Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live

Melting Polar Ice, Rising Sea Levels Not Only Climate Change Dangers

0
0

Climate change from political and ecological standpoints is a constant in the media and with good reason, said a Texas A&M AgriLife Research scientist, but proof of its impact is sometimes found in unlikely places.

“Discussions of climate change usually are focused on changes occurring in polar and temperate zones, but tropical regions also are expected to experience changes in regional precipitation,” said Dr. Kirk Winemiller, AgriLife Research fisheries scientist and Regents Professor in the department of wildlife and fisheries sciences at College Station.

Winemiller and his Brazilian colleagues analyzed a long-term database, 1999-2014, of fish survey statistics and hydrology in the central Amazon and discovered a direct correlation between water quantity and quality with the types and number of fish species found.

“The change occurred following the severe drought in that region in 2005, and the hydrologic regime and fish assemblage have not returned to their previous states since,” Winemiller said.

The research report, “Simultaneous abrupt shifts in hydrology and fish assemblage structure in a floodplain lake in the central Amazon,” was published recently in Scientific Reports, the online publication of Nature.

“The Amazon region is showing evidence of altered rainfall patterns,” Winemiller said. “Until this study, with few exceptions, studies of potential effects of climate change in the Amazon have focused on forests and other organisms on land.

“Since the drought, many fish species are less abundant within the study area, while others have increased. Smaller species with high reproductive rates have increased, while large species, including those with the highest consumer market value, have become less prevalent.”

As an example, Winemiller cited the relative abundance of the tambaqui, Colossoma macropomum, one of the region’s most valuable species in Amazon fish markets, declined in relative abundance within the study area after the 2005 drought and has not increased its numbers since. He said the species feeds on fruits and seeds in flooded forests and is sensitive to changes in the annual flood regime hydrology.

Winemiller said the changes within the fish species appeared to be associated with how the fish species respond differently to changes in habitat quality and the connectivity of the river channel with aquatic habitats in the floodplain at various water levels and times of the year.

“The study reveals that climate change is impacting tropical regions with consequences not only for terrestrial ecosystems, but for aquatic ecosystem dynamics, biodiversity and fisheries as well,” he said. “It shows that future fisheries management in tropical regions will need to account for how changes in precipitation and hydrology influence ecological factors affecting fish stocks.”


Ex-IMF Chief Rato Sentenced To 4.5 Years In Prison For Embezzlement

0
0

Former IMF chief Rodrigo Rato was handed a jail sentence of four years and six months Thursday, February 23 for misusing funds when he was the boss of two Spanish banks, AFP reports.

Spain’s National Court, which deals with corruption and financial crime cases, said he had been found guilty of “embezzlement” when he headed up Caja Madrid and Bankia, at a time when both groups were having difficulties.

Rato, who is also a former Spanish economy minister, was on trial with 64 other former executives and board members at both banks accused of misusing 12 million euros ($12.7 million) between 2003 and 2012 — sometimes splashing out at the height of Spain’s economic crisis.

They were accused of having paid for personal expenses with credit cards put at their disposal by both Caja Madrid and Bankia, without ever justifying them or declaring them to tax authorities.

According to the indictment, Rato maintained the “corrupt system” established by his predecessor Miguel Blesa when he took the reins of Caja Madrid in 2010.

He then replicated the system when he took charge of Bankia, a group born in 2011 out of the merger of Caja Madrid with six other savings banks, prosecutors said.

Blesa was sentenced to six years in jail.

Rato had always denied any wrongdoing and said the credit cards were for discretionary spending as part of executives’ pay deal.

New Clues Found For Nuclear Waste Cleanup

0
0

A Washington State University study of the chemistry of technetium-99 has improved understanding of the challenging nuclear waste and could lead to better cleanup methods.

The work is reported in the journal Inorganic Chemistry. It was led by John McCloy, associate professor in the School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, and chemistry graduate student Jamie Weaver. Researchers from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), the Office of River Protection and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory collaborated.

Technetium-99 is a byproduct of plutonium weapons production and is considered a major U.S. challenge for environmental cleanup. At the Hanford Site nuclear complex in Washington state, there are about 2,000 pounds of the element dispersed within approximately 56 million gallons of nuclear waste in 177 storage tanks.

The U.S. Department of Energy is in the process of building a waste treatment plant at Hanford to immobilize hazardous nuclear waste in glass. But researchers have been stymied because not all the technetium-99 is incorporated into the glass and volatilized gas must be recycled back into the melter system.

The element can be very soluble in water and moves easily through the environment when in certain forms, so it is considered a significant environmental hazard.

Because technetium compounds are challenging to work with, earlier research has used less volatile substitutes to try to understand the material’s behavior. Some of the compounds themselves have not been studied for 50 years, said McCloy. “The logistics are very challenging,” he said.

The WSU work was done in PNNL’s highly specialized Radiochemical Processing Laboratory and the radiological annex of its Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory.

The researchers conducted fundamental chemistry tests to better understand technetium-99 and its unique challenges for storage. They determined that the sodium forms of the element behave much differently than other alkalis, which possibly is related to its volatility and to why it may be so reactive with water.

“The structure and spectral signatures of these compounds will aid in refining the understanding of technetium incorporation into nuclear waste glasses,” said McCloy.

The researchers also hope the work will contribute to the study of other poorly understood chemical compounds.

Why The Flynn-Russia Affair Is Not Going Away Any Time Soon – Analysis

0
0

By Emanuel L. Paparella, Ph.D.*

We still hear die-hard protestations of “fake news!” by assorted politicians (including President Trump, of course), journalists, and political pundits on the Flynn-Russia affair. They seem to have that denial ready-made for anything they don’t particularly like to hear, but the denial is no longer so credible and the story is fast gaining legs.

It seems that the scandal will simply not vanish in thin air, as it had been hoped at the outset by its perpetrators. There is enough evidence to keep the embarrassing story going for months. Let’s analyze it briefly.

We have those strange words at a press conference by Donald Trump regarding Flynn’s Russia contacts: “I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn’t doing it.” That is a comment that Trump may come to regret as the ongoing investigation proceeds. It is quite similar to Nixon’s “I am not a crook,” or to Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

We may ask: what is the essence of this story? It is basically this: The United States imposed sanctions on Russia following its 2014 military incursion into Ukraine. Additional sanctions were put in place last year in reaction to Russia’s use of hacking and propaganda campaigns to influence the American election.

In a December 30 conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, Flynn discussed the sanctions, raising questions of whether he had said anything to the ambassador to undermine the policies of then-still-in-office President Barack Obama. On January 12, The Washington Post reported that the discussions between Flynn and Kislyak had in fact taken place and it was not just about pleasantries and greetings. That sane day, Flynn denied to White House spokesman Sean Spicer that he had mentioned sanctions to the Russian ambassador. Flynn also deceived Vice President Michael Pence, assuring him that they had only discussed logistics for phone calls with Trump; Pence repeated that falsehood publicly on January 16.

The next issue that needs exploration is that of the rules on surveillance by the NSA and the FBI. A lot of confusion exists in this regard. Those surveillance teams do not read emails and listen to telephone conversations indiscriminately. There are specific requirements, rules and guidelines in place.

The first rule comes from Executive Order 12333, signed by former President Ronald Reagan in 1981, which gives the FBI and the NSA the authority to use the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as the basis for actively monitoring communications between foreign officials inside the United States, including ambassadors like Kislyak. Both Flynn and Kislyak must have known that their conversation was being monitored. But it is important to understand that if the conversation was just an exchange of pleasantries, it would no longer exist in the records.

That’s not the case. The conversation was deemed improper enough to be intercepted and brought to the attention of FBI’s National Security Division for review. If that review raised no concerns, it would have been stopped right there and there. It was instead elevated to a review by James Comey, the director of the FBI. He and his deputy then become the final arbiters as to whether or not the intercepted communication merits further investigation. It was decided that it did and therefore Flynn was interviewed.

The conversation of greatest importance took place on December 30. That was the day after the Obama administration took action against Russia for interfering with the American election with cyberattacks, expelling 35 suspected spies and imposing sanctions on two of that country’s intelligence agencies involved in hacking. It was in Flynn’s conversation the following day that he discussed the issue of American sanctions on Russia, which he later denied having done to Vice President Pence.

What created suspicions at the time is that President Obama expelled a number of Russian spies, Russia did not retaliate. The response to that refusal to retaliate was a tweet which was in essence a congratulation and a praise: “I always knew he was very smart.”

Soon after the inauguration, the FBI interviewed Flynn and the acting attorney general Sally Yates informed the new White House counsel, Don McGahn, that her Department had recordings that showed what Flynn had discussed with the Russian ambassador and his account was not true. Only eleven days later was the vice president informed that he had been deceived.

So the question arises: what did the president know, and when did he know it? That question if reminiscent of the famous question raised during the pre-impeachment proceeding of Richard Nixon.

Did Trump know what Flynn had discussed, and if he did not, is he an incompetent for not knowing? He had, after all, full authority to ask for the material in question. To the contrary, he and his cohorts wish to leave the impression that he did not know what Flynn said to the Russian ambassador. No reporter has, so far, asked him that question directly. There seems to be a reluctance to ask tough questions to someone who considers the press “the enemy of the American people.”

What we do have on record is that he would have told Flynn to do exactly what he actually did. The suspicion now grows that he knew all along what Flynn was planning and the “congratulations to Putin” was part of that knowledge.

The latest on this developing story is that Comey has already sat down for three hours with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee to brief them on what he knows. Those senators are no longer claiming ignorance of this story of the Russian scandal and have pledged an independent bipartisan investigation. Letters have been sent out to the White House demanding that documents not be destroyed as they relate to contacts with Russia. The future will determine if the entire story was “fake news.” I highly doubt it.

About the author:
*Professor Emanuel L. Paparella, Ph.D
. has earned a Ph.D. in Italian Humanism, with a dissertation on the philosopher of history Giambattista Vico, from Yale University. He is a scholar interested in current relevant philosophical, political and cultural issues; the author of numerous essays and books on the EU cultural identity among which A New Europe in search of its Soul, and Europa: An Idea and a Journey. Presently he teaches philosophy and humanities at Barry University, Miami, Florida. He is a prolific writer and has written hundreds of essays for both traditional academic and on-line magazines among which Metanexus and Ovi. One of his current works in progress is a book dealing with the issue of cultural identity within the phenomenon of “the neo-immigrant” exhibited by an international global economy strong on positivism and utilitarianism and weak on humanism and ideals.

Source:
This article was published at Modern Diplomacy

Friendship In Defiance Of War – OpEd

0
0

Before making their home in Damascus, Gabe Huck and Theresa Kubasak had regularly visited Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, where they developed lasting friendships and deepened cultural awareness. Iraq was steadily deteriorating under thirteen years of U.S./UN imposed economic sanctions. Despite iron clad determination by U.S. policy makers to isolate Iraq, Gabe and Theresa repeatedly challenged the economic sanctions by carrying medicines and medical relief supplies to Iraqi children, families and hospitals.

They also helped organize opportunities for scores of other U.S. and U.K. people to visit Iraq as part of Voices in the Wilderness (VitW). Voices delegations politely but firmly notified U.S. authorities that they would break the economic sanctions by personally carrying duffel bags filled with children’s vitamins, antibiotics, medical textbooks, surgical kits, first aid material and medical relief supplies, all of which the economic sanctions prohibited. Evidence for prosecution of one delegation included a bottle of water and a blank video that had been purchased in Baghdad.

Punishment ostensibly imposed to force the Iraqi government’s compliance with weapons inspectors had directly contributed towards the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children under age five. The VitW campaign succeeded in sending 70 delegations to Iraq, all of which prompted greatly needed education and public discussion in cities and towns across the U.S. and the U.K. Leslie Stahl posed the question in a Sixty Minutes segment that aired in May of 1996: were the deaths of over one half million children under age five an acceptable price to pay for a dubious policy? “Yes, Leslie,” said Madeline Albright, who was the U.S. Secretary of State. “I’m a humanitarian person, and it’s a difficult choice to make, but the price, we think the price is worth it.”

Gabe and Theresa begged to differ.

Voices in the Wilderness (VitW) was based in a second floor apartment on Chicago’s north side, a few miles south of  Gabe’s and Theresa’s home in Evanston. Eyes lit up inside “the office” whenever Gabe and Theresa came up the stairs. Along with their encouragement and wisdom, they would always bring fresh baked pastries or a loaf of bread. About a dozen young people had poured energy and determination into strengthening VitW efforts to defy the sanctions against Iraq. They in turn drew immense inspiration and guidance from Gabe and Theresa.

“I think I understand,” a young nurse from the U.K. murmured, as he sat at the bedside of a dying child in the pediatric ward of a major hospital in Baghdad. “It’s a death row for infants, isn’t it?” A death row for infants. Travelers to Iraq encountered brutal, lethal punishment of children. Every hospital visit was nothing less than shocking. By the time the U.S. military had geared up for the 2003 Shock and Awe campaign, Iraqis had already been pummeled, starved, humiliated and bereaved. “You come and you say, you will do, you will do,” said one Iraqi teenager, addressing a delegation of U.S. people visiting her high school class. “But nothing changes. Me, I am sixteen. Can you tell me, what is the difference between me and someone who is sixteen in your country?  I’ll tell you. Our emotions are frozen. We cannot feel!” She sat down, suddenly overcome by feelings of anguish.

Many people worldwide may have been tempted, through mainstream media coverage, to think that only one person lived in Iraq, Saddam Hussein. Voices delegation members cultivated a passion to tell people about what they had seen and heard while visiting Baghdad, Basra, Mosul and other Iraqi cities. Gabe and Theresa exemplified a beautiful ability to explore history, culture, complexity, diversity and nuance, wherever they traveled. To this day, they maintain close friendships with people they first met during their visits to Baghdad. Always, their concern for children occupied the forefront of their distress and commitment.

Their research and study, along with their good humor, helped all of us gain needed maturity as we tried to campaign for ending the hideous economic war and prevent a new round of bombing and invasion.

Having watched them in action through many years of Voices witness and work, I wasn’t surprised by their readiness to become rooted in Damascus, intent on finding ways for ordinary U.S. people to begin reparations to Iraqis whose lives have been forever altered and traumatized by successive U.S. military and economic wars. But I often feel mesmerized by their seemingly endless capacity to learn, grow and serve. I remember visiting them in Damascus when they were learning Arabic. Utterly diligent in their studies, they knew they must give immovable priority to daily lessons.

Yet they also managed to invite young people to study with them, sharing with others their remarkable tutor, Mazen. Young people who went to study Arabic in Damascus could count on Gabe and Theresa for help with housing and orientation. What’s more, they would be treated to enlivening trips and boundless encouragement.

Eventually, these two efficient and hospitable teachers began to imagine practical, sustainable ways to help Iraqi youngsters, displaced by war, continue their studies. In September, 2016, a UNHCR report “highlighting education as an overlooked casualty of the global refugee crisis,” (NYT, 9/15/2016) noted that:

Nearly two-thirds of the six million school-age children classified as refugees have no school to attend…Roughly 1.75 million refugee children are not enrolled in primary school and 1.95 million refugee adolescents are not in secondary school, the refugee agency report said.

“It is essential that we think beyond basic survival,” said Filippo Grandi, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees.

Gabe and Theresa had identified one of the most grievous results of war and displacement. A new generation becomes undereducated, less able to care for their families and meet basic needs.

Ever appreciative of challenges and confident in their exceptional capacity to team up, they explored the many strands needed to develop potential for Iraqi youngsters to attend Universities in the U.S. The Iraq Student Project became a growing tapestry.

For Gabe and Theresa, and eventually a stalwart group of supporters who sometimes participated in springtime visits to Syria, Damascus was an idyllic setting in which to pursue a project that put them in touch with resilient and fascinating young people. Never Can I Write of Damascuscelebrates a plethora of sights, sounds, aromas, delicacies and intricacies of the city as experienced over the seven years when Gabe and Theresa resided there.  But the Iraqi Student Project also connected them to a staggering array of bureaucratic requirements. With numerous forms to fill out and interviews to face, they doggedly pursued University admission and a U.S. student visa for each student who entered the U.S.

I marveled at their indefatigable, constant attentiveness to so much detail. They look back on those rigors with good humor and a gentle irony. Characteristically, they turn adverse experiences into a means for deepening needed empathy. Gabe recently suggested that I read a novel, The Corpse Washer, by Sinan Antoon. (It’s one of several books discussed in an annotated bibliography  at the end of their book). Antoon writes with heart-wrenching sensitivity about how difficult it becomes to cross a divisive border following a war:

(p. 149) “I felt as if we had been struck by an earthquake which had changed everything. For decades to come we would be groping our way around in the rubble it left behind. In the past, there were streams between Sunnis and Shi’ites, or this group and that, which could be easily crossed or were invisible at times. Now, after the earthquake, the earth had all these fissures and the streams had become rivers. The rivers became torrents filled with blood, and whoever tried to cross drowned.  The images of those on the other side of the river had been inflated and disfigured…concrete walls rose to seal the tragedy.”

Pope Francis exhorts listeners to overcome the fears that drive people to seal themselves off from others.  With the walls come weapons and the weapons lead to war. “Why,” Pope Francis asked, when addressing the U.S. Congress in 2015, “would anyone give weapons to people who use them for war?” The answer, he said, was simple. “The answer is money, and the money is drenched in blood.”

Weapons and bloodshed have wreaked new chaos and havoc, destroying the lives and homes of people throughout Syria and beyond. Gabe and Theresa left Damascus in 2012.  Since that time, thousands more have been displaced. The UN estimated in April 2016 that at least 400,000 Syrians have been killed. The rivers have become torrents of blood.

When I last visited with Gabe and Theresa, they shook their heads in silent sorrow, contemplating the ruinous debacle of endless war. Nevertheless, they and their friend Mazen have discovered ways, in Istanbul, to assist young refugees seeking continued education.  When walls arise that would seem to seal the tragedy of war in concrete boundaries, Gabe and Therese find ways to cross the borders. Never Can I Write of Damascus invites us to do the same.

(A version of this article first appeared in the National Catholic Reporter, Feb. 8, 2017.)

Japan And India: Deepening Ties In Age Of Uncertainty – Analysis

0
0

The largely successful bilateral summit between Japan and the US points to the ability of the longstanding alliance to ride out a few diplomatic storms. However, lingering uncertainties highlight the need for Japan to continue to diversify its alliances and partnerships. India seems to be its natural choice.

By Tan Ming Hui and Nazia Hussain*

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe held his first official summit with President Donald Trump on 10-11 February 2017. Being Japan’s most important ally, it was crucial for Abe to reaffirm bilateral security and trade ties with the United States. In many aspects, the summit was deemed a great diplomatic success for Abe. During their joint press conference, Trump called the US-Japan alliance “the cornerstone of peace and stability in the Pacific region” and indicated his administration’s commitment to “the security of Japan and all areas under its administrative control.”

While there is little doubt about the ability of the longstanding alliance to ride out a few diplomatic storms, uncertainties about the Trump administration’s foreign policy direction remain. Such uncertainties pose a risk of strategic miscalculation for Japan, underscoring the need for Tokyo to seek a degree of self-reliance and additional stability beyond the alliance. Under such a geopolitical climate, Japan will benefit from improving its relations with other regional players, and it will likely pursue deeper ties with India — a natural partner for Japan.

Unpredictability in the Age of Trump

Japan and India share concerns over the Trump administration’s unpredictable foreign policy decisions. During his presidential campaign, Trump alarmingly suggested that US Asian allies Japan and South Korea should pursue their own nuclear armaments as a deterrent, showing a lack of understanding of the complexities in Northeast Asian relations. Recent developments, including Trump’s immediate withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and his unfortunate phone call with the Australian prime minister over an Obama-era refugee agreement, have also called the credibility of US leadership and commitment to its partners into question.

There is also uncertainty over who calls the shots when it comes to US foreign policy strategy. During US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis’ visit to Japan and South Korea, he indicated his preference for diplomatic resolutions with China over disputes in the South China Sea. Trump also seemed to be softening his stance on China, agreeing to honour the “one China” policy in a phone call with the Chinese president. In contrast, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has suggested that he would take a more assertive approach toward the South China Sea issue, proposing a blockade of Chinese access to the islands. Also, Steve Bannon, the White House’s chief strategist, has previously predicted the United States will go to war with China over the South China Sea.

Despite being one of the United States’ strongest allies, Japan was a foreign policy target during Trump’s campaign. Besides portraying Japan as a free-rider on the US security guarantee, Trump also criticised Japan’s automotive trade practices and accused Japan of devaluing its currency. During the recent summit, Abe made deliberate moves to underplay these economic disagreements in favour of promoting a positive relationship with Trump. It is a smart diplomatic move at this stage; however, simply sidestepping such issues is not sustainable in the long run.

Japan and India as Natural Allies

The 2016 India-Japan summit clearly envisages a greater role for Japan and India in the region. Without the burden of historical baggage or outstanding disputes, and with a shared vision for democracy, Japan and India are natural allies and are ready to expand the scope of their economic, strategic, and defence cooperation.

In fact, Japan is the only country New Delhi has allowed to tread in the politically sensitive region of northeastern India, where Japan is investing in socioeconomic development projects. Tokyo has been providing official development assistance (ODA) loans in the fields of energy, water supply, forestry, and urban development in India’s northeast since 1981. Also, New Delhi has for the first time allowed for foreign investment in the strategically critical Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

The Modi government is open to collaborating on upgrading civilian infrastructure on the islands with Japan; the first project being discussed is a 15-megawatt diesel power plant on South Andaman Island. The Japanese Embassy in India has confirmed that Japan was eager to use ODA to enhance India’s “connectivity” with countries that are members of ASEAN or the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

The regional security environment also remains a prominent factor. A joint statement following the 2016 summit outlined a convergence of interests on bilateral issues and regional concerns, including nuclear cooperation, counterterrorism, coordination on regional issues, and defence industry cooperation. Furthermore, Japan and India inked a civil nuclear agreement in 2016, making India the first non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to have signed such a deal with Japan.

Meanwhile, Trump seems to be keen on developing close ties with India. Overall, Trump’s rhetoric toward India and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been largely positive. Nevertheless, such development may not be a permanent fixture. One major source of potential contention might be Trump’s move to clamp down on H-1B visa programmes, which would affect Indian outsourcing firms. The biggest beneficiaries of H-1B visas are Indians; in 2014, Indians accounted for 70 percent of the total H-1B petitions approved.

Timely Partnership

Several members of ASEAN remain embroiled in tension with China over the South China Sea disputes. This, combined with the possibility of the US playing a reduced role in the region, may make some countries nervous at the prospect of China’s emergence as the sole regional leader. As such, the strengthening of Japan-India relations is timely and offers an alternative to China’s otherwise unhindered dominance.

Although a more robust Japan-India partnership will be welcomed as a counterbalance to China’s assertiveness, bandwagoning against China will be counterproductive. To this end, Japan and India are already working to engage with other regional players; Abe recently visited the Philippines, Australia, Indonesia and Vietnam in January to promote close cooperation while Modi’s “Act East” policy hinges on connectivity with Asian nations. To ensure stability, however, they should also engage with China to promote peaceful solutions to regional conflicts.

Some might argue that India lacks the political will to assume a greater leadership role in the Asia-Pacific. However, India is already gearing up to keep a check on China’s expanding footprint in the Indian Ocean littorals, which have traditionally been under India’s sphere of influence. New Delhi will not want to rely just on a shaky White House to cope with a rising China.

It is likely that the Modi leadership will adopt a more proactive foreign policy approach, looking for natural allies in Asia. If there are any reservations about India’s past reputation as a passive actor in world affairs, there is enough indication of political will now, which signals a more proactive stance. This will certainly be welcomed by the Abe administration.

*Tan Ming Hui is an Associate Research Fellow and Nazia Hussain is a Research Analyst in the Office of the Executive Deputy Chairman at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. A version of this commentary first appeared in The Diplomat.

Morocco And Guinea Set To Reboot Bilateral Relatiions – OpEd

0
0

Morocco and Guinea continue to reinforce their strong diplomatic and bilateral relations. King Mohammed VI is paying a friendly and working visit to Guinea. At the presidential palace in Conakry, the Moroccan monarch and President of the Republic of Guinea Alpha Condé, presided over the signing ceremony of the following eight bilateral cooperation agreements :

1. A convention on the upgrading of the city of Conakry.

2. A framework cooperation agreement on the implementation of projects for the aggregation of maize production in the Republic of Guinea.

3. An agreement on the creation of a cadastral system.

4. A cooperation agreement on the agricultural sector that provides for carrying out a project of hydro-agricultural development on an area between 200 and 300 ha.

5. A grant agreement relating to the project of liquid sanitation of the city of Conakry.

6.A memorandum of understanding on technical assistance.

7. A cooperation agreement relating to the project of liquid sanitation of the city of Conakry.

8. A memorandum of understanding for the for the supply of 100,000 tons of fertilizers to the Republic of Guinea.

Morocco and Guinea continue to reaffirm their commitment to reboot their already excellent bilateral relations. As the current Moroccan Guinean co-operation ushers in unprecedented opportunities, it calls for a more stable and closer relationship between the two countries. The two countries are ready to work hand in hand to comprehensively implement the outcome of the visits of King Mohammed VI to Guinea (the last royal visit was in March 2014) and to create a new “golden decade” for the relationship of the two African great countries.

The Non-‘Special’-Ness Of LTG McMaster – OpEd

0
0

By Michael P. Noonan*

(FPRI) — Much has been made about President Trump’s selection of Army Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster as his new National Security Advisor. Aside from the potential hiccup wherein the Senate will need to confirm him for this position in order to retain his current rank, seemingly no one has mentioned the fact that LTG McMaster does not come with a Special Operations Forces (SOF) background.

Why is this interesting? Because the president’s first National Security Advisor Lieutenant General (USA, ret.) Michael Flynn’s career took off after his service as the chief intelligence officer for the secretive Joint Special Operations Command. From all accounts, LTG Flynn did great work there revolutionizing the integration and exploitation of intelligence to create a much more efficient capture or kill operations. The president’s next choice, who demurred, was Vice Admiral Bob Harward, USN (ret.) who was a career SEAL officer. LTG McMaster, on the other hand, comes from the conventional military community. To be sure, at least in my opinion, McMaster was one of the rare officers who excelled in both decisive action (his command in the battle of 73 Easting in Operation Desert Storm has been studied) and in population-centric counterinsurgency environments (his actions in the Battle of Tal`Afar), but he will likely be skeptical of assuming that special operations forces, drone strikes, and cyber operations (three big components of defense policy during the Obama administration) will be able to achieve the nation’s operational and strategic ends.

Why do I think that? Because in a speech at the Defense Entrepreneurs Forum several years back, he argued against what he characterized as the four fallacies of modern warfare: (1) the “vampire” fallacy where advances in technology will allow standoff targeting to solve tactical, operational, and strategic conundrums, (2) the “zero-dark-thirty” fallacy of raiding to victory, (3) the “Mutual of Omaha Wild Kingdom” fallacy of winning through proxies, and (4) the “RSVP” fallacy of being able to opt out of future conflicts. Fallacies two and three are directly related to American SOF. I reproduce his words on each below:

…The zero-dark-thirty fallacy, like the vampire fallacy, elevates an important military capability, raiding, to the level of a defense strategy.  The US capability to conduct raids against networked terrorist organizations is portrayed as a substitute for rather than a compliment to conventional Joint Force capabilities.  Raids, because they are operations of short duration, limited purpose and planned withdrawal, are often unable to effect the human and political drivers of armed conflict or make progress toward achieving sustainable outcomes consistent with vital interests.

…[T]he Mutual of Omaha Wild Kingdom fallacy may require a little explanation for those of younger generations.  In the 1960s on Sunday nights, families with young children gathered to watch two television shows, the Wonderful World of Disney and Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom.  The host for Wild Kingdom was Marlin Perkins.  Marlin Perkins would introduce the topic of the show, often a dangerous animal, and provide commentary throughout.  But Mr. Perkins would rarely place himself in a dangerous situation.  He usually left close contact with the wildlife to his assistant, Jim Fowler.  Under the Mutual of Omaha Wild Kingdom fallacy, the US assumes the role of Marlin Perkins and relies on proxy forces in the role of Jim Fowler to do the fighting on land.  While it is hard to imagine future operations that will not require US forces to operate with multiple partners, primary reliance on proxies is often problematic due to issues involving capability as well as willingness to act consistent with U.S. interests.  The political and human dimensions of war often create what economists and political scientists call principal-actor problems.

None of the above is meant to suggest that the United States will not continue to use SOF to deal with national security challenges. My only point here is that LTG McMaster’s experience and education (in particular his historical mind) will likely question when and how to rightly use and when and how not to use these incredibly capable forces. After 15+ years of war, we no doubt have amassed spectacular capabilities in terms of our SOF, but we’ve also ridden them hard. And such forces do not offer a panacea for solving complex political-military objectives. McMaster’s more holistic approach to military power may then bring a more balanced approach toward the application of force when military tools are required.

About the author:
*Dr. Michael P. Noonan
is the Director of Research, and is the Director of the Program on National Security, at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. His current research focuses on civil-military relations, indirect approaches and strategy (particularly as they relate to political and irregular warfare), the roles and missions of the U.S. military, and transnational foreign fighters. A former Captain in the U.S. Army Reserve, in 2006- 2007 he served on a Military Transition Team (MiTT) with an Iraqi light infantry battalion in and around the northern city of Tal`Afar

Source:
This article was published by FPRI


Trump’s Asia Policy Takes Shape – Analysis

0
0

By Thomas J. Shattuck*

(FPRI) — After challenging the “One China” policy—the bedrock of Sino-American relations—during his transition period, President Donald Trump accepted the long-standing position in a phone call with President Xi Jinping of China in early February. In December 2016, Trump became the first U.S. president-elect to contact directly the president of Taiwan, and in January 2017, he openly questioned the merits of the “One China” policy. Both of these things, taken together or separately, marked a potentially fundamental shift in U.S. policy toward both Taiwan and China. Before the phone call, it seemed that relations between the United States and China would backslide or turn hostile. For now, the world can breathe easier since by all accounts, the phone call between Trump and Xi was cordial and productive.

That phone call, a recent visit to South Korea and Japan by Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and a visit to the United States by Prime Minister Abe Shinzo of Japan show signs that the Trump administration is making progress towards formulating its Asia policy. The recent visits, conversations, and statements point to a much more mainstream policy. While goodwill among allies, friends, and competitors has been mostly preserved during the early days of the administration, threats and challenges are ahead.

U.S.–Japan Relations

During Mattis’s visit to South Korea and Japan, the Defense Secretary reiterated American commitments to the two allies, and he unequivocally stated that Japanese control over the Senkaku Islands isprotected under Article 5 of the U.S.–Japan Defense Treaty. Mattis’ statements are no different than the policies under the Obama administration. Just days after the trip, China, in direct response to Mattis’ comments, sailed three warships 12 nautical miles off the coast of the Senkaku Islands. This move shows that even though the United States will protect Japanese interests in the region, China will continue to pressure Japan and assert its own interests. Mattis’s  trip served as an important “first” Trump-era official visit for the two vital allies and to show that the Trump administration views Asia as a key part of its policies.

Also, in mid-February, Trump hosted Abe at the White House and at Mar-a-Lago. It is the second time the two have met face-to-face since Trump’s election, the most encounters with any foreign leader that Trump has had to date. This fact has gone understated in the media, but meeting with Abe twice in such a short period speaks to the level of importance that Japan has placed on its relationship with Trump. During a joint press conference, Trump said, “This administration is committed to bringing those ties even closer. We are committed to the security of Japan and all areas under its administrative control and to further strengthening our very crucial alliance.” He also noted that he and Abe have good chemistry, so it is entirely possible that U.S.-Japanese relations will strengthen during Trump’s presidency. Good ties with the U.S. president are imperative for Japan, given the threat posed by China’s assertion that the Senkaku Islands are not part of Japan, but a part of China, and Japan’s interest in establishing closer economic ties with the U.S., especially in the aftermath of the U.S.’s rejection of the TPP. Expect the United States and Japan to grow closer during the next four years: out of necessity for Japan, and due to Trump’s affinity for Abe for the United States.

U.S.-China Relations

At the request of President Xi,” Trump said that he will “honor” the “One China” policy. Though the White House has issued only a limited readout of the phone call and we do not know how much Xi pressed Trump or whether the request extended beyond honoring the policy, it is important that Trump has finally accepted the policy so that the United States and China can move on and cooperate on pressing issues—like North Korea successfully testing another ballistic missile or the “unsafe encounter” between  U.S.  Chinese military planes that flew within 300 meters of each other over the disputed Scarborough Shoal.

The U.S. could not afford to isolate China because Trump questioned the “One China” policy. Trump’s acceptance of the policy shows that he understands that the Chinese do not take such issues lightly. Before taking office, he may not have understood the ramifications of casually questioning the “One China” policy. However, since taking office, he seems to have gained a greater appreciation for the essentials of Sino-American relations. According to reports, newly confirmed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson played a key role in getting Trump to accept the policy so that both countries could move forward.

Tillerson’s role also shows that he has backed down from statements that he made during his confirmation hearing.  Then, he had stated that the U.S. would deny China access to its artificial islands in the South China Sea. In written answers to follow-up questions by Senator Ben Cardin, Tillerson committed to only denying access if China acted aggressively towards one of its neighbors:

To expand on the discussion of U.S. policy options in the South China Sea, the United States seeks peaceful resolution of disputes and does not take a position on overlapping sovereignty claims, but the United States also does not recognize China’s excessive claims to the waters and airspace of the South China Sea. China cannot be allowed to use its artificial islands to coerce its neighbors or limit freedom of navigation or overflight in the South China Sea. The United States will uphold freedom of navigation and overflight by continuing to fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows. If a contingency occurs, the United States and its allies and partners must be capable of limiting China’s access to and use of its artificial islands to pose a threat to the United States or its allies and partners. The United States must be willing to accept risk if it is to deter further destabilizing actions and reassure allies and partners that the United States will stand with them in upholding international rules and norms. If confirmed, I would look forward to working with interagency partners to develop a whole-of-government approach to deter further Chinese coercion and land reclamation as well as challenges to freedom of navigation or overflight in the South China Sea.

His answer points to a slightly—not radically—different approach to China’s claims in the South China Sea from the Obama administration. The change in policy would matter only if China acts more aggressively. The key question that remains now is what does “contingency” mean—is the policy limited to Chinese actions in the South China Sea or is it a general one to be used in the event of any aggressive action? Regardless, the administration had course-corrected its China policy rather quickly, stabilizing what could have been a rocky start to Trump’s relationship with Xi and China.

As always, China’s responses to questions about the phone call were short and to the point. During his daily press conference, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lu Kang said of the phone call, “You must be aware that the one-China principle is the political foundation for China-US relations. To adhere to the one-China policy and the principles reflected in the three joint communiqués between China and the US is the obligation of the US administration. It is also China’s consistent position. We commend President Trump’s statement in the phone call that the US administration will honor the one-China policy.” It cannot be emphasized enough how much significance China places on the “One China” policy; refusing to accept it is a non-starter for the Chinese. There can be no conversations without it.

However, Trump’s about-face on the issue after treating the long-held policy so casually may hurt him in the short or long term. Now, Trump cannot use his reluctance to accept the “One China” policy as a way to negotiate with Beijing. If not dropping U.S. commitment to the “One China” policy was a bargaining chip he intended to use at an important time, then he now no longer has it. If it actually wasn’t a bargaining chip, then Trump roiled U.S.-China relations for nothing. And now, it can be perceived that Trump caved to Chinese pressure easily. The supposed master of the “art of the deal” has lost face in the eyes of the Chinese.  Questioning the bedrock of Sino-American relations and quickly changing course when pressed by the leader of China does not bode well for future negotiations. In their minds, he has backed down once, so he will back down again when pressured even more. Trump should never had questioned this policy in the first place.

U.S.–Taiwan Relations

Trump’s acceptance of the “One China” policy does not mean that he has abandoned Taiwan. The policy has been in place for decades during which the U.S. and Taiwan have maintained strong, if informal, ties. Taiwan would prefer to see stable relations between the U.S. and China because good relations between the two of them means that Taiwan has less to worry about. When relations between the U.S. and China are strained, Taiwan, not the United States, generally becomes the target.

In the same written responses where he clarified his remarks on the South China Sea, Tillerson did not stray from long-established policy towards Taiwan. He stated that if confirmed he would continue to uphold the Six Assurances while committing to the “One China” policy. Despite the Taiwan-related drama during the transition, the administration has changed its course and avoided cross-strait controversy since Trump was inaugurated. Tillerson’s comments should please the Taiwanese since he tried to assuage one of their main concerns about Trump’s potential treatment of Taiwan: “The people of Taiwan are friends of the United States and should not be treated as a bargaining chip. The U.S. commitment to Taiwan is both a legal commitment and a moral imperative. If confirmed, I would work to ensure economic and military stability across the Strait.” Maintaining the status quo has been the general policy of the previous administration in Taiwan as well as the current one. The great fear that Trump would use Taiwan as a bargaining chip when negotiating with China has been quelled—at least for now. As long as the president listens to his Secretary of State, U.S.-Taiwan relations do not look like they will change much. There is still plenty of room for growth and greater cooperation, but for now, the American and Taiwanese public should be happy with the current path that the administration has set over the past month.

Establishing Policy towards Asia

Despite a controversial start during the transition period, the Trump administration’s Asia policy appears to be taking shape. It is not—as many hoped or dreaded—as extreme as expected. Commitments to South Korea and Japan have been reiterated, the “One China” policy has been accepted, and U.S. support for the status quo between China and Taiwan will continue. Granted, all of these policies and statements could change as quickly as a tweet can be written.

As the administration begins to formulate a comprehensive plan for the region, do not expect radical differences from previous U.S. administrations. Trump will try to pressure China where he can; he could increase the frequency of U.S. ships sailing near contested islands in the South and East China Seas to send a message. Due to the makeup of Trump’s Asia team, we can expect the administration to push for greater Taiwanese participation in international institutions and to work with Congress to sell more arms and other defensive equipment as allowed under the Taiwan Relations Act. Acceptance of the “One China” policy does not mean that Trump has abandoned Taiwan; it means that he is aware of its necessity to conduct relations with China, and that the United States needs China to help keep the region stable. As North Korea has shown with its recent missile test, it will remain a gadfly in Northeast Asia, and Trump must find a way to work with China and neighbors to curtail its aggressive actions.

The Trump administration should heed the Chinese saying that President Xi quoted during his speech at the 2017 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland: “积力之所举,则无不胜也;众智之所为,则无不成也.” (Victory is assured when people pool their strength; success is secured when people put their heads together.)

About the author:
*Thomas J. Shattuck
is FPRI’s Assistant Editor and a Research Associate in the Program on National Security.Read

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

Trump Says Wants To ‘Boost’ US Nuclear Arsenal

0
0

(RFE/RL) — US President Donald Trump says he wants to boost the U.S. nuclear arsenal to ensure it is at the “top of the pack.”

Trump, in a wide-ranging interview with Reuters on February 23, argued that the United States has fallen behind in its nuclear-arms capacity.

The 2011 strategic arms limitation treaty between the United States and Russia, known as New START, stipulates that both sides must limit by February 2018 their arsenals of strategic nuclear weapons to equal levels for a period of 10 years.

New START allows each side no more than 800 deployed and nondeployed land-based intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic-missile launchers and heavy bombers equipped to carry nuclear weapons. It also imposes equal limits on other nuclear weapons.

Trump, speaking at his desk in the Oval Office, called New START a one-sided pact.

“Just another bad deal that the country made, whether it’s START, whether it’s the Iran [nuclear] deal … We’re going to start making good deals,” he said.

Trump has repeatedly denounced the July 2015 deal between world powers and Iran, which imposed curbs on Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for a partial lifting of sanctions.

The U.S. president also mentioned in the February 23 interview Moscow’s deployment of a cruise missile in alleged violation of a 1987 arms control treaty that bans land-based U.S. and Russian intermediate-range missiles.

“To me, it’s a big deal,” Trump said, adding that he would bring up the issue with Russian President Vladimir Putin “if and when we meet.”

Russia has denied violating the treaty.

Trump also put more pressure on China to solve the security challenge posed by North Korea, saying that Beijing could exert more influence on Pyongyang “very easily if they want to.”

China Fights Fraud In Auto Sector – Analysis

0
0

By Michael Lelyveld

Thanks to government policies, China leads the world in production of new energy vehicles (NEVs), but a crackdown on fraud suggests that subsidies may be adding to industrial overcapacity instead of putting cleaner cars on the road.

Last year, sales of some 507,000 electric cars, plug-in hybrids and other NEVs soared 53 percent, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) reported.

About 80 percent of the NEVs were fully electric cars with sales posting a 65-percent gain, the official Xinhua news agency said.

Growth rates in the sector have been stunning, sparked by consumer demand for new vehicles despite thickening traffic and smog.

China’s overall auto sales rose 13.7 percent to a record 28 million vehicles last year, while the small but fast-growing NEV segment accounted for less than two percent of total sales.

NEV sales are up nearly sevenfold since 2014 while fully electric models have climbed more than 470 percent, based on CAAM figures.

But success in the sector has been marred by complaints about too many manufacturers and defects including lower battery life, particularly in colder northern cities where NEVs are needed most.

With more than 200 manufacturers crowding the market, many have been suspected of making false claims to cash in on government subsidies.

Questions about subsidy abuse were first raised by former Finance Minister Lou Jiwei in January 2016 following a report on fraudulent practices by The Economic Observer, an independent weekly based in Beijing.

The paper found that some automakers were installing batteries in existing models and claiming subsidies of up to 100,000 yuan (U.S. $14,538) per vehicle for cars purchased by phantom companies but never really sold for use.

Since then, the government has investigated 90 makers of 401,000 NEVs for claiming subsidies on unsold or inoperable vehicles, according to Bloomberg News.

In September, the Ministry of Finance slapped penalties on five car and bus companies for false subsidy claims of more than 1 billion yuan (U.S. $145 million) on 3,547 vehicles, state media reported.

This month, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) accused seven more NEV manufacturers in its probe of subsidy fraud and substandard batteries, the official English-language China Daily said.

NEV sales plunge

It is unclear whether the alleged fraud cases and those under investigation have been reflected in CAAM sales totals.

In January, reported NEV sales plunged 74.4 percent from a year earlier following the crackdown on subsidy scams.

The subsidy issue raises questions about the role that government support has played in the problem of industrial overcapacity, which the government is now trying to solve.

For the past year, the government has been pushing the coal and steel industries to cut surplus capacity, which has been blamed for overproduction, low prices, pollution and antidumping measures abroad.

The problems of excess capacity and low utilization rates have been widespread throughout China’s industries after decades of investment-led growth and implicit subsidies from easy state bank loans.

But the government has been cautious about tackling the problem due to concerns for employment and social stability.

So far, it has focused its capacity-cutting initiative on the coal and steel sectors, where it has predicted that 1.8 million jobs will be lost.

That approach may be changing.

Earlier this month, the government said it was sending inspection teams to check on whether the cement and glass industries were eliminating outdated production capacity, Xinhua reported.

A report by Economic Information Daily also cited officials of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and MIIT as saying that capacity cutting will spread in 2017 to bring sectors including autos, nonferrous metals and new energy under “strict control.”

Concerns about overcapacity and low-quality production have dogged the auto sector for years, despite spectacular growth.

Although last year’s 13.7-percent sales increase was substantial, it was a shadow of the peak growth of 45 percent in 2009. The Ministry of Commerce expects sales growth will slip further to between 2 and 6 percent this year, Xinhua said.

License restrictions, congestion and antipollution efforts have driven consumers into the NEV market, which benefits from both subsidies and special breaks.

“Virtually all (NEV) sales are spurred by government subsidies or perks, such as exemptions from the lotteries for license plates in big cities,” said an Automotive News report last year. “Without incentives, it’s unclear how (NEVs) would win traction at all.”

Rooting out fraud

The government hopes to root out fraudulent and shoddy production in the NEV sector with its investigations and a previously planned decrease in subsidies that took effect at the start of this year.

From 2009 to 2015, the central government paid out 33 billion yuan (U.S. $4.8 billion) in subsidies, Xinhua reported this month. Regional governments offered additional subsidies of 20 billion yuan (U.S. $2.9 billion) from 2013 to 2015, China Daily said last July.

The incentives may have opened the door to a bonanza of fraud. But the government ordered its subsidies to be cut by just 20 percent for sales this year and urged local authorities not to add subsidies exceeding half the central government amount, China Daily said.

The subsidy syndrome may be seen in other sectors where the government has put its economic muscle behind a new technology initiative with the intent of showing global leadership.

With wind power, for example, China has taken the world lead in ramping up non-fossil generation by offering huge subsidies to producers.

Last year, China expanded wind power capacity by nearly 15 percent to 149 kilowatts, the National Energy Administration (NEA) reported. But many wind farms were in remote areas that lacked connections to the national grid.

Wind power generation reached 241 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh), accounting for four percent of China’s electricity output. But nearly 50 billion kWh, or more than 20 percent, was wasted due to distribution problems.

In northwestern Gansu province, the proportion of wasted wind power generation was as high as 43 percent, the Communist Party-affiliated Global Times reported. But producers continue to benefit from subsidies paid by the National Renewable Energy Fund.

In such cases, subsidies guarantee profits for investments that would otherwise incur losses in the real market.

Left unchecked for years, subsidies may be the source of useless or excess production capacity, some of which is supported by local pressure to provide employment, or in other cases, corruption.

“Mostly useless spending can’t continue for more than a few years unless subsidized,” said Derek Scissors, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

How much of China’s gross domestic product can be traced to subsidized, useless or surplus production is unclear, but the NEV and wind power cases suggest that otherwise bad investment is big business, making it hard to curtail.

One test for market viability would be to withdraw subsidies and see whether low-quality or surplus production can continue without support.

So far, the steps toward reforming the NEV sector are gradual. The central government plans to phase out its subsidies entirely by 2020, Xinhua said.

“The biggest subsidy is the impossibility of failure,” Scissors said in an email message.

“If the national government won’t let the major car companies fail and local governments won’t let NEV car companies fail, all the uncompetitive companies will continue to produce when they should be killed off by better companies,” said Scissors.

“This production is entirely subsidized and largely wasted,” he said.

Likely Issues Before First India-China Strategic Dialogue – Analysis

0
0

By Ashok Sajjanhar

India’s Foreign Secretary Dr S. Jaishankar will be heading to Beijing for the first Strategic Dialogue with his Chinese counterpart Executive Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui on  Wednesday, February 22.  The decision to hold this Dialogue was taken by External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi during the latter’s visit to India in August last year. Wang Yi was in India to prepare for Prime Minster Narendra Modi’s visit to Hangzhou, China, for the G 20 Summit in September, 2016 and for President Xi Jinping’s visit to Goa for the BRICS Summit a month later.

According to the Ministry of External Affairs, the two sides will ‘’take a holistic view of India-China relations and see to what extent they can accommodate each other’s concerns and interests.’’ They are expected to discuss key issues of mutual “concern and interest” including “friction points.”

The two sides started out well when the Modi government came to power in May, 2014. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to India in September, 2014 started off well when he landed in Gujarat but its anticipated beneficial outcome was rapidly dissipated by the cross-border incursion by Chinese troops. It was however expected that the firm stand taken by PM Modi on this issue and the promise of US$ 20 billion investment by China in India will help to provide a significant impulse to bilateral ties.

Relations between the two countries have however continued to move downhill. This is notwithstanding the useful visit by Modi to China in May, 2015, and a total of nine meetings between Modi and Xi since the NDA government took office in 2014.

The two major issues that have recently surfaced as principal irritants are of India’s membership of NSG and banning of Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Massod Azhar by UN Security Council (UNSC).

In the case of Masood Azhar, China had initially put a technical hold on discussions in the UNSC. This was subsequently converted into a veto. More recently, when USA, UK and France piloted the proposal to proscribe Massod Azhar, China again vetoed the move. China has demanded that India provide ‘’solid evidence’’ for it to withdraw its veto. All evidence about JeM’s and Azhar’s role in carrying out terrorist attacks against India has been furnished. It is on this basis that JeM was proscribed by UNSC in 2001. Azhar is suspected of having been involved in the Pathankot and Uri attacks on Indian defense assets in 2016. While 14 out of 15 members of UNSC are agreeable to banning Azhar, China has demanded ‘’solid evidence’’ for banning him. It is clear that China is taking a political stand to support its ‘’iron ally’’ Pakistan. It is unfortunate that China is adopting a pernicious stance on the sensitive issue of terrorism. It possibly feels that by supporting Azhar and the Afghan Taliban, it will be able to keep its own backyard in Xinjiang safe. This is a shortsighted approach and exposes its double standards. Its dishonesty became evident when it recently appealed for international protection against terrorist attacks on infrastructure being created by it under its One Belt One Road Initiative!

The other major issue is of India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). It is on the basis of India’s track record as a responsible member of the international community while dealing with nuclear materials and technology that it was provided a unique waiver by the NSG in 2008. India’s behavior and credentials since then have been impeccable. India is keen to get membership of NSG (and other export control agreements – it became a member of MTCR last year) to provide predictability and certainty to the large scale nuclear energy programme it has embarked upon in recent years. China is trying to bring in Pakistan into this consideration and is demanding that uniform procedures be evolved for membership of all non-NPT signatories to NSG. Pakistan’s track record in the nuclear field is dismal. That is why its appeals for a civilian nuclear agreement were rejected by USA. China has been supplying nuclear reactors and technology to Pakistan in flagrant violation of China’s obligations under the NPT. It possibly feels that if India becomes a member of NSG it will act to keep Pakistan out of that body in future. It hence wants simultaneous admission of both Indian and Pakistan to NSG. It is clear that China has adopted this position because it sees any enhancement of India’s economic and political heft as being counter to its own interests.

Some Indian analysts have suggested that India should convince China how its membership of NSG will be beneficial for China. They contend that India should incentivise China to support India’s NSG membership. India has clearly stated that its membership of NSG will help it to invest more in the clean and affordable nuclear energy which will be beneficial for combating climate change and protecting international environment. India cannot be expected to reach out to each of the 48 members of NSG and explain how India’s membership will individually benefit them. China as a large country with the highest greenhouse gas emissions and second largest economy needs to conduct itself as a responsible member of the international community and not expect direct quid pro quo for every action it takes on the international stage.

Several other issues have surfaced which are acting as bones of contention between the two sides. An important one amongst these is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor which passes through Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan, all of which belong to India. China is very sensitive about its own sovereignty whether it pertains to Taiwan or to Tibet. It is incumbent on it to be equally sensitive to India’s concerns on this subject.

China has recently objected to the visit of a Taiwanese parliamentary delegation to India. India has stated that it is an informal visit the likes of which regularly take place to China also. India’s recent contacts with His Holiness the Dalia Lama including President Pranab Mukherjee’s meeting with him as also his proposed visit to Tawang next month are also likely to be raised by the Chinese side. India has stated that HHDL’s interaction with President Mukherjee was purely cultural and took place in the context of the President’s meeting with a number of Nobel Laureates. Also it is clear that HHDL will visit Tawang as an honoured and revered spiritual leader and not for any political activity.

The subject of persistent and unsustainable trade imbalance between the two countries is expected to figure prominently in the Talks. Trade deficit in favour of China has been getting steeper with every passing year. In 2015-16, out of a total trade turnover of US$ 70 billion, India suffered an adverse trade balance of US$ 53 billion.  India’s exports were less than US$ 9 billion while imports were more than US$ 61 billion. China has kept its markets closed to manufactured products and services in which India enjoys a comparative advantage like IT, pharmaceuticals, agricultural products, chemicals etc. In addition, China has failed to bring in investments as it had committed to during Xi Jinping’s visit to India in Sept, 2014.

Some Indian experts suggest that when India discusses issues of concern with China, it should keep in mind that it does not figure in China’s league. The purpose of this statement is not clear. Such diffidence and timidity is incomprehensible. Surely it is not their contention that India should not argue to promote its interests because it has a smaller economy. A country of 1.3 billion people with the fastest growing economy in the world cannot behave in an abject manner when its fundamental interests are at stake. It also needs to be noted that in PPP terms, India’s GDP is US$ 8.7 trillion while China is US$ 20.4 trillion. This would make China’s economy two and a half times larger than India’s in PPP terms. With India’s higher rate of growth compared to China, it is quite possible that the difference between India and China in another 15-20 years will be much less than it is today. India hence needs to safeguard and advance its interests in a vigorous manner.

It is clear that China will present the most formidable foreign policy challenge for India in the coming years. China’s hegemonistic tendencies will try to keep India down. However, China’s rise can also serve as an opportunity. India will need to cooperate and collaborate with China in bilateral, regional and international fora to the extent possible while at the same time making certain that its fundamental interests relating to territorial sovereignty and economic growth are advanced. To achieve maximum benefit of this engagement, India will need to focus on expanding its domestic economic strength. For this, the success of several flagship initiatives of the government like Make in India, Skill India, Startup India, Digital India, Beti Bachao Beti Padhao and others will be decisive.

India: Inadequate Budgetary Allotment And Defence Preparedness – Analysis

0
0

By Gurmeet Kanwal*

In the budget for the Financial Year (FY) 2017-18, presented in the Indian parliament on 1 February 2017, the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been allotted INR 2,74,114 crore, excluding the provision for pensions.

The nominal increase of 5.7 per cent over the revised estimates (RE) for FY 2016-17 is barely adequate to provide for domestic inflation. The increase is insufficient to cater to the increase in the pay and allowances of the armed forces and the civilian employees of the MoD consequent to the implementation of the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission.

The additional expenditure that needs to be incurred on account of the upward revision in pay and allowances has resulted in an increase in the share of expenditure planned on the revenue account in the defence budget and a corresponding decrease in the share of the expenditure on the capital account.

While revenue expenditure has increased from 65.3 per cent of the total budget in FY 2016-17 to 67.0 per cent, expenditure planned on the capital account has gone down from 34.7 to 33.0 per cent.

The total capital outlay for the next financial year – meant mainly for the acquisition of new weapons systems and defence equipment – is pegged at INR 86,488.01 crore. Though the government has been making efforts to encourage the acquisition of weapons systems and defence equipment through the “make in India” route, about 70 per cent of the requirements are still imported.

The 10.05 per cent increase in the capital budget over the budgetary estimates (BE) for FY 2016-17 (INR 78,586.68 crore) is barely adequate to compensate for the 10 to 15 per cent inflation per annum in the prices of weapons and defence equipment procured through imports. The amount actually spent on the capital account in FY 2016-17 is INR 71,700.00 crore (RE). A sum of INR 6,886 crore was transferred to the revenue account.

The customs duty now being imposed on defence imports and the drop in the value of the Indian Rupee against the US Dollar also make the import of weapons and equipment comparatively more expensive. The Rupee had dropped to 68.71 to one US Dollar on 24 November 2016 – its lowest level during the year.

Despite low levels of funding on the capital account, allocations continue to be surrendered almost every year or transferred to the revenue budget. All of these systemic weaknesses work in tandem and, consequently, the modernisation plans of the armed forces are adversely affected.

As a ratio of the country’s GDP, the defence expenditure planned for FY 2017-18 stands reduced to 1.62 per cent. This is the lowest level since the disastrous 1962 war with China when it was 1.59 per cent of the GDP and is grossly inadequate to meet India’s growing threats and challenges and the need for military modernisation.

The allocation for defence must go up to at least 2.0 per cent of the GDP in the supplementary demands for FY 2017-18. It should be raised gradually to 3.0 per cent of the GDP as recommended repeatedly by the Standing Committee on Defence in Parliament if another military debacle is to be avoided.

According to a press release issued by the MoD, the Defence Acquisition Council chaired by India’s Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had accorded initial approval – referred to as acceptance of necessity (AON) – to defence procurement projects worth INR 2,39,000 crore till July 2016. Of this, contracts worth INR 1,13,995 crore had been signed. At a DAC meeting held in November 2016, AON was given for new procurement projects worth INR 82,117 crore.

The new projects include the purchase of 83 Tejas Mark 1A Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) for the Indian Air Force at a cost of INR 50,025 crore; 15 helicopters for the IAF and the Indian Army at a cost of INR 2,911 crore; 598 mini-UAVs for the army at a cost of INR 1,100 crore; and 464 T-90 Russian tanks at a cost of INR 13,448 crore.

Given the low availability of funds on the capital account and the ‘committed liabilities’ of previous years – previously negotiated contracts with a fixed annual outgo, It will be difficult for the MoD to find the funds that will be required to sign contracts to acquire even half the weapons and equipment for which AON has been accorded in November 2016.

In FY 2017-18, funds amounting to only about INR 5,000 crore are likely to be available for new weapons and equipment acquisitions. Assuming the first year’s payment to be 10 per cent of the total, contracts worth about INR 50,000 crore may be concluded.

A workable method needs to be found to overcome the inability of the MoD bureaucracy and the armed forces to spend the funds allotted on the capital account fully and to curb the tendency of India’s Ministry of Finance to allow part of the allotted funds to lapse as a tool to manage the burgeoning fiscal deficit.

In the interim budget that he presented for FY 2004-05, the then Indian Finance Minister Jaswant Singh had made an excellent recommendation. He had proposed to introduce a non-lapsable, rolling defence modernisation fund worth INR 25,000 crore. It was an innovative measure that did not find favour with the then Congress-led UPA government that presented the full budget after it came to power.

The reason given then was that the ‘rules of business’ do not permit a non-lapsable fund as all unspent funds compulsorily lapse at midnight on 31 March at the end of the financial year.

Such a roll-on fund is known to have been in vogue during the British rule. Since then, the rules of business have not changed substantially. And, even if the rules of business need to be amended now, surely a constitutional amendment is not necessary to do so.

It is an inescapable national security imperative that a roll-on, non-lapsable defence modernisation fund be instituted with a corpus of INR 1,00,000 crore. It should be linked with the Consolidated Fund of India.

Besides being a statement of account, the defence budget is a tool for demonstrating the country’s resolve and for enhancing deterrence through signalling. Infirmity in the approach to the formulation of the defence budget creates the impression that the management of national security does not rate a very high priority. That is not a worthy message to send out from the premises of the Indian parliament.

Overall, with the present defence budget, operational preparedness will deteriorate further even as the threats and challenges continue to increase. And, military modernisation, which had just about begun to pick up steam, will stagnate once again.

* Gurmeet Kanwal
Distinguished Fellow, Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA)

Trump And Netanyahu: Embracing Illusions, Ignoring Reality – OpEd

0
0

What Netanyahu and Trump have demonstrated during their press conference was that both seem to revel in illusions where they find a zone of real comfort, while leaving Israelis and Palestinians to an uncertain and ominous future.

By Dr. Alon Ben-Meir*

President Trump remained true to his customary flip-flopping on just about every issue when he stated during a joint press conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu that he is “looking at two-state and one-state, and I like the one that both parties like… I can live with either one.” By stating so, Trump gave Netanyahu what he was hoping to get—a departure from the two-state solution. To achieve that, Trump is reportedly looking at other options that would enlist the Arab states—who presently share mutual strategic interests with Israel to form a united front against their common enemy, Iran—to help broker a solution to the Palestinian problem.

To be sure, the two leaders who are both in trouble—Netanyahu is under multiple criminal investigations for corruption, and Trump is being attacked from just about every corner for his outrageous statements, contradictions, and self-indulgence—found comfort with one another.

Netanyahu went back home feeling triumphant, as he seemingly managed to sway Trump from the idea of two states, while Trump presented himself as a statesman thinking out of the box by looking at an Israeli-Arab comprehensive peace through which to fashion a solution to the Palestinian conflict.

Although CIA Director Mike Pompeo met with Mahmoud Abbas the day before the press conference, I was told by a top Jordanian official in Amman that Abbas was abundantly clear during the meeting that there is not and will never be an alternative to a two-state solution based on the Arab Peace Initiative (API). Moreover, Abbas indicated that Hamas’s position on a two-state solution is unequivocal, and in any case, Gaza and the West Bank must constitute a single Palestinian state.

While Netanyahu often pretended that he still believes in the two-state solution, during the many encounters he had with former Secretary of State John Kerry (including a joint meeting with Egypt’s President Sisi and Jordan’s King Abdullah in Aqaba in 2016) where he was presented with a comprehensive peace plan, he repeatedly changed his position.

Netanyahu habitually claimed that his extremist right-wing partners oppose the creation of a Palestinian state under any circumstances and that his government would collapse if he were to actively pursue the idea, as if he could not form a new government with the left and center parties who are committed to a two-state solution. Nevertheless, he continued to sing the song of two states for public consumption and to get the Obama administration off his back.

Regardless of what new ideas Netanyahu and Trump concocted, one thing remains certain: there is simply no other realistic solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict other than two independent states, Jewish and Palestinian.

The viability of this solution does not only rest on preserving Israel as a democracy with a Jewish national identity while meeting the Palestinians’ aspiration for a state of their own. A careful scrutiny of other would-be alternatives floating around have no basis in reality.

Jordan is not and will never become a Palestinian state (as some Israelis advocate) because the Hashemite Kingdom will resist that with all its might; a binational state is a kiss of death to the Zionist dream; the establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza while incorporating much of the West Bank into Israel is a non-starter; the creation of a federation between Israel, Jordan, and Palestine is a pipe dream; and finally, confining the Palestinians in the West Bank in cantons to run their internal affairs as they see fit, while Israel maintains security control, will be violently resisted by the Palestinians until the occupation comes to an end.

It is true that the Arab states view Israel today as a potential ally in the face of the Iranian threat, and there may well be a historic opportunity to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the context of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. This opportunity, though, can be materialized only in the context of the API.

The central requirement of the API is a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on a two-state solution, which would subsequently lead to a regional peace. Indeed, only by Israel first embracing the API will the Arab states lend their support to a two-state solution by putting pressure on the Palestinians to make the necessary concessions to reach a peace accord.

Those who claim that the two-state solution has passed its time and new and creative ideas should be explored must know that many new ideas have been considered. None of them, however, could provide a solution that meets the Israelis’ or the Palestinians’ requirement for independent and democratic states enjoying Jewish and Palestinian national identities, respectively.

Netanyahu has found in Trump a co-conspirator. Both have a proven record of double talking, misleading, and often outright lying. Both are blinded by their hunger for power and are ready and willing to say anything to please their shortsighted constituencies. Neither has the vision or the courage to rise above the fray, and nothing they have uttered jointly meets the hardcore reality they choose to ignore.

What Netanyahu and Trump have demonstrated during their press conference was that both seem to revel in illusions where they find a zone of real comfort, while leaving Israelis and Palestinians to an uncertain and ominous future.

*Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of TransConflict.

Why Europe’s Illiberal Nationalisms Must Be Countered: Don’t Blame Only Trump’s Nationalism – OpEd

0
0

Donald Trump has faced a fusillade of domestic and international criticism leveled at his attempt to ban citizens of seven Muslim majority countries from entering the United States. But Trump’s US is not the first western state to stigmatize Muslims by imposing such a ban. Slovakia, a member-state of the EU, first banned all Muslim migrants in August 2015. Then, in May 2016, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico announced that Islam had no place in his country.

This declaration was made only a month before Slovakia held the Presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU), which highlights equality and respect for human rights among its core values. The EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights assures legal certainty for equality before the law, non-discrimination, and cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

Why, then, has there been so little reaction in Europe itself to the Slovak ban, which goes against EU values? Why have Europeans protested widely only against Trump’s ban? Did Slovakia’s ban fail to grab the international headlines because it is not a superpower and is not perceived as one of the world’s most liberal and open countries? No easy answers present themselves.

Across the Atlantic, many Americans oppose Trump because his orders go against the American values of freedom and equality and of judging individuals on their merits. And especially since the 1960s, many Americans have taken pride in lauding their country as a nation of immigrants. No European country takes a similar pride. Although, with its ageing population, Europe needs immigration.

Xenophobia and discrimination against different communities had been reported by the EU and Council of Europe over many years, long before anyone, anywhere had dreamt of President Trump. The chances are that anti-“Other” populist nationalism has been insufficiently challenged by European leaders and professedly liberal political parties or the media.

Why populists should be challenged

For many life can be enriched by contact with people from diverse backgrounds. But many in Europe today dislike diversity – “multiculturalism”, as they contemptuously label it . They also dislike the EU, and migrants, Muslims, refugees, and many “others”, thus exposing political and social rifts within the member-states of a divided EU.

Europe’s liberal values are endangered by populist nationalisms grounded in ideas of ethnic, cultural or religious superiority. Those intolerant nationalisms also go against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which states that all individuals are entailed to freedoms without discrimination on grounds such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, and political opinion, and birth, national or social origin. The list of Europe’s illiberal nationalists is long… France’s Le Pen father and daughter, The Netherlands’s Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders, Greece’s Golden Dawn, Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement in Italy, Germany’s Alternative for Deutschland, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Jarosław Kaczyński in Poland …and more.

In fact, opponents of diversity and the EU may belong to the political left or right of center in their respective countries. “Multiculturalism” and “the EU” have become buzzwords representing protests against a range of social and political issues, including globalization, immigration, identity, social injustice, political disillusion, corruption, cronyism, and the perceived unaccountability of many political and business leaders in Europe’s democracies.

Economics – and globalization – do not explain the prejudice that underlies the xenophobia propagated by Europe’s far-right and some mainstream parties. For one, illiberal nationalisms have gained ground since the 1990s – long before the financial crisis of 2008.

The surprise is that some of Europe’s richest and most stable countries – where everyone has access to a decent liberal education – have seen electoral gains made by “anti-Other” parties over the last few years. They even include the more socially equitable Scandinavian countries: Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland.

At another level, London is the European city which has borne the brunt of globalization. It is also Europe’s most culturally diverse city, Yet Britons living in London defied EU-phobic populists and voted against Brexit last June. And in May 2016 Londoners elected Sadiq Khan as the first Muslim mayor of a western capital. This was 11 years after Muslim extremists bombed London, creating a wave of Islamophobia. Sadiq Khan is a second-generation Muslim immigrant in Britain; his father was a bus driver and his mother a seamstress. Happily, neither Khan’s religious affiliation nor the social status of his parents dissuaded Londoners from electing him on his merits.

Europe has many phobias

However, Islamophobia – a catch-all term that embraces anything from anti-Islam or anti-Muslim views to discrimination against Muslims – is a fact of life in Europe and the US. It is partly associated with the increased presence of Muslim immigrants and refugees in the US and EU.   Attacks by Muslim terrorists on New York on 9/11 and on some European cities since then have led some in the west to create a stereotype of Islam as the religion of fanatics and terrorists.

But violence is not the monopoly either of Muslims, immigrants or natives. Many years ago Italy suffered terrorist attacks from the extremist Red Brigade. In 2009, Anders Breivik, a Norwegian terrorist hating a motley group comprising, among others, Muslims, the EU, and feminists killed 90 young socialists enjoying a summer camp in Norway.

In fact, Islamophobia is just one of many phobias affecting Europe.

Anti- Semitism is also on the rise in Europe – and its perpetrators may be Muslims or non-Muslims, political individuals or group of varied political hues.

Europe’s Neo-Nazi groups are attracting popular support. Some have entered parliament at national or European levels. The Council of Europe’s parliamentary assembly has warned that this is not an isolated phenomenon peculiar to some of its member States, but a pan-European problem. Neo-Nazis should be countered, not only to uphold liberal values, but also in the interests of conflict prevention in Europe.

Then there is “anti-East Europeanism”. This card was one of several anti-immigrant cards played by former British Prime Minister David Cameron. For instance, in 2015 he warned that Britain must “say no” to East European workers. He was probably trying to from trying to deflect attention from – and covering up – a poor British education policy which leaves British children less numerate than some foreign ones so that British employers may prefer to employ immigrants who are better educated than British workers.

Anti-Polish sentiment – which I will call “Polophobia” – is strong in Britain. White Poles have been the target of white working class anger. They have also faced hostility from darker British Asian workers – who themselves may have been victims of racism. This is probably because Poles are now 16.5% of the total non-British national population resident in the UK, the largest immigrant group in Britain, the most common non-British nationality.

Prejudice is opinion without facts. For France’s Marine Le Pen, the European Union is a sovietized empire . And last year’s Brexit vote shows that prejudice can become the defining attitude of a mainstream party, even in one of the world’s oldest and strongest democracies. The allegation made by Boris Johnson – now Britain’s Foreign Secretary – that the EU was redolent of Nazi Germany exposed his ignorance of both. But his tosh was backed by several Conservative politicians.

Other mainstream parties and leaders in Europe echo, or line up with, populist parties. In Sweden, for example, the mainstream Moderate (Conservative) party has entered into an electoral alliance to fight next year’s general election.

The anti-EU charges made by some European politicians do not make them defenders of liberalism. Many of them admire the territorial expansionism of the authoritarian Vladimir Putin. They also simultaneously identify with the former empires of their respective countries. For Johnson the real problem is that Britain no longer has its empire: “we are not in charge any more.”

The fact is that empires are always based on war and conquest; they are never democratic and lack legitimacy. Talk of glorifying empires raises the question whether anti-EU, pro-empire leaders expect their countries to march forward in the 21st century by marching backwards – intellectually at least – into the authoritarian states of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Their illiberalism is also illustrated by their denial of the intellectual pluralism that exists within all communities. They wrongly depict communities – as monolithic wholes instead of judging individuals on their merits. In fact people belonging to different communities vote for different parties in all West European countries in different elections – not everyone is “committed” to voting for any single party.

Populist Xenophobia has divided Britain – and it is dividing the EU. Orban’s illiberal Hungarian government, which violates press freedom and judicial independence, has built razor-wire border fences to keep refugees out. Hungary’s act has provoked Luxembourg, one of the founder-members of the European Economic Community (now the EU) into demanding Hungary’s expulsion from the EU. But Germany is against expelling Hungary. Moreover, the EU is disunited on dealing with Brexit.

What can be done? Europe’s leaders should focus on forging a civic nationalisms, based on liberal democratic norms highlighting intellectual and political choice, individual rights and merit. Only this will prevent racist xenophobic parties from fomenting the prejudice which lies at the heart of divisive nationalism – which can only create conflict in a society. For the prejudices held by one group only feed and fatten on the prejudices held by another group.

Trump’s anti- Muslim and ‘America First’ attitudes are not the sole threats to the western alliance. The results of forthcoming elections in France, Germany and The Netherlands will make 2017 a ‘strengthen or break Europe’ year: those results will impact on Europe’s ties with the US and the international liberal order.

The time has come for liberal parities to throw down the gauntlet before intolerant divisive nationalisms with the intent of strengthening liberal civic nationalisms – so that Europe’s democratic peace and stability are maintained.


NASA Wind Tunnel Tests Lockheed Martin’s X-Plane Design For Quieter Supersonic Jet

0
0

Supersonic passenger airplanes are another step closer to reality as NASA and Lockheed Martin begin the first high-speed wind tunnel tests for the Quiet Supersonic Technology (QueSST) X-plane preliminary design at NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland.

The agency is testing a nine percent scale model of Lockheed Martin’s X-plane design in Glenn’s 8’ x 6’ Supersonic Wind Tunnel. During the next eight weeks, engineers will expose the model to wind speeds ranging from Mach 0.3 to Mach 1.6 (approximately 150 to 950 mph) to understand the aerodynamics of the X-plane design as well as aspects of the propulsion system. NASA expects the QueSST X-plane to pave the way for supersonic flight over land in the not too distant future.

“We’ll be measuring the lift, drag and side forces on the model at different angles of attack to verify that it performs as expected,” said aerospace engineer Ray Castner, who leads propulsion testing for NASA’s QueSST effort. “We also want to make sure the air flows smoothly into the engine under all operating conditions.”

The Glenn wind tunnel is uniquely suited for the test because of its size and ability to create a wide range of wind speeds.

“We need to see how the design performs from just after takeoff, up to cruising at supersonic speed, back to the start of the landing approach,” said David Stark, the facility manager. “The 8’ x 6’ supersonic wind tunnel allows us to test that sweet spot range of speeds all in one wind tunnel.”

Recent research has shown it is possible for a supersonic airplane to be shaped in such a way that the shock waves it forms when flying faster than the speed of sound can generate a sound at ground level so quiet it will hardly will be noticed by the public, if at all.

“Our unique aircraft design is shaped to separate the shocks and expansions associated with supersonic flight, dramatically reducing the aircraft’s loudness,” said Peter Losifidis, QueSST program manager at Lockheed Martin Skunk Works. “Our design reduces the airplane’s noise signature to more of a ‘heartbeat’ instead of the traditional sonic boom that’s associated with current supersonic aircraft in flight today.”

According to Dave Richwine, NASA’s QueSST preliminary design project manager, “This test is an important step along the path to the development of an X-plane that will be a key capability for the collection of community response data required to change the rules for supersonic overland flight.”

NASA awarded Lockheed Martin a contract in February 2016 for the preliminary design of a supersonic X-plane flight demonstrator. This design phase has matured the details of the aircraft shape, performance and flight systems. Wind tunnel testing and analysis is expected to continue until mid-2017. Assuming funding is approved, the agency expects to compete and award another contract for the final design, fabrication, and testing of the low-boom flight demonstration aircraft.

The QueSST design is one of a series of X-planes envisioned in NASA’s New Aviation Horizons (NAH) initiative, which aims to reduce fuel use, emissions and noise through innovations in aircraft design that depart from the conventional tube-and-wing aircraft shape. The design and build phases for the NAH aircraft will be staggered over several years with the low boom flight demonstrator starting its flight campaign around 2020, with other NAH X-planes following in subsequent years, depending on funding.

38,000-Year-Old Engravings Confirm Ancient Origins Of Technique Used By Seurat, Van Gogh

0
0

A newly discovered trove of 16 engraved and otherwise modified limestone blocks, created 38,000 years ago, confirms the ancient origins of the pointillist techniques later adopted by 19th and 20th century artists such as Georges Seurat, Vincent Van Gogh, Camille Pissarro, and Roy Lichtenstein.

“We’re quite familiar with the techniques of these modern artists,” observed New York University anthropologist Randall White, who led the excavation in France’s Vézère Valley. “But now we can confirm this form of image-making was already being practiced by Europe’s earliest human culture, the Aurignacian.”

Pointillism, a painting technique in which small dots are used to create the illusion of a larger image, was developed in the 1880s. However, archaeologists have now found evidence of this technique thousands of years earlier — dating back more than 35,000 years.

The findings appear in the journal Quaternary International.

Major discoveries by White and his colleagues–which include images of mammoths and horses–confirm that a form of pointillism was used by the Aurignacian, the earliest modern human culture in Europe. These add weight to previous isolated discoveries, such as a rhinoceros, from the Grotte Chauvet in France, formed by the application of dozens of dots, first painted on the palm of the hand, and then transferred to the cave wall.

Earlier this year, White’s team reported the uncovering of a 38,000-year-old pointillist image of an aurochs or wild cow–a finding that marks some of the earliest known graphic imagery found in Western Eurasia and offers insights into the nature of modern humans during this period. Now, in short order they have found another pointillist image–this time of a woolly mammoth–in a rock shelter of the same period known as Abri Cellier located near the previous find-site of Abri Blanchard.

Abri Cellier has long been on archeologists’ short-list of major art-bearing sites attributed to the European Aurignacian. Excavations in 1927 yielded 15 engraved and/or pierced limestone blocks that have served as a key point of reference for the study of Aurignacian art in the region.

In 2014, White and his colleagues returned to Cellier, seeking intact deposits that would allow a better understanding of the archaeological sequence at the site and its relationship to other Aurignacian sites. They had their fingers crossed that the new excavation might yield new engraved images in context, but nothing prepared them for the discovery of the 16 stone blocks detailed in the Quaternary International article. One of these, broken in half prehistorically, was found in place with a radiocarbon date of 38,000 years ago.

Remarkably, the remaining 15 blocks, including the pointillist mammoth, one of three mammoth figures recognized during the new work at Cellier, had been left on-site by the 1927 excavators. As many of the engraved traces are rudimentary and thus difficult to interpret, the original excavators set them aside just in case they might have something inscribed on them. The new article presents evidence that the 38,000 year date for the newly excavated engraving also applies to the new trove and to the other blocks found in 1927 and now housed in the French National Prehistory Museum.

Over the past decade, with these and other discoveries, White and his team have increased our known sample of the earliest graphic arts in southwestern France by 40 percent. The team includes researchers from the University of Arizona, the University of Toronto, the University of Toulouse, Paris’ Museum of Natural History, and the University of Oxford.

Cosmic Blast From The Past

0
0

Three decades ago, a massive stellar explosion sent shockwaves not only through space but also through the astronomical community. SN 1987A was the closest observed supernova to Earth since the invention of the telescope and has become by far the best studied of all time, revolutionising our understanding of the explosive death of massive stars.

Located in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of the Milky Way, Supernova 1987A is the nearest supernova explosion observed in hundreds of years. It marked the end of the life of a massive star and sent out a shockwave of ejected material and bright light into space. The light finally reached Earth on 23 February 1987 — like a cosmic blast from the past.

The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has been on the front line of observations of SN 1987A since 1990 and has taken a look at it many times over the past 27 years. To celebrate the 30th anniversary of the supernova and to check how its remnant has developed, Hubble took another image of the distant explosion in January 2017, adding to the existing collection.

Because of its early detection and relative proximity to Earth, SN 1987A has become the best studied supernova ever. Prior to SN 1987A, our knowledge of supernovae was simplistic and idealised. But by studying the evolution of SN 1987A from supernova to supernova remnant in superb detail, using telescopes in space and on the ground, astronomers have gained revolutionary insights into the deaths of massive stars.

Back in 1990, Hubble was the first to see the event in high resolution, clearly imaging the main ring that blazes around the exploded star. It also discovered the two fainter outer rings, which extend like mirror images in a hourglass-shaped structure. Even today, the origin of these structures is not yet fully understood.

However, by observing the expanding remnant material over the years, Hubble helped to show that the material within this structure was ejected 20 000 years before the actual explosion took place. Its shape at first surprised astronomers, who expected the dying star to eject material in a spherical shape — but faster stellar winds likely caused the slower material to pile up into ring-like structures.

The initial burst of light from the supernova illuminated the rings. They slowly faded over the first decade after the explosion, until the shock wave of the supernova slammed into the inner ring in 2001, heating the gas to searing temperatures and generating strong X-ray emission. Hubble’s observations of this process shed light on how supernovae can affect the dynamics and chemistry of their surrounding environment, and thus shape galactic evolution.

US Bishops Warn New Immigration Rules Hurt The Vulnerable

0
0

The Trump administration’s new border and immigration enforcement rules needlessly endanger the vulnerable, militarize the border and will cause many other problems, the U.S. bishops warned this week.

“They greatly expand the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border,” said Bishop Joe S. Vasquez of Austin, chair of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Migration, who wrote the bishops’ Feb. 23 response.

On Feb. 20, the Department of Homeland Security issued two memoranda to implement President Donald Trump’s executive orders regarding immigration enforcement on the border and in the U.S. interior.

“Taken together, these memoranda constitute the establishment of a large-scale enforcement system that targets virtually all undocumented migrants as ‘priorities’ for deportation, thus prioritizing no one,” Bishop Vasquez said.

Important protections for the vulnerable, including unaccompanied children and asylum seekers, have been removed from federal policy, the bishop said.

The memoranda promote the use of local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law. This disregards “existing relationships of trust” between local law enforcement officials and immigrant communities, he said.

“The engagement of local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law can undermine public safety by making many who live in immigrant communities fearful of cooperating with local law enforcement in both reporting and investigating criminal matters.”

In addition, the rules aim to publicize crimes by undocumented immigrants, to erect new detention facilities, and to speed up deportations, the New York Times reports. Administration officials said that those brought to the U.S. as young children will not be targeted. However, parents living without documentation in the U.S. who smuggle their children into the country could face deportation or prosecution for smuggling or human trafficking.

Bishop Vasquez urged the Trump administration to reconsider its approach in the memoranda and in its executive orders.

“Together, these have placed already vulnerable immigrants among us in an even greater state of vulnerability,” he added.

He voiced the U.S. bishops’ commitment “to care for and respect the human dignity of all, regardless of their immigration status.”

“During this unsettling time, we will redouble our work to accompany and protect our immigrant brothers and sisters and recognize their contributions and inherent dignity as children of God,” he said.

Is Lukashenka Going To Be First Foreign Leader To Lose Power Because Of Trump’s Victory? – OpEd

0
0

It will be a truly delicious irony of history if Belarusian strongman Alexander Lukashenka becomes the first foreign leader to lose power because of Donald Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton in the US presidential election. But that possibility is now being suggested by some Russian commentators.

Among the most prominent of these is Konstantin Zatulin, director of the Moscow Institute of CIS countries, who argues that Lukashenka miscalculated in betting that Clinton would win and that Moscow would have no choice to support him regardless of what he said or did (pravda.ru/world/formerussr/belorussia/22-02-2017/1325277-zatulin-0/).

That is because the Belarusian president assumed that relations between Washington and Moscow would deteriorate under a Clinton presidency and that Russia, however many economic problems it faced at home, would continue to support Lukashenka and his regime sufficiently that they could survive.

But Clinton didn’t win, Zatulin points out, and now all the things that the Belarusian president thought he could get away with have put him in Moscow’s bad books forever. Indeed, the Moscow official and commentator says, Lukahsenka has proved to be “a bad ally for Russia and perhaps not an ally at all.”

And “now it has turned out that Belarus is not so much needed in the interests of Trump or anyone else,” and Lukashenka faces serious unrest at home without the likelihood that anyone is going to come in and save him with a fresh infusion of cash. As a result, the Belarusian leader is in trouble and it is deeper because of his miscalculation about the US elections.

That Lukashenka is in trouble at home should now be clear not only in the wake of last weekend’s protests over the vagrants tax but also plans for more such protests ahead – and also for the continuing protests against business use of part of the territory on which the Kuropaty mass graves are located (belaruspartisan.org/politic/371958/).

Few would have predicted – and Lukashenka certainly didn’t – that his vagrants tax would trigger what is becoming a revolutionary situation, one that is especially serious because the Belarusian leader now has no one in the east or the west who will bail him out for his or her own interests.

That makes these days especially dangerous, and Belarusian commentator Valery Karbalevich argues that they resemble the lead up to the February 1917 revolution in that the authorities then and again now have thoroughly discredited themselves and find that as a result there is no one to whom they can turn (sn-plus.com/ru/page/diagnosis/7464/).

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images