from such violence. Because of the nature of the State, which tends to apply blunt one-size-fits-all solutions to problems, the answer is unlikely to lie with any kind of legislative action since the problem is far more nuanced than broad, nationwide statistics can identify. In fact, the State may also be contributing to the problem.

Whatever the underlying cause to these problems, the evidence makes it far more difficult to conclude the presence of a State-led firearms control regime is the reason behind low homicide rates in nations with firearm control laws when, at minimum, 57% of the United States already enjoys those levels without having to pass restrictions or bans.

About the author:
*Justin Murray received his MBA in 2014 from the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

By Jonathan Power*

Reporting on President Donald Trump’s new energy policy which plans for a big increase in domestically produced oil and gas, the Financial Times reported: “Exports of gas have begun, with the first shipments of Liquefied Natural Gas leaving the Sabine Pass facility on the border between Texas and Louisiana a year ago. Since then trade has grown and the U.S. now supplies a dozen different gas markets around the world.” The U.S. is all set to speed this up.

Trump is stepping on the accelerator of what had begun a year ago, and not just with gas but with oil too. He is driving not only to raise gas and oil exports but to achieve U.S. energy self-sufficiency. Increased shale and coal production, support of the huge Keystone XL pipeline from Canada and the removal of restrictions on venting gas production from developments on federal land, are all part of his mix.

There are two lessons from this. Oil prices are unlikely to return to their extraordinary high levels of a couple of years ago and it raises the important question: why is the U.S. spending $75 billion a year on its military presence in the Gulf?

There would be some risks in a strategy of reducing the U.S. military presence in the Middle East but they are hypothetical risks, as Professors Charles Glaser and Rosemary Kelanic point out in the current issue of Foreign Affairs.

Since oil is fungible, Middle East suppliers could possibly disturb the world price with irresponsible behaviour, meant to rock the boat – which even the U.S. would have to work hard to protect itself from. But this depends on some unlikely scenarios. The first is that a Gulf country could conquer some of its oil and gas-producing neighbours. In reality there is no such regional hegemon on the horizon. Iraq is down and out. Iran is fixated on internal threats. Saudi Arabia is not interested in territorial conquest.

A second hypothesis is that Iran might disrupt the flow of oil through the so–called “choke-point” of the 21 mile-wide Straits of Hormuz that gives access to the Gulf. Iran certainly does not have the capability to close the strait completely. Even more important is that if it tried to Iran would shoot itself in the foot, making it difficult for it to supply world markets at the level it wants.

Thirdly, there is no evidence that, after coming through the drama of its deal making with Europe, the U.S. and Russia over its nuclear program, that it wants to get into another confrontation. It wants to get on with its own development. It wants more sanctions lifted, which means making that unambiguously clear.

The fourth hypothesis is that one of the main producers might suffer massive internal instability that interfered with its oil production. Saudi Arabia is the nightmare scenario. Saudi Arabia has its problems and its rulers need to get on with some badly needed changes, not least with the role of women, the observance of human rights and democratic practice in the political arena, but hardly anyone foresees an upset of such proportions that its oil and gas production is seriously affected.

The situation in Iraq is improving. Iran is not ripe for revolution. Neither are the Gulf’s smaller states.

Even in the highly unlikely event of one of these hypotheses proving correct the U.S. has its massive Strategic Petroleum Reserve to fall back on, storing around 700 million barrels which is part of the 4 billion barrel reserves held by members of the International Energy Agency.

China also is developing its reserves. This would give the Western countries 8 months of oil. Even if there was not one NATO soldier posted to a Gulf state it wouldn’t take 8 months for forces to be brought in from home or other parts of the globe where they are deployed.

The U.S. has other ways to protect the Gulf. Besides increasing the size of its Reserve it can actively encourage other countries to do likewise. It can work to decrease its own energy demand from cars, lorries and planes. Trump could pick up where Barack Obama left off in pushing for more fuel efficiency and expanding wind, solar and tidal sources of power and speeding the spread of electric cars. He could even increase taxes on vehicles – which of course he is unlikely to do, except that if an emergency starts to loom even he might decide to do that.

The U.S. and its NATO allies need to longer commit so many military resources to the Gulf. Not only is the expenditure not needed it would help pull the rug from under the Islamists who shout and scream about Western imperialism, and fight. [IDN-INPS – 14 February 2017]

*For 17 years Jonathan Power was a foreign affairs columnist for the International Herald Tribune. He has forwarded this and his previous Viewpoints for publication in IDN-INPS. Copyright: Jonathan Power.

By J Nastranis*

The 15-member Security Council, including the veto-wielding USA, Russia, China, Britain and France, are keen to “reduce tensions in the Korean Peninsula and beyond” and “maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in North-East Asia at large”.

With this in view, they have in a Press Statement on February 13, expressed their “commitment to a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution to the situation”. They also welcome “efforts by Council members, as well as other States, to facilitate a peaceful and comprehensive solution through dialogue”.

Besides, they have “regretted that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) is diverting resources to the pursuit of ballistic missiles” its “citizens have great unmet needs”.

The Statement “strongly” condemns North Korea’s most recent ballistic missile launches conducted on February 11, 2017 and October 19, 2016, and says: “These launches are in grave violation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s international obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), and 2321 (2016).”

The Security Council members “deplore” all the ballistic missile activities by North Korea, including the recent launches, noting that “such activities contribute to the country’s development of nuclear weapons delivery systems and increase tension”.

The members of the Security Council express “serious concern” that North Korea conducted these ballistic missile launches after the launches on April 15, April 23, April 27, April 28, May 31, June 21, July 9, July 18, August 2, August 23, September 5, and October 14 as well as the nuclear test of September 9, in “flagrant disregard of the repeated statements of the Security Council”.

The Statement says: “The members of the Security Council reiterated that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea shall refrain from further actions, including nuclear tests, in violation of the relevant Security Council resolutions, and comply fully with its obligations under these resolutions.”

The members of the Security Council called upon all Member States to redouble their efforts to implement fully the measures imposed on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by the Security Council, particularly the comprehensive measures contained in resolutions 2321 (2016) and 2270 (2016).

The members of the Security Council directed the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) to intensify its work to strengthen enforcement of resolutions 2321 (2016) and 2270 (2016) and assist Member States to comply with their obligations under those resolutions and other relevant resolutions. The members of the Security Council also called on Member States to report as soon as possible on concrete measures they have taken in order to implement effectively the provisions of resolutions 2321 (2016) and 2270 (2016).

The members of the Security Council agreed that the Security Council would continue to closely monitor the situation and take further significant measures, in line with the Council’s previously expressed determination.

In a separate statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of South Korea (Republic of Korea – ROK), which had requested a meeting of the Security Council together with Japan and the United States, said, “the ROK government will unwaveringly protect the lives of its people and the security of the nation against any threat from the DPRK, while deterring the DPRK’s nuclear and missile threats, based on the strong ROK-U.S. combined defense posture including by increasing executiveness of extended deterrence”.

It said the ballistic missile launch on February 12 was the first by the DPRK this year, which came after its launches of 24 ballistic missiles in 2016, constituting a flagrant and clear violation of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions as well as a grave threat to peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and the international community as a whole. “The ROK government condemns the DPRK’s provocation in the strongest terms.”

South Korea said: The repeated provocations by the DPRK pose a direct challenge to the united resolve of the international community manifested in the unanimously-adopted UN Security Council resolution 2321. They also clearly demonstrate the unreasonable nature of the Kim Jong-un regime that is fanatically obsessed with the development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, just as shown in the New Year address, in which it had threatened to launch ICBMs.

“The DPRK’s routinized provocations will serve to further strengthen the international community’s resolve for the denuclearization of the DPRK. By faithfully implementing sanctions against the DPRK including UN Security Council resolution 2321, along with friendly countries’ strong unilateral sanctions, the ROK government will make the DPRK realize that it will never survive unless it abandons all nuclear and missile programs.”

Furthermore, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: “The ROK government will unwaveringly protect the lives of its people and the security of the nation against any threat from the DPRK, while deterring the DPRK’s nuclear and missile threats, based on the strong ROK-U.S. combined defense posture including by increasing . . . extended deterrence.”

Reports of Russian influence in the highest levels of US government could speed a deal for Trump and Putin.

By Richard Weitz*

Most commentators see the resignation of US National Security Michael Flynn this week as presenting a major setback to Russia-US relations, but a more balanced perspective suggests the departure could help ties in the long run. Flynn had become a lightning rod of criticism for his Russia ties and was an ineffective policy manager. With his removal – providing no further damaging revelations about Russia and the Trump administration emerge – the White House’s policymaking process could improve and Trump could engage Putin, who will likely remain Russia’s leader for years, on issues requiring Russian-US dialogue and coherent presidential direction.

Trump and Putin held their first official phone conversation on January 28. Compared to Trump’s other calls that day, this conversation appeared to have gone smoothly. According to Kremlin sources, Trump and Putin discussed nuclear nonproliferation, regional security, counterterrorism, and rebuilding bilateral trade and economic ties without yielding specific results.

The limited results were expected, given enduring constraints on bilateral ties. Both presidents express a desire to improve Russian-US ties, but their ability to progress beyond the traditionally tumultuous relationship is uncertain even with Flynn’s departure. Trump has raised both hopes and fears that his presidency will result in drastic changes to the relationship, but the impact of individuals on bilateral ties, even at the presidential level, is easy to exaggerate. For decades, there has been a recurring cycle of incoming US administrations coming to power, followed by initial improvements, stalemate, frustration and eventually regression.

Still, both men may have more impact than previous presidential pairs in shaping relations. Trump and Putin have similar worldviews. They regard traditional liberal internationalism and elite-driven globalization, such as that associated with the European Union, skeptically. They do not value international institutions in the abstract – they view nation states as the bedrock of world order and assess other structures in terms of how they advance national interests. Both are pragmatic leaders, seeking concrete deals for specific results, and esteem values like respect, patriotism and personal loyalty rather than transnational or ideological ties.

Putin has compromised with the United States in the past to advance Russia’s national interests. He praised Trump as a populist who comprehends the American people better than Washington’s traditional elites, expressed understanding for Trump’s plan to strengthen US nuclear forces  and undoubtedly welcomes Trump’s denial of American moral superiority., Moreover, Putin’s political popularity, the weakness of Russia’s opposition parties and the Kremlin’s administrative resources give him substantial space to make genuine compromises, such as curtailing Russia’s implausible criticisms of US missile defenses and rendering US intelligence defector Edward Snowden back to the United States for trial.

Trump has said he aspires to a “fantastic relationship” with Putin though cautioning it might not happen. He told Fox News that, ‘I don’t know Putin, but if we can get along with Russia that’s a great thing…we go out together and knock the hell out of ISIS.” In Syria, Trump so far continues recent US policy of allowing Moscow to lead in promoting regional peace efforts and organizing foreign military support for the Assad regime while the US provides limited backing for a few anti-ISIS fighters. Washington and Moscow might also resurrect a version of the Russian-US Joint Implementation Group agreement, in which both sides pledged to reduce civilian casualties, foster a political transition in Syria and share more intelligence.

Yet, substantially extending bilateral counterterrorism cooperation elsewhere in the Middle East will prove difficult given Russian-US differences over Iran. Whereas the new US administration views the Iranian regime as a destabilizing regional force and a key abettor of foreign terrorism, Russian-Iranian strategic ties have increased substantially in recent years. Tellingly, Russian diplomats failed to join US sanctions in February against Tehran despite Iranian missile testing that sustains NATO support for the European missile defenses that Moscow opposes.

Trump continues to astound in how he challenges US political shibboleths and Washington opinion. He seems prepared to face down substantial foreign and domestic opposition to his Russia policy, evident in how even Republican senators grilled his cabinet nominees over any perceived pro-Russian sentiments. For example, Senator Marco Rubio castigated Rex Tillerson, now secretary of state, for refusing to characterize Putin as a war criminal for mass civilian deaths due to Russian-supported military actions in Syria. Other senators are moving to embed and expand Obama’s presidential sanctions in congressional legislation, making them harder to repeal. US allies in Europe, especially those in Eastern Europe, have expressed similar reservations about partnering with Putin.

The prospects for arms-control progress between Russia and the United States look bleak. Not only do Russian attacks on US missile defenses in Asia as well as Europe continue unabated. But Trump reportedly told Putin he was uninterested in extending the existing New START agreement because it’s a “bad deal” for the United States. And the Senate will not ratify a new arms treaty with Russia as long as Moscow is violating the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Although the Trump administration has not yet withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal, which Russia supports, neither Washington, Moscow, nor any other power has succeeded in preventing North Korea from testing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

In their November 14 and January 28 phone calls, Trump and Putin stressed the value of developing bilateral trade and commerce, which could stabilize the relationship that remains dominated by divisive Cold War–era topics such as nuclear deterrence, regional spheres of influence and concerns about international credibility. Unlike the China-US relationship, Russian-US commercial and humanitarian ties are remarkably underdeveloped relative to two large national populations and economies. Furthermore, Russian-US cultural ties would improve if Moscow relaxed its foreign agents law limiting US financial support for NGO partnerships and Washington renewed its fellowship programs to support academic exchanges with Russian educational institutions.

But the recent upsurge in fighting in Ukraine, immediately following the Trump-Putin call and reflecting Moscow’s reliance of coercive tools of influence in former Soviet republics, will make it harder to remove the sanctions constraining such socioeconomic cooperation. US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley blamed Moscow for the hostilities and said that the Crimea-related sanctions on Russia would persist until that peninsula returned to Ukrainian sovereignty. Although Haley left open the question of possibly repealing of other US sanctions on Russia, congressional and popular support for near-term sanctions repeal is minimal. Ukraine’s supporters in Congress claim that Putin was testing Trump’s resolve. Trump may want a deal with Russia regarding Ukraine, but certainly does not want to look weak at home or abroad, which would encourage Congress to tie his hands and reduce US leverage to secure Russian concessions.

Fundamentally, even substantially improved Russian-US relations may have only limited effect on boosting global security. Unlike during the Cold War, when Washington and Moscow could determine many regional and global developments, the unending fighting in Syria and Ukraine and Pyongyang’s missile provocations are only the latest example of how the two countries, like other nations, are more event-responders than event-makers.

*Richard Weitz is senior fellow and director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at Hudson Institute. His current research includes regional security developments relating to Europe, Eurasia and East Asia as well as US foreign, defense and homeland-security policies.