Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) is primarily engaged in research and development activities in the area of space technology and its applications. All the commercial activities related to space technology are managed by Antrix Corporation Limited, the commercial arm of Department of Space.

ISRO has mutually signed a formal Memoranda of Understanding with many foreign countries such as Australia, Italy, Brazil, Japan, China, Kazakhstan, Canada, Netherlands, Egypt, Russia, France, Sweden, Germany, Ukraine, Hungary, United Kingdom, Israel and the United States of America. ISRO carries out joint operations with foreign space agencies. In 2004, the Indo-French collaboration called the Megha-Tropiques Mission (MTM), was planned to study the water cycle in the tropical atmosphere with respect to the climate change. The collaboration brought the two nations closer.

Similarly, ISRO and Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)/ NASA are jointly working on the development of Dual Frequency (L & S band) Synthetic Aperture Radar Imaging Satellite named as NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR)

As part of space cooperation between India and Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), ISRO, is working towards the establishment of a Satellite Tracking & Data Reception Station and Data Processing Facility in Vietnam for ASEAN Member countries. This facility is intended to acquire and process Indian Remote Sensing Satellite data pertaining to ASEAN region and disseminate to ASEAN Member countries. Under this initiative, all ASEAN member countries will be allowed to access processed remote sensing data pertaining to their country. The ground facility is designed in such a way that it will not allow Indian data to be accessed and processed by the system.

Commercial Operations

All the commercial activities related to space technology are managed by Antrix Corporation Limited which is a wholly owned Government of India company under the administrative control of the Department of Space, Government of India. Antrix Corporation Limited was incorporated as a private limited company owned by Government of India, in September 1992 as a Marketing arm of ISRO for promotion and commercial exploitation of space products, technical consultancy services and transfer of technologies developed by ISRO. Another major objective is to facilitate development of space related industrial capabilities in India.

As the commercial and marketing arm of ISRO, Antrix is engaged in providing space products and services to international customers worldwide. With fully equipped state-of-the-art facilities, Antrix is a one-stop-shop for any of the space products, ranging from supply of hardware and software including simple subsystems to a complex spacecraft, for varied applications covering communications, earth observation, scientific missions; space related service including remote sensing data series, Transponders lease service; Launch services through the operational launch vehicles, Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) and Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV); mission support services; and a host of consultancy and training services are also offered by Antrix.

With the versatility of products and services being marketed, Antrix caters to a prestigious clientele including some of the leading space companies across the globe – EADS Astrium, Intelsat, Avanti Group, World space, Inmarsat, World Sat, DLR, KARI, Eutelsat, OHB Systems and several other Space Institutions in Europe, Middle East and South East Asian countries.

ISRO successfully launched 20 satellites in a single launch mission onboard Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle ‘PSLV-C34’ on June 22, 2016 from Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharikota. In this mission, 17 foreign satellites from 4 countries viz. Indonesia, Germany, Canada and USA were launched as co-passenger along with Indian primary payload CARTOSAT-2 series of satellite and 2 University/academic institute’s satellites as co-passenger. Earlier ISRO during the thirtieth launch of the PSLV deployed five British satellites into a Sun-Synchronous orbit on July 10, 2015 from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre.

As on December 2016, 79 satellites from 21 countries had been successfully launched by ISRO on-board PSLV, under a commercial arrangement between Antrix Corporation Limited and the foreign customer. The countries whose satellites have been commercially launched by ISRO are Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Singapore, Turkey, UK and USA.

Some of the major foreign companies, whose satellites were launched onboard PSLV includes viz. MDA, Canada; Airbus Defence & Space, France; OHB System, Germany; IAI, Israel; ST Electronics, Singapore; Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL), UK; Terra Bella, a Google company, USA; Planet Labs, USA; Spire Global Inc. USA; BlackSky Global, USA.

Antrix has earned a total income of about 21.7 Million USD and 127 Million Euros through launching of these 79 foreign satellites during the period May 1999 to September 2016.

This article was published by South Asia Monitor.

The risk of acute myocardial infarction for the elderly living in and around small cities is increased by air pollution caused by biomass burning from woodstoves.

It is well documented that air pollution in big cities causes heart and lung problems. But what are its consequences on people in smaller urban centers?

By comparing pollution data from three cities in British Columbia (Prince George, Kamloops and Courtenay/Comox) with hospital admissions, researchers from McGill and Health Canada found that rising concentrations of fine particulate air pollution caused by wood burning were associated with increased hospitalization for myocardial infarction.

During the cold season, when pollution from woodstoves is at its highest, the risk of heart attacks among subjects of 65 years and older increased by 19%.

“We noticed that the association was stronger when more of the air pollution came from wood burning,” said McGill University professor Scott Weichenthal, lead author of a new study published in Epidemiology. “This suggests that the source of pollution matters and that all particulate air pollution is perhaps not equally harmful when it comes to cardiovascular disease.”

Improving public health

Scott Weichenthal thinks the findings might push cities across Canada to tackle air pollution caused by fireplaces and woodstoves. Increasing winter smog alerts have prompted cities such as Montreal to bring forward bylaws forcing homeowners to register and, eventually, replace their stoves with cleaner sources of heating.

The study, said Weichenthal, gives credence to “initiatives aimed at reducing air pollution from residential wood burning in the interest of public health.”

Cholesterol-lowering drugs used alongside chemotherapy have no effect on treatment outcomes for lung cancer patients, according to a new study.

Recent research into statins has claimed a role for the drugs in preventing cancer development, or prolonging the survival of patients with several common cancers, including lung cancer, and so generated much interest in the medical community. But evidence published by a team from Imperial College London and UCL (University College London) shows that the drugs do not, in fact, benefit lung cancer patients at all.

The research team believe the new evidence is so compelling that existing or new planned trials into the use of statins in cancer treatment should be reconsidered.

The study, funded by Cancer Research UK, is published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Statins work by lowering cholesterol levels in patients and are usually prescribed by doctors to help prevent heart attacks or strokes. A number of small-scale studies published over the past five years have investigated the potential for statins to restrict the growth and survival of cancer cells.

Because cholesterol plays a key role in cell growth messages, it was initially thought that lowering the levels of cholesterol could impair the development and growth of cancer cells. Cholesterol was also believed to delay the recurrence of cancer after treatment has been completed. Collectively these effects were thought to improve the survival of cancer patients.

In the largest randomised trial of statin therapy in cancer patients yet completed, the Imperial team measured the effects of a leading statin, called pravastatin, in patients with small cell lung cancer – a particularly aggressive form of lung cancer where new treatments are desperately needed.

The study included 846 patients from 91 hospitals in the UK and was carried out at the Cancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre at the UCL Cancer Institute. Patients were randomly selected to receive either the statin or a placebo alongside their usual chemotherapy treatment, and monitored over two years. The results showed that, although there were no adverse effects from taking statins, there were no advantages either.

“It’s becoming increasingly common for patients with increased cholesterol to take statins and many cancer patients will be or have been prescribed these drugs entirely separately from their cancer treatment,” explained Professor Michael Seckl from the Faculty of Medicine at Imperial College London, who led the research. “There’s no reason for people to stop taking statins to manage their cholesterol, but it’s extremely unlikely, for patients with small cell lung cancer, that taking statins will make any difference to their cancer treatment outcome. Because all statins work in a similar way to lower cholesterol, it’s relatively unlikely that statins other than Pravastatin would have a different, more beneficial effect.”

The Imperial researchers plan to continue their investigations into precisely how statins work at a cellular level, but believe further large-scale trials such as the one just completed may be unnecessary.

“Our results match those of other randomised trials examining different types of cancer, but these were much smaller than our own study, and they have also shown no benefit to using statins in cancer treatment,” said senior author Professor Allan Hackshaw, Deputy Director of the Cancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre. “Collectively, this evidence seems quite persuasive.”

“It is possible that ongoing statin trials of other types of cancers might find a benefit, and so it would be interesting to see their findings when available. However, I think researchers should consider carefully whether to start a new statin trial as part of cancer treatment, without results from further large studies like ours.”

Who ships made-in-China goods to their destinations? What attracts a Chinese company to buy bankrupt businesses in the West? How much potential does Chinese tourism and domestic consumption hold for other economies?

While China’s emergence as a global powerhouse and its stream of exports were once seen as threats, nowadays they are increasingly welcomed as opportunities for the world economy. This is according to the latest book by Pedro Nueno, IESE professor and founder and president of Asia’s leading business management school, CEIBS, based in Shanghai.

Nueno’s book — titled Gracias, China (Thank you, China) — offers some keys to doing business in the world’s most populous country, including how to make investments there and better understand the economy’s vast potential.

In this work, Nueno finds a lot to be grateful for: the Asian giant’s ability to generate new jobs never ceases to amaze, not to mention its technological contributions, trade routes, and increasingly strong health and tourism sectors.

Is Business Done Differently in China?

For the author, a truly successful business deal isn’t one in which the other party accepts our ideas and helps implement them, but instead one in which the other party proposes how to reach results we’re after. This, he maintains, makes it hard to forge deals via email or by coming to the negotiating table with a fixed plan.

“In China, you’ve got to negotiate like you would anywhere else, with intelligence, humility and respect,” states Nueno. Yet the author points out that, unlike in Europe or the United States, China has experienced rapid development which has brought on enormous changes in a short time.

This rapid pace of change is one reason why deals may be mired in more detail, or why negotiations may slow down or seem stagnant: our Chinese business partners don’t have the benefit of drawing upon years and years of similar experiences as they ponder a deal’s possible consequences.

Opening the Door to Foreign Investment

The Chinese government has imposed some rigid regulations to control the expansion of Western businesses in certain sectors. The auto industry offers the clearest example, as foreign companies must find a Chinese partner before gaining access to the local market. Yet in most other areas, including the car parts industry, foreign corporations are allowed to invest independently.

To boost the development of industrial areas, the government has also provided incentives and benefits — including infrastructure, services and funding. For example, free-trade zones, in which bureaucracy and restrictions are reduced, help facilitate new projects. And business start-up zones provide adequate locations (often subsidized) as well as access to venture capital from Chinese and Western investors.

Many Areas of Interest

China is offers a vast array of opportunities, both inside and outside its borders, as Nueno highlights throughout the book:

• Exports. Although Chinese manufacturing has meant displacing some Western jobs, its exports have also created new employment opportunities in transporting and commercializing made-in-China products. What’s more, foreign companies can fulfil their manufacturing needs at a lower cost in China, with access to more sophisticated technology and less need for labor.

• Imports. Where do Chinese companies source raw materials and parts? What manufacturing machinery do they use? In many cases, the items are imported.

• Domestic consumption. Salaries in China have risen considerably over the last decade. That has turned its domestic market into a growing source of opportunity for Western enterprises.

• Financing. Exports have bolstered the Chinese government’s foreign exchange reserves, allowing it to sign agreements (often backed by loans) with governments from various developing countries in Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Western Asia.

• Investments abroad. Many businesses have grown thanks to Chinese investment, despite initial reservations. Following Volvo’s acquisition by the Chinese firm Geely, the carmaker increased its production in both China and Europe — and generated 10,000 new jobs from 2011 to 2015.

• The Two Silk Roads. China has revived the Silk Road by rail, inaugurating a route between Yiwu and Madrid in 2015. Maritime transportation has also been boosted with port facilities and the necessary logistics to reach Western markets by sea.

• Chinese tourism. The Chinese government’s efforts to extend economic development to all rungs of society has gradually created a middle class eager to travel and acquire designer brands along the way.

• Health and education. China’s interest in high-level training and private healthcare have prompted most business schools and healthcare enterprises to establish themselves there.

Gracias, China is a book about the recent past, present and future of the Asian giant seemingly on its way to becoming the world’s largest economy. It may happen sooner rather than later, as the author predicts a significant influx of Chinese businesses moving overseas by 2020.

Readers know I disagree with using measurements of “coverage” as measurements of access to health care. New data from the Louisiana Department of Health, which cheers the expansion of Medicaid dependency in the state, shows (unwittingly) exactly why.

Healthy Louisiana’s Dashboard shows that 402,557 adults became dependent on Medicaid as a result of Obamacare’s expansion. The Department notes benefits for some sick people. For example, screening resulted in 74 people being diagnosed with breast cancer and 64 diagnosed with colon cancer.

The Dashboard stops there, not telling us how those newly diagnosed were treated. (Medicaid patients often receive treatment later than privately insured.)

However, there is another, likely bigger problem. Of these almost half million newly dependent, only 62,742 received “preventive healthcare or new patient services.” As David Anderson of the Duke-Margolis explained to me on Twitter, this number excludes those who became dependent on Medicaid but who were already being treated or did not get any treatment. That is, the Medicaid enrollment resulted in zero change in access to health care for 339,815 of the newly dependent. That amounts to 84 percent of the population.

Why did these people enroll in Medicaid when they were already receiving care or did not want to receive care? Well, the Medicaid expansion involved a lot of promotion, including enrollment “fairs” in high-traffic areas, so why not sign up and get a balloon or lapel pin or whatever?

More seriously: Those receiving care either paid for it or received it as charity. If they paid for it themselves, we need better understanding of whether or not this drove them into financial distress. If they received charity care, taxpayer funding is unnecessary.

Of course, most of the privately insured population at any given time is healthy. However, they are paying for “insurance” and cannot just get it whenever they want. People who get Medicaid do not need to enroll in open season: They can sign up when they get sick.

So, measuring health reform’s success by the number of people covered by Medicaid expansion is a very, very poor way to estimate increased access to health care.

This article was published at The Beacon.

Donald Trump’s accession to the American presidency last month has left the soothsayers of electoral politics stunned. Their predictions proven wrong, the political pundits have come up with a series of explanations.

Some have resorted to electoral psychology arguing that Trump had a ‘hidden support bank’ that felt stigmatised in making public their support for Mr. Trump but voted for him on the D-day. Others pointed out that Hillary might have successful in stitching together a support base of different minority groups – Afro-Americans, Latinos, Hispanics etc. but it proved insufficient to out compete the intense consolidation of the blue-collar white voters rallying behind Trump.

These, now commonplace explanations, are only superficial understanding of a deep sociological and political churning that is underway. Psephology merely scratches the surface. What is needed is a much deeper investigation of the new political ideology that is emerging and the social psyche that is taking roots in the world, especially the west.
In his victory address Trump said, “As I have said from the beginning, ours was not a campaign, but rather an incredible and great movement…” During his campaign, Trump had roped in Nigel Farage, the extreme right wing leader of UK Independence Party (UKIP), who had led the Brexit campaign in Britain. Like Trump, Farage too has repeatedly talked of an emerging global movement and not merely an electoral campaign.

The tenets of this global movement are becoming clear as the day. It is a movement that espouses the far-right ideology, reasserts conservativism to combat globalism, propagates triumphalism of native culture to curb multiculturalism, advocates isolationism to restrain cosmopolitanism, propounds aggressive nationalism to replace civic-nationalism, despises ‘political elitism’, embrace the anti-establishment propaganda, disregards ‘political correctness’ and legitimises beyond the pale political behaviour. They call it ‘Alternative-right’, more popularly known as the ‘Alt-right’ – an ideology that feeds on cultural xenophobia, nativism, conservatism, ethnic nationalism, reinforcing the sovereignty of nation-states and national boundaries.

Green shoots of this ideology are seen sprouting not just in America but also on the other side of the Atlantic. Same ideological sentiments that raged high during the Trump campaign had earlier provoked the Brexit vote in the UK.

Far right leaders like Marine Le Pen of France’s National Front and Geert Wilders of Netherlands have been mustering unprecedented support. Marine Le Pen’s chief strategist, Florian Philippot tweeted after Trump’s victory, “Their world is crumbling. Ours is building.” AfD, Germany’s far right and ultra-conservative party preened itself on Trump’s victory as it sees Trump’s rise as a validation of the ‘alt-right’ ideology by the strongest democracy. Golden Dawn, the neo-Nazi party of Greece had endorsed Trump on the floor of the Greek Parliament.

There seems to be a growing ideological convergence in the global north. A belief seems to be emerging that it pays in the hustings to embrace extreme ideologies and hype the conservative and xenophobic sentiment of the people who are growing increasingly suspicious of the socio-cultural churning brought about by globalisation (Hochschild, Arlie, 2016). Conventional democratic politics demanded its leaders to occupy the centre-left or centre-right position to be electorally acceptable. That conventional political wisdom is fast evaporating and power-politicians are getting increasingly attracted towards the extreme ideologies. The global liberalism is in disarray while the extreme right wing is forging a strong global consensus.

Nigel Farage is justified in saying, “I’m not particularly surprised because the political class is reviled across much of the West, the polling industry is bankrupt, and the press just hasn’t woken up to what’s going on in the world” (Washington Post, 2016). Probably Farage is an alarmist but there is some truth when he says that “political revolutions” are underway throughout the world.

Some commentators observe a right wing rise not just in the west, but also as far as here in India. The stranglehold on contemporary liberal democratic politics is so strong that demagogy and populistic political sophistry are now being hailed as a new accepted political ideology lately christened as ‘post-truth politics.’

Alarmists argue that the liberal world order that had developed post world war-II largely under the stewardship of the US, is melting before our eyes. A new world order would soon emerge. But is it too soon to call it a day for democratic liberalism? Is the time ripe to coronate the extreme right-wing as the dominant global ideology? Or should we expect a counter reaction by the centrist and liberal forces of the globe? For a moment, let history be our guide.

In the first twenty-five years of the second world war, the dominant political ideologies in western democracies remained largely to the centre. After the oil crisis in the 1970s and economic turbulence that followed western politics took a rightward turn. Leaders like Ronald Raegan (Republican Party, US), Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Party, UK) and Helmut Kohl (Christian Democratic Party, Germany) came into power. A liberal right-wing consensus emerged on either side of the Atlantic.

However, the rightward lean lasted for about a decade and a half. The 1990s saw the ascendency of centre-left leaders like Tony Blair (Labour Party, UK), Clinton (Democrat, US) and Gerhard Schroeder (Social Democratic Party, Germany). Tony Blair retained No. 10, Downing street for two consecutive terms and the political influence of his labourite policies was such that it made the Conservatives virtually unelectable.

Under Mr. Cameron, the Conservative Party had to reinvent itself by shunning away much of its liberal right ideological public image to make itself re-electable.
Thus, within a couple of decades, we witnessed that a reformed left fought back and regained the electoral territory from the clasp of the right. This got further affirmed in 2012 when Socialist Francois Hollande entered the Elyse replacing the right-leaning President Chirac.

If lessons of history are of any relevance, then it becomes clear that the contemporary surge of the extreme right is not final but only another step in the dialectical movement of political ideologies in the recent history. The surge of illiberalism and extreme ideologies would soon spur the liberal forces to strengthen, unite and overhaul themselves to become politically electable. History repeats, therefore it grants a certain foresight and clairvoyance

A feeble reappearance of a reformed liberal-left on the global political stage are already in the offing, most evidently in British politics. The Guardian reported in November last year, that Tony Blair has hinted his political comeback to “fight resurgent populism with a centre ground campaign.” Blair has reportedly set-up a new organisation, to be launched this year, with an aim to look at global forces that have led to Brexit, the rise of Mr. Trump and how the centre-left has weakened as a political force. The Guardian quoted an ally of Mr. Blair saying that Blair believes that to regain its political weight, the centre-left ‘must recover its radicalism.’

Whether this resurgent liberalism will be able to take on the presently dominant extreme right depends on how it reinvents and reforms itself as a political force. The reforming process would fundamentally involve developing centre-left, liberal responses to hard policy questions on issues that cause the comedown of liberal ideology and spurred the surge of the alt-right campaign. These issues include immigration, attitudes towards globalism, anti-elitism, wages, declining job opportunities, resurgent China and Islamophobia etc.

Every ideological thesis is met with its antithesis followed by a synthesis. History validates this dialectical movement in dominant global ideologies. Now global arena has been presented with a new ideological thesis of the ‘alt-right’ and we are already seeing an emergence of its anti-thesis. What is left to be seen is that in the decades to come what ideological synthesis the world arrives at.

*Suyash Saxena is a research scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University, India and have been writing on international affairs and policy issues. My articles have been published in several Indian and international magazines and dailies.

References:
1. Arlie, Russell Hochschild (2016): Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right, New York: The New Press.
2. The Washington Post (2016): “Trump’s victory places U.S. at the front of a global right-wing surge”, Washington, 9 November.
3. The Guardian (2016): “Tony Blair aims to fight resurgent populism with centre-ground campaign”, London, 21 November.
4. The Hindu (2016): “The trail Trump’s blazing” 15 November.
5. The Economist (2016): “The new nationalism”, San Francisco, 19 November.

By Nada Bakos*

(FPRI) — I was a CIA analyst working in the Counterterrorism Center in the run-up to the Iraq war. We didn’t think Saddam had any substantial ties to al-Qaeda, but we were asked to start digging for evidence of such ties. This process is backwards; the information is supposed to lead the policymaker, not the other way around. Intelligence crafted at the hands of professionals is intended to inform policymakers’ decisions. However, if policies—drafted or executed—are used as a yardstick for analysts to then find matching intelligence, that is politicization.

Some degree of politicization is normal and to be expected; that an unelected individual, specifically President Trump’s Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, is exerting such influence and control over the government and the president, particularly in light of his “burn it all to the ground mentality,” is dangerous. We saw this to a degree with Karl Rove during the George W. Bush years, but Bannon’s mindset and influence on the president make this situation unprecedented. To see this administration attempt to politicize the process of analysis is really disturbing, but it is not new. I experienced it firsthand. Politicization of analysis is dangerous; at a minimum, it will lead our national security strategy down the wrong path. At its worst, such politicization can lead to war, destruction of the economy, create or increase fear in the populace, and alienate our allies all the while leaving us alone to untangle an ugly web.

A draft Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document obtained by the press last Friday, February 24, concludes that citizenship is an “unlikely indicator” of terrorism threats to the United States and that “relatively few citizens of the seven countries listed in the ban maintain access to the United States.” The report also listed a discrepancy in the threat posed with the countries included the ban.  The document also stated that few of the impacted countries have terrorist groups that threaten the West.

This week, it has been reported that the Trump administration has now asked the intelligence community to supply evidence to support their original claim about the threat emanating from the seven nations (Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Libya, and Sudan) listed in the original travel ban executive order. Even if this request is marginally true, then the Trump administration is played an extremely dangerous game.

The crux of a thriving national security strategy is an informed administration, provided in part by the intelligence communities’ objective analysis. Intelligence collection and analysis is more of an imperfect art than a science. By design, it is dispassionate, candid, and evidence-based; otherwise, it’s called an opinion.

Information objectivity doesn’t mean intelligence analysis is without a point of view. Typically, myriad sources are poured over to ultimately reach a bottom-line assessment to inform policy decisions. They rely on the administration and Congress to communicate the facts through policy, actions, and press conferences.

Trump now disputes these findings, claiming that the report failed to include available evidence that supports the January 27 order.

This type of information should have been part of Trump’s consideration prior to drafting the Executive Order. The intention behind asking for this information now is a “cart before the horse” scenario. The administration even has DHS criticizing its own report: Acting DHS Press Secretary Gillian Christensen also challenged the agency’s report, calling it an “incomplete product.” But she said the administration’s reason for taking issue with it was not political.

Exerting this type of pressure on the non-partisan bureaucracy hurts us all: while the president seems comfortable with the idea of bullying those around him as though they were contestants on a reality TV show, his antagonistic behavior will either continue to encourage leaks (because professional analysts are, at the end of the day, people and professionals: they feel injustice as acutely as anyone else) or undermine our long-term national interests by driving good people with deep, if not unique, expertise out of government (which is, in and of itself, a costly proposition).

Structural politicization is another risk. Unlike in any other administration, a chief political strategist, Steve Bannon, has been elevated to sit on the Principals Committee of the National Security Council. The NSC Principal Committee is charged with weighing decisions on how best to respond to a national security crisis, outside the perils of politics. Placing Bannon on the committee, who has no national security expertise, and whose focus is that of devising President Trump’s political agenda, is in itself politicizing the structure.

It was also rumored New York billionaire Steve Feinberg would be appointed to review the structure of the intelligence community and offer recommendations. The President of the United States has that right and responsibility. An outside perspective of a successful businessman would appear constructive in a normal atmosphere. Dig a little deeper into Feinberg’s ties to the government and he may have an inherent bias. (His company, Dyncorp, for instance, is embroiled in a lawsuit with the State Department.) Regardless of Feinberg’s bias, relations between POTUS and the IC are fraught with implications of leaks, and the administration portrays the appearance of utter distrust of the IC. In this case, what normally would be seen as executive oversight can reasonably be interpreted as the president’s retribution.

Politicized intelligence is illusory at best: if President Trump’s administration is successful at cowing organizations like DHS and the Department of Justice to conform under pressure, then the resultant policy will fail, and, when it does, people will wonder why the administration chose a course of action that it knew to be at odds with the available information and informed expert opinion of those professionals paid to understand the issue.

About the author:
*Nada Bakos, a Senior Fellow in the Program on National Security at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, is a highly-regarded national security expert with 20 years of in-depth knowledge base in global intelligence. As a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst, she was a key member of the team charged with analyzing the relationship between Iraq, al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks. Subsequently, during the war in Iraq, Ms. Bakos was asked to serve as the Chief Targeting officer tracking one of the world’s most wanted terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

By David W. Murray, Brian Blake and John P. Walters*

Recent reporting indicates that the Federal government will be taking a more serious approach to the marijuana threat and the enforcement of our nation’s drug laws. This is a welcome and long-overdue development, as the state-level legalization of marijuana is bringing with it significant and foreseeable costs. Decades of experience have taught us the damage that accompanies drug use; embarking on a legalization course that assuredly leads to higher levels of prevalence will increase the damage greatly as use broadens and intensifies.

With the destruction of prevention efforts as drug use becomes normalized, more young Americans are caught in the drug-use trap. By recently legalizing the highly-potent, increasingly dangerous forms of industrial marijuana, California alone is poised to expose a population of nearly 40 million people to the actions of a commercial, socially-acceptable marijuana market, in full violation of federal law. That figure is larger than the population of Canada, and must be added to the affected populations of the several states that have also passed such laws, as well as the populations in other states to which their drugs are smuggled.

Checking and turning back the drug threat, increasingly propelled by legalization efforts, is an urgent need. The expansion of marijuana use, science now tells us, cannot be isolated from its impact on other drug epidemics. Marijuana legalization risks increasing not only mental disorders, but further, the illegal use of other substances of abuse, which a larger marijuana market accelerates and sustains.

The impact of the marijuana “gateway” effect has been substantiated in multiple research reports. For example, recent findings have shown that teen misuse of opioid drugs is strongly linked to marijuana use, and to the additional use of multiple substances of abuse including cocaine and alcohol.

No society has ever gone where America is now headed, with the current and coming level of acceptable, even normative, drug use. The marijuana epidemic comes at a time when America has already absorbed shocks from a multitude of parallel behavioral disorders and challenges to mental health, driven not only by the burdens of alcohol and tobacco use as behavioral disorders, but as well by continued methamphetamine use and sharply rising opioid and cocaine use that together constitute, as a now chronic condition, a larger crisis of substance abuse.

The current trends threaten America’s freedoms, its economic productivity, and its educational attainments. These achievements may prove unsustainable if a substantial fraction of citizens is living in a chronically drugged state.

The effects of growing drug use are already visible in states like Colorado. For example, safety-conscious engineering and construction firms face a troubling rise of drug use in the pool of available workers, while for trucking firms, “legalization has made an already critical shortage of drivers worse.”

In towns like Pueblo, emergency medical practice is being transformed, say doctors, “affecting just about every aspect of medicine that you can think of,” such as a sharp increase in infants born exposed to the drug. A large influx of homeless, seeking marijuana access, are creating tent cities, as physicians express fear of a potential public health “disaster” that could overwhelm the public health system with communicable diseases.

And any promise of tax-revenue windfalls must be measured against the threat increased marijuana use presents to economic performance, as it degrades the very labor force that makes America an economic power.

Rising criminality also results from legalization and more pervasive drug use; not only the expansion and entrenchment of a criminal cartel-controlled black market that thrives on the nationwide increase in drug prevalence, but as well the criminal behavior of the intoxicated or addicted as they are affected by their drug use. Far from being driven out of the market by legalization, as Colorado has demonstrated, these criminal elements flourish as they exploit the many cracks within the legalization regime, including those enterprises seeking to avoid taxes or age and potency restrictions. Meanwhile, drugged driving and drug-fueled violence will increase.

Given declining labor force participation, poor educational performance in important, key communities, and the fragmenting of core institutions (such as the intact family and functioning community), increasing habitual drug use, and the socialization of an emerging generation to accept its presence and consequences, will only fuel these destructive forces.

Moreover, those who will suffer most from drug use consequences are the vulnerable and marginalized members of society. A growing income inequality, for instance, can only be worsened by disproportionate educational failure, the impact of diminished intellectual capacity, and the risks of crime.

Further, there are already dramatic increases in social costs, and, particularly, health care costs associated with marijuana legalization, such as an estimated 15 to 22 percent increase in simultaneous use of marijuana and alcohol, resulting in “considerable economic and social costs from downstream health care expenditures and productivity loss.” Substance abuse, as well as costing lives, takes a huge toll on public health.

A commercialized, aggressively-advertised drug market, flush with cash to deploy lobbyists and seek political protection in state and federal capitals, will hasten and institutionalize the capture of a new generation and thereby threaten new levels of abuse and mental disorder.

Where Does the Threat Stand?

According to the most recent nationwide measure of illicit drug use, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), fully 10.1 percent of Americans 12 and older report being current (or “Past Month”), users of an illicit substance.

That translates into 27.1 million Americans regularly consuming drugs. (“Past Year” users are usually about 75 percent higher than the Past Month figures; hence, there are about 48 million Past Year consumers of any illicit drug.)

Of these, nearly 4 million are current misusers of prescription pain killers. Another nearly 4 million are misusers of prescription tranquilizers, stimulants, or sedatives. Add to this figure the nearly 2 million cocaine users and nearly 1.5 million methamphetamine and heroin users, according to the estimates—which are in some instances overlapping categories of use.

Regardless of overlap, the overwhelming driver of these statistics is marijuana use, with 22.2 million Past Month users; moreover, their use is intensifying over time, trending towards daily use, the most harmful type.

According to some researchers, since 1992, Past Month users who were “heavy users,” consuming 25 or more days per month, have gone from 9 percent of the total to 40 percent. There are now about 8 million “daily/near-daily” users, and they are using increasingly potent and dangerous forms of the drug.

And the consequences of this intensifying use are rising sharply, as are the personal and social cost.

Drug-induced overdose deaths in 2015 stood at 52,404 Americans (in that single year), mostly from opioids, a figure that portends to rise steeply once 2016 is measured. It is into this disastrous mix that expanding legal marijuana, first commercialized in only one state in 2014, will add its burden. Inexorably, all the adverse consequences are increasing, accelerating the fastest for heroin and marijuana.

The Future of Legalization: A Worsening Epidemic

No one knows exactly what will happen next, though the comforting scenarios offered by drug legalization advocates are particularly dubious and fly in the face of research and experience. Nonetheless, there are estimates of increased use and damage, as well as projected scenarios drawing upon recent knowledge of the dangers of marijuana to mental health, that detail the destructive effect of the marijuana market on communities.

One of the most dangerous areas of change is in young adult cocaine use. Here, the collateral impact of a legal marijuana market on the use of other illicit drugs can be seen in recent increases in cocaine use by young adults, coincident with the rise of marijuana legalization.

From 2003 through 2011, according to the NSDUH reporting, current use of cocaine by those 18-25 had dropped fully 50 percent. But then this trajectory reversed. From 2013 through 2015, Past Month cocaine use by this age group is up 55 percent.

The impact is even more plain when we examine marijuana use itself. In 2008, the number of Past Year marijuana users stood at 25 million, which number had been stable for some time. But aided by the Obama Administration’s neglect of federal law and embrace of state-level legalization, that figure surged, rising to 36 million by 2015, an increase of 44 percent over seven years.

That figure translates into a steady rate of increase of over 6 percent a year; unless there is some dramatic break in trajectory (conversely, there could be a possible acceleration of change as legalization spreads), the projections for the future are dismal. In a few short years, marijuana users, measured from the end of the Bush Administration, could double, rising to some 50 million Past Year marijuana users nationwide. Even in states where legalization has not been permitted, prevention education has nevertheless been seriously undermined by the aggressive marketing of legalization advocates which is amplified by sympathetic media. Soaring rates of use across America can be no surprise.

A more specific scenario has been presented by the economists of the RAND Corporation, who projected the impact of legalization on the state of California. Their analysis focused on marijuana consumption by Past Month users. The California Society of Addiction Medicine offers a summary of their findings, some of which are:

• Cannabis legalization would plausibly lead to a 58 percent increase in consumption.
• Increased consumption would result from price reduction and removal of legal penalties.
• Based on current prevalence rates, a 58% increase in consumption would likely generate an additional 305,000 users meeting DSM-IV criteria for marijuana abuse or dependence in California, for a total of 830,000.
• The price of marijuana will substantially decline, likely by more than 80 percent.
• The RAND report projects an average taxation rate of $50 per ounce.
• High taxation could create strong incentives for tax evasion and thus contribute to continuation of a black market for marijuana.
• High taxation may create incentives for users to switch to higher-potency forms of marijuana to minimize cost.
• Increased treatment admissions would result in a $1.5 million increase in cost, of which perhaps $1 million would fall on the taxpayer.
• Increased Emergency Department episodes would result in a $1.9 million to $2.6 million increase in cost.

(The RAND report numbers do not reflect increased costs to criminal justice, workplace productivity, educational failure, or lives derailed.)

If these RAND projections were scaled to the national level, marijuana use alone would quickly rise from the 22.2 million Past Month users of 2015 to become 35 million Past Month users.

More marijuana use is linked to increased unemployment, school drop-out, IQ loss, welfare dependency, domestic violence, workplace costs, accidents, military recruitment difficulties, and a host of other social ills, each of which is associated with regular marijuana use and will grow proportionately as use expands.

Moreover, these consequences would likely increase every year. A recent Lancet article on the global burdens of mental disorder and substance abuse shows the major impact of these afflictions:

Other estimates show that behavioral diseases such as drug and alcohol use (here also including obesity) drive as much as 70 percent of overall health care spending in the US. Moreover, there is a clear association between drug abuse and blood-borne diseases such as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. Moreover, there is a further association between marijuana use and increased workplace accidents and injuries on the job.

In the United States, the National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates the combined costs of alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use exacts more than $700 billion annually in costs related to crime, lost work productivity, and health care (with illicit drugs alone, according to a 2011 White House study, costing no less than $193 billion). The fact that a great expansion of marijuana availability and use will further drive increased damage from all illicit drug use cannot be denied.

Turning Back the Threat: Federal, Community, and Private Action

Federal Measures:

The current danger was caused by a deliberate determination by the Obama Administration to suspend the enforcement of multiple federal laws, primarily the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which renders marijuana illegal and subject to Schedule I restrictions. Additional risks arise from past Congressional efforts to alter the CSA to make marijuana legalization federal law.

Congress should continue to reject marijuana legalization and the new Justice Department leadership should create a path to restore the full enforcement of the CSA.

Policymaking and enforcement actions will be aided by Administration and Congressional actions to restore key federal monitoring systems that measure drug production, distribution, treatment need, drug consequences, and the trajectory of drug epidemic outbreaks, as several of these data sets were shut down during the eight years of the Obama Administration. To track and respond to the drug epidemic, the nation needs more information and it needs that information in real-time.

To take one example, it would be helpful to again establish how many individuals are seeking emergency room and treatment assistance caused by the use of marijuana and other drugs. In an era of Big Data, robust data collection instruments will educate the public as to the danger, make it possible to target responses and evaluate their effectiveness.

The Federal enforcement of existing law, and fully funding such actions as “enforcement priorities,” will go far towards protecting our communities, especially from encroaching criminal cartels, their wealth, and their corrupt allies.

The CSA and allied measures contain many provisions, the enforcement of which has been suspended. For instance, there are provisions of the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act which can be brought to bear on the states, among which are restrictions on contracting and federal grants for states not in compliance. There are further workplace safety, hiring, and workmen’s insurance and compensation issues that can be pursued effectively.

Additionally, federal agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency possess authorities over some marijuana products and can address issues regarding the marketing and sales of the drug, as well as the cultivation and industrial production of marijuana, all of which could be enforced to good effect.

There are likewise provisions regarding such matters as child endangerment in institutions and households, laws that prohibit the presence or use of controlled substances where children are present.

It is also imperative that we reform the federal treatment and recovery systems, rendering them more effective at treatment delivery, and that we re-establish federal drug prevention efforts of proven effectiveness, such as a national anti-drug media campaign, and through support of school-based prevention efforts, such as court-approved random student drug testing for purposes of identifying and securing help for at-risk youth, while sending a prevention message to all.

Finally, let us not forget the important symbolic role strong federal leadership can offer. For the past eight years, parents, teachers, coaches, healthcare providers, law enforcement, and other community leaders have been looking to Washington for action and rhetoric that reinforced the prevention messages they were promoting in their communities. They were disappointed by the Obama Administration. Most parents don’t expect the federal government alone to keep their kids off of drugs, but what they should expect is that leaders in Washington do not undermine their prevention efforts in word or deed.

Community Actions:

The federal government can turn back the open and illegal marijuana market and it can attack the largest and most dangerous multi-national trafficking organizations. However, the vast majority of drug enforcement will always remain a state and local responsibility. In addition, much treatment and prevention work is carried out by private individuals and organizations. Some of these are supported by government funding, but private leadership and the private application of resources have the power to make communities better or worse.

For example, state and local drug courts and diversion programs can help break the cycle of addiction and crime by placing individuals into supervised treatment and recovery programs. In addition, universal physician screening, intervention, and referral to treatment initiatives have already proven effective in interrupting drug abuse and limiting the risks of addiction. Such measures can be joined with similar efforts in the workplace and in community, religious, and family institutions. Finally, random student drug testing is one of the most powerful prevention measures to help young people in communities at risk.

These steps can be encouraged by national leaders, but they require local initiative to turn opportunities into measures that save lives.

New and better actions by states, communities, and individuals can be best supported, not only by federally-funded data sets, but by real-time information about the marijuana threat, with detail down to the state and neighborhood level. Making the problem visible and “here” will reinforce urgency and, most of all, responsibility.

The Actions of Private Citizens Through the Courts:

The willful production, distribution, and commercial sale of addictive, health-destroying products should be limited or penalized through lawsuits. The evidence of private damage to individuals and communities, and the costs imposed by such commercial actions, is overwhelming, and the fact that such actions were deliberate and done in the face of ample knowledge of the effects makes such businesses complicit and vulnerable to citizen action.

Legal action against the damage caused is manifestly needed, and legal aid foundations, as well as private support, should be mobilized to restore responsibility and uphold the law against drug producers and traffickers. Commercial activity worth billions of dollars is at stake, and it has been accompanied by willful advertising and marketing encouragement, much of it clearly directed at youth. Court intervention on behalf of citizen lawsuits is appropriate, and will likely be successful, particularly in light of the decades-long legal difficulties still experienced by the tobacco industry.

Further, in states that have legalized commercial marijuana sales, such legalization should not protect the industry from legal attack by state and local authorities. The willful causing of harm and the long history of product liability actions present a manifest opportunity for prosecutors and attorneys general. These may also proceed independent of any other actions by government or private individuals, with the goal of establishing responsibility for the costs and damage imposed by heedless commercial activity conducted in violation of federal law.

Conclusion

America is at risk of hobbling a generation, who will face a future of increased failure, despair, and loss of capacity. For decades, legalization advocates have been able to argue for the projected benefits of legalization, while an often-too-sympathetic media downplayed or ignored the known harms. With legal marijuana going from theoretical to reality in states like Colorado, those days are coming to an end. The most recent expansion of legalization at the state level has accelerated the soon-to-be visible damage.

The larger crisis of epidemic levels of substance abuse and its lethal consequences cannot be controlled unless we directly confront the serious threat of runaway marijuana use. The trends are not sustainable. Fortunately, recent history has shown that effective action and clear leadership can turn these failures back. The sooner that effort begins, the better the outcome for America.

*About the authors:
David W. Murray, Senior Fellow

Brian Blake, Senior Fellow and Director, Corporate Relations

John P. Walters, Chief Operating Officer

Source:
This article was published by the Hudson Institute

(EurActiv) — On Wednesday (1 March) European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker will unveil his plan for the EU’s future after Britain’s departure, his spokesman said.

Juncker’s so-called “White Paper” will be presented to the European Parliament after Commissioners get a first look at it today (28 February), the spokesman said.

European Union leaders will then consider Juncker’s plan at a summit on 9-10 March, before coming up with their own post-Brexit roadmap at a special meeting in Rome on 25 March.

“On Wednesday, president Juncker will go to the European Parliament to present the White Paper on the future of the union,” Juncker’s spokesman Margaritis Schinas told a briefing.

Britain’s shock June 2016 vote to leave the EU — coupled with crises involving the economy and migration — has plunged the 28-nation EU into a deep bout of soul-searching.

At a special summit in Italy to mark the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome which founded the EU, the bloc’s leaders will issue a special declaration with new plans for future.

The declaration is expected to cover the next ten years and is likely to contain suggestions for a “multi-speed Europe” in which EU states can decide on how much integration they want, European sources told AFP.

EU leaders are also keen to move on and not let the entire European project get bogged down in what promise to be difficult negotiations with Britain over its exit, which is expected in 2019.

Schinas said Juncker’s plan was meant to open a “debate” ahead of the Rome declaration and said there was a “lot of interest” in the former Luxembourg prime minister’s views.

Two of Pakistan’s biggest religious riots have finally gotten their day in court — with strikingly different results.

An anti-terrorism court in Lahore last week sentenced 42 Christians for rioting after two churches in Pakistan’s largest Christian neighborhood were bombed in 2015, the Christianity Today website said citing Fides, the Vatican’s news agency.

The ruling comes less than a month after the same court acquitted more than 100 Muslims for rampaging through another one of Lahore’s major Christian communities in 2013 over one man’s alleged blasphemy.

The 42 Christians were roughly half of those accused of murder and terrorism after two Muslim men suspected of bombing Sunday services in Youhanabad were killed. The National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP), an initiative of Pakistan’s bishops’ conference, said that they were disappointed that the church attackers have not been punished.

Left unpunished were the approximately 112 Muslims who were arrested for ransacking, looting, and setting fire to more than 100 homes in Joseph Colony in 2013.

The court found them innocent despite eyewitnesses and videos of the attack, according to World Watch Monitor.

“The evidence was not enough to prove the crime,” said judge Chaudhry Muhammad Azam.

The two cases from Lahore, the second-largest city in Pakistan, stood in stark contrast to the promise of Pakistan’s prime minister in January that the country will soon “better the lives of minority groups.”

British singer-songwriter Paul Rose is understood to have filed a lawsuit in New York City yesterday (February 27) claiming that the band used elements from his song ‘Nae Slappin’ for the album’s lead single – and UK Number One hit – ‘The Fly’.

As NME reports citing Billboard, Rose has alleged that U2 heard his demo tape after they signed to Island Records in the late ’80s. He is said to be suing for $5 million in damages and a songwriting credit.

It is understood that U2 and Island Records have yet to comment on the lawsuit.

Meanwhile, U2’s longtime tour stage designer Willie Williams has given an insight into what to expect from the band’s forthcoming ‘The Joshua Tree’ anniversary tour.

The band recently announced details of a UK and European tour to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the classic album – with support from Noel Gallagher. They will also tour the 1987 album in North America during 2017.

Williams said at this stage the band are still not sure in what order to play their landmark album, telling Rolling Stone: “We’re aware the album is only an hour long and the show needs to be longer than that, so how do you place it in the show? How do you make it work? Do you play it continuously? Do you disperse it with other works? All those things are still being decided, really, to be honest.”

Zika virus could be transmitted by more mosquito species than those currently known, according to a new predictive model created by ecologists at the University of Georgia and the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Their findings, published in the journal eLife, offer a list of 26 additional potential candidate species–including seven that occur in the continental United States–that the authors suggest should be the first priority for further research.

“The biggest take home message is that these are the species that we need to prioritize,” said lead author Michelle V. Evans, a UGA doctoral student in ecology and conservation. “Especially as we’re in the slower part of the mosquito season, now is the time to catch up so we’re prepared for the summer.”

Targeting Zika’s potential vectors–species that can transmit the virus from one host to another–is an urgent need, given its explosive spread and the devastating health effects associated with it. It’s also time-consuming and expensive, requiring the collection of mosquitoes in affected areas, testing them to see which ones are carrying the virus, and conducting laboratory studies.

The new model could streamline the initial step of pinpointing Zika vectors.

“What we’ve done is to draw up a list of potential vector candidates based on the associations with viruses that they’ve had in the past as well as other traits that are specific to that species,” said paper co-author Courtney C. Murdock, an assistant professor in the UGA School of Veterinary Medicine and Odum School of Ecology. “That allows us to have a predictive framework to effectively get a list of candidate species without having to search blindly.”

The researchers developed their model using machine learning, a form of artificial intelligence that is particularly useful for finding patterns in large, complicated data sets. It builds on work done by co-author Barbara A. Han of the Cary Institute, who has used similar methods to predict bat and rodent reservoirs of disease based on life history traits.

Data used in the model consisted of information about the traits of flaviviruses–the family that includes Zika, yellow fever and dengue–and all the mosquito species that have ever been associated with them. For mosquito species, these included general traits like subgenus and geographic distribution as well as traits relevant to the ability of each species to transmit disease, such as proximity to human populations, whether they typically bite humans and how many different viruses they are known to transmit.

For viruses, traits included how many different mosquito species they infect, whether they have ever infected humans and the severity of the diseases they cause.

Analyzing known mosquito-virus pairs, the researchers found that certain traits were strong predictors of whether a linkage would form. The most important of these for mosquitoes were the subgenus, the continents it occurred on and the number of viruses it was able to transmit. For viruses, the most important trait was the number of mosquito species able to act as a vector.

Based on what they learned, they used the model to test the combination of Zika virus with all the mosquito species known to transmit at least one flavivirus. The model found 35 predicted Zika vectors, including 26 previously unsuspected possibilities.

Seven of those species occur in the continental U.S., with ranges that in some cases differ from those of the known vectors. Evans and Murdock cautioned strongly against assuming that this means that Zika will spread to all those areas.

“We’re really solely looking at vector competence, which is only one small part of disease risk,” Evans said. “It’s one factor out of many, and not even the most important one. I want to stress that all of these are just predictions that need to be validated by empirical work. We are suggesting that people who are doing that work should focus on these species first,” she said.

“Ecologists have long known that everything is connected to everything else, and are pretty good, I think, at sifting out where that matters from where it doesn’t,” said senior author John M. Drake, a professor in the Odum School and director of the UGA Center for the Ecology of Infectious Diseases. “This work highlights that ecological way of thinking and why it’s important in understanding infectious diseases.”

By Baisali Mohanty*

India’s ‘exclusion’ from the trilateral talks on Afghanistan in Moscow last December instilled deep disenchantment in the Indian leadership towards Russia. The former Soviet Union, in discussion with China and Pakistan, sought to initiate peace negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government. A significant cooling in the bilateral relationship between India and Russia was predicted.

By extending an invitation to the six-party talks held last week, however, Moscow showed a desire to engage India vis-a-vis Afghanistan — acknowledging Delhi’s position as a major stakeholder in the peace-building process there. Led by the Russian presidential envoy to Kabul, Zamir Kabulov, the talks further embraced Iran and the Afghan government, which faces seething security concerns.

Inclusion of India in the multi-party conversation was an opportune way for Russia to ensure Delhi’s rising status was accommodated through established institutional frameworks. Status here is understood in a relational manner — as a positional attribute — and not as part of a zero-sum game. As Barry Buzan, International relations expert, contends, status is defined not just on the basis of capability but also ‘perceptual criteria’ — as recognised by others, chiefly the ‘top-table peer group.’

In tandem with this definition, he identifies three distinct groups: superpowers, great powers and regional powers. While India has made demands for ‘great power’ status, it remains an unavoidable ‘regional power’ in south Asia — connoted by a few scholars as a ‘distinguished’ and ‘exemplary’ power — seeking recognition from the developing countries as well as the top-tier groups. For instance, as Nicola Horsburgh and Kate Sullivan of Oxford remark, India’s nuclear doctrine has been projected as non-coercive by emphasising on its purportedly unique capacities for restraint, arsenal size, nuclear development and declaratory policies.

For decades, India has found itself playing an ‘exceptional’ role in Afghanistan, in terms of security as well as socio-economic development. In a recent change of strategy, as conceived by analysts, India has ‘gifted’ Afghanistan five Russian-made Mi5 attack helicopters — a lethal transaction unprecedented since the Taliban were ousted in Kabul. Delhi has provided constant development assistance, with over $2 billion in aid since 2001 favouring infrastructural development, and military assistance in the form of the training of police personnel. India has perennially conceived its role in Afghanistan as non-violent and non-interventionist — as ‘exceptionally peaceful’ — and hence its reluctance to lend military support to US intervention after 9/11.

When it became apparent that Russia was leaving India out of December’s trilateral meeting in Moscow, its top brass expressed huge discontent. The foreign secretary, S. Jaishankar, took up the issue with his Russian counterpart on the sidelines of the Heart of Asia conference in early December. The national security advisor, Ajit Doval, raised similar concerns on a visit to Moscow for strategic and counter-terrorism talks.

It was a massive blow to Delhi, endangering a bilateral relationship which had stood the test of time. The Minister of State for External Affairs, M.J. Akbar, coolly remarked: “We do not believe that holding a meeting about Afghanistan alone is going to solve the problems of Afghanistan. Eventually, it is all about delivering benefits on the ground which [can be] seen by the people of Afghanistan.”

In contrast, Russia accommodating Delhi’s status by involving it in the six-party talks implies the acceptance of a rising power into the ranks of major powers. This can entail accordance of a leadership role in international institutions as well as symbolic recognition through declarations, state visits and invitations to key decision-making arenas. For India, recognition of its status claims has been a primal concern.

In accordance with the power-transition theorists, a state can be relatively satisfied if the benefits it accrues from the system quench its status aspirations, leaving it with no incentive to undermine or destabilise it. Though limited, an example of such peaceful accommodation is the United States’ rapprochement with China and its integration into the international order in the 1970s, which led to the mellowing of the latter’s opposition to the system. Conversely, theory exclusively focusing on status accommodation through material power misses out on the role of ideational and institutional factors and the possibility of status accommodation through non-violent policy choices — India being a case in point. Hence emphasising threats to both physical security and status are paramount in understanding states’ status-accommodation techniques.

Indo-Russian status considerations in the institutional ambit have historically been premised on mutual trust and recognition of status aspirations in the global realm. For both countries, for most of the last century, this was evidenced in extensive material exchanges as well as respect for ideational values. Since independence, Russia has been one of India’s trusted allies: signing a rare friendship treaty 1971, the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, which was considered as at variance with India’s non-aligned goals. Nehru’s USSR policy was premised on shared values and commitments. In one of many letters to the state chief ministers on his visit to the USSR in 1955, he wrote: “I was astonished to find how popular some Indian films are. The names of several films were mentioned to me. The only two I remember now are Awara and Do Bigha Zamin. While at times the relationship sagged — as in the 1960s over the USSR’s increasing ties with China before the Sino-Soviet split — but the core, value-based understanding conferred an enduring stability.

A close Afghan observer, Rajan Menon, remarked: “The two countries have established substantial trust and understanding, a convergent worldview, and a stake in preserving a relationship that few countries can claim to have.”

In a similar vein, Minister M.J. Akbar challenged the idea of an escalating rift between India and Russia: “India’s relationship with Russia has stood the test of time and we are confident that it will stand the test of the future. We do not believe that Russia will do anything which is injurious to our security or injurious to our national interest. The bridge of camaraderie is candour. And I can assure you that there is candour.”

In the current strategic climate, as post-cold-war dynamics stand altered, both countries continue to see each other in positive light. In a Pew Research Center Survey, around 43% of Indians confirmed they saw Russia as a friend of India.

In the recently concluded BRICS summit in Goa, India and Russia clinched a $5 billion deal for India’s purchase of the S-400 Triumf surface-to-air missile system. They also signed deals to boost India’s imports and facilitate manufacture of Kamov Ka 226T light-utility helicopters. Additionally, it was announced that India would lease an Akula II- class nuclear-powered attack submarine from Russia for $2 billion. Hence, both states aim to grant recognition and legitimacy to the other’s status claims and security demands.

In this light, Moscow’s invitation to India for this month’s multilateral consultations showed a keenness to accommodate India’s status and security concerns on Afghanistan. A peaceful status accommodation of India also hints at Russia’s expectation that, while a rising India has a strong demand for meaningful status in the system, it is unlikely to become a threat — in terms of security or status — especially if its status goals are accommodated.

Russia’s attempt to incorporate India in a key decision-making arena was a signal of recognition of India’s perception of its role in Afghan peace building and stability. And it did so before dissatisfaction reached a point where India might choose to act as an independent stakeholder to suit its foreign policy goals in Afghanistan, not necessarily conducive to those of Russia.

Yet a persisting irritant is Russia’s contrasting goals in Afghanistan, for which it has found peace partners in Pakistan, Iran and China. While Moscow is eager to make inroads in Kabul to restrain Islamic State from taking ground, even if that means bolstering the Taliban presence, India sees the latter as an emerging security threat. Indeed, Delhi has long declared the Taliban to be the biggest threat to security stemming from Afghanistan, and one which India has ambitions to confront.

Russia and India will have to try to find common ground. But Russia’s closeness to Pakistan — as evident in recent military ties — could threaten India’s growing status and raise security concerns in Delhi. Heightened status conflict between India and Pakistan could have pernicious implications for Russia in turn. And this is all against the backdrop of a United States presidency best described as unpredictable.

Hence, it is of the utmost value for both India and Russia to enhance their bilateral partnership while accommodating status concerns in the institutional realm, and to find means to engage their interests in strategic domains such as Afghanistan — ensuring in the process that Afghanistan’s domestic situation is not exacerbated and its sovereignty not bargained away.

The author is a research intern at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. This article originally appeared in Outlook.

Thailand’s state Mahidol University should drop a disciplinary investigation against academics who criticized the Thai military junta, Human Rights Watch said. The action is being carried out against staff members of the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies (IHRP), Southeast Asia’s longest-running graduate degree program in human rights studies.

On February 25, 2017, the IHRP issued a statement condemning the National Council for Peace and Order junta’s unchecked and unaccountable power under section 44 of the 2014 interim constitution. One day later, Mahidol University announced in an unsigned statement that it did not consider IHRP’s action an exercise of academic freedom.

The university said staff members responsible for the statement would face investigation and disciplinary action for damaging the reputation of the university and using the university’s name without permission.

“Mahidol University is doing the junta’s dirty work by repressing critical academics voicing their opinions,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “As one of Thailand’s leading educational institutions, Mahidol University should be a showcase for academic freedom and free speech rather than supporting the punishment of dissenting voices on campus.”

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, many foreign governments, and Human Rights Watch and other human rights groups have repeatedly urged the Thai prime minister and junta leader, Gen. Prayut Chan-ocha, to revoke section 44 and other provisions of the 2014 interim constitution that allow authorities to operate with impunity and without any legal oversight.

Since the May 2014 coup, the Thai junta has regularly blocked or disrupted public discussions on the political and human rights situation, halting public expression of differences in political opinions. Police and the military have used junta orders to cancel events for reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights. The authorities have also banned many discussions at universities and other public venues about human rights, democracy, the monarchy, and the government’s performance.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Thailand is a party, protects the rights of individuals to freedom of opinion, expression, association, and assembly. The UN committee that oversees compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to which Thailand is also a party, has advised governments that academic freedom, as an element of the right to education, includes: “the liberty of individuals to express freely opinions about the institution or system in which they work, to fulfill their functions without discrimination or fear of repression by the State or any other actor, to participate in professional or representative academic bodies, and to enjoy all the internationally recognized human rights applicable to other individuals in the same jurisdiction.”

“Thailand is clearly not on a path toward democracy when free speech is censored, criticism is punished, and political activity is prohibited even inside a university,” Adams said. “Mahidol University should reverse course and end this reprehensible and repressive action that only helps strengthen military dictatorship at the expense of democracy and human rights.”

For all the fact-checking and objective reporting produced by major media outlets, voters in the U.S. nonetheless rely heavily on their pre-existing views when deciding if politicians’ statements are true or not, according to a new study co-authored by MIT scholars.

The study, conducted during the U.S. presidential primaries for the 2016 election, uses a series of statements by President Donald J. Trump — then one of many candidates in the Republican field — to see how partisanship and prior beliefs interact with evaluations of objective fact.

The researchers looked at both true and false statements Trump made, and surveyed voters from both parties about their responses. They found that the source of the claim was significant for members of both parties. For instance, when Trump falsely suggested vaccines cause autism, a claim rejected by scientists, Republicans were more likely to believe the claim when it was attributed to Trump than they were when the claim was presented without attribution.

On the other hand, when Trump correctly stated the financial cost of the Iraq War, Democrats were less likely to believe his claim than they were when the same claim was presented in unattributed form.

“It wasn’t just the case that misinformation attributed to Trump was less likely to be rejected by Republicans,” said Adam Berinsky, a professor of political science at MIT and a co-author of the new paper. “The things Trump said that were true, if attributed to Trump, [made] Democrats less likely to believe [them]. … Trump really does polarize people’s views of reality.”

Overall, self-identified Republicans who were surveyed gave Trump’s false statements a collective “belief score” of about six, on a scale of 0-10, when those statements were attributed to him. Without attribution, the belief score fell to about 4.5 out of 10.

Self-identified Democrats, on the other hand, gave Trump’s true statements a belief score of about seven out of 10 when those statements were unattributed. When the statements were attributed to Trump, the aggregate belief score fell to about six out of 10.

The paper, “Processing Political Information,” is published in the journal Royal Society Open Science. The co-authors are Swire, Berinsky, Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia and the University of Bristol, and Ullrich K.H. Ecker of the University of Western Australia.

In conducting the study, the researchers surveyed 1,776 U.S. citizens during the fall of 2015, presenting them with four true statements from Trump as well as four false ones.

After correcting the false statements, the scholars also asked the survey’s respondents if they were less likely to support Trump as a result — but found the candidate’s factual issues were largely irrelevant to the respondents’ voting choices.

“It just doesn’t have an effect on support for him,” Berinsky said. “It’s not that saying things that are incorrect is garnering support for him, but it’s not costing him support either.”

The latest study is one in a series of papers Berinsky has published on political rumors, facticity, and partisan beliefs. His previous work has shown that, for instance, corrections of political rumors tend to be ineffective unless made by people within the same political party as the intended audience. That is, rumors about Democrats that are popular among Republican voters are most effectively shot down by other Republicans, and vice versa.

In a related sense, Berinsky thinks, solutions to matters of truth and falsehood in the current — and highly polarized — political moment may need to have a similar partisan structure, due to the blizzard of claims and counterclaims about truth, falsehoods, “fake news,” and more.

“In a partisan time, the solution to misinformation has to be partisan, because there just aren’t authorities that will be recognized by both sides of the aisle,” he said.

“This is a tough nut to crack, this question of misinformation and how to correct it,” he added. “Anybody who tells you there’s an easy solution, like, ‘three easy things you can do to correct misinformation,’ don’t listen to them. If it were that easy, it would be solved by now.”

The bishop of the local Church where Medjugorje is located reiterated on Sunday his long-held belief that the alleged Marian apparitions at the site are false.

“The position of this Curia throughout this period has been clear and resolute: these are not true apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar-Duvno wrote in a Feb. 26 statement on his diocesan website.

He referred to investigations into the authenticity of the supposed apparitions that began with the diocese in 1982, and which have continued to the present time at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The alleged apparitions originally began June 24, 1981, when six children in Medjugorje, a town in what is now Bosnia and Herzegovina, began to experience phenomena which they have claimed to be apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

According to these six “seers,” the apparitions contained a message of peace for the world, a call to conversion, prayer and fasting, as well as certain secrets surrounding events to be fulfilled in the future.

These apparitions are said to have continued almost daily since their first occurrence, with three of the original six children – who are now young adults – continuing to receive apparitions every afternoon because not all of the “secrets” intended for them have been revealed.

Since their beginning, the alleged apparitions have been a source of both controversy and conversion, with many flocking to the city for pilgrimage and prayer, and some claiming to have experienced miracles at the site, while many others claim the visions are non-credible.

The bishop holds the supposed apparitions to be nothing but a manipulation of the visionaries and the priests who work with them.

Bishop Peric, who was ordained a priest of the diocese which he now heads in 1969, emphasized his devotion to Mary, and his incredulity regarding the alleged apparitions in Medjugorje.

“During the course of my episcopal ministry, first as coadjutor (1992/93) and later as ordinary, with preaching and the publication of books, as well as with more than fifty Marian and Mariological articles, I have tried to present the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the incarnation and the work of the Son of God and Her Son, and her intercession for the whole Church, of which she is mother according to grace. At the same time I have highlighted, as was done by my predecessor of happy memory, Bishop Pavao Zanic, the non-authenticity of the apparitions, which by this time have reached the number of 47,000.”

The statement delves extensively in what Bishop Radic considers the ambiguousness of the apparition.

“The female figure who supposedly appeared in Medjugorje behaves in a manner completely different from the real Virgin Mother of God in the apparitions currently recognized as authentic by the Church: usually she does not speak first, she laughs in a strange way, before some questions she disappears and appears again, she obeys the ‘visionaries’ and the local pastor who make her come down from the hill into the church even against her will. She doesn’t know with certainty how many more times she will appear, she allows some of those present to step on her veil extended on the ground, and to touch her dress and her body. This is not the Virgin of the Gospels.”

The bishop also takes issue with the visionaries’ request for a “visible sign” from the Virgin and the promise from one the visionaries that there will be a sign at the top of the hill in the form of water.

“After almost four decades there is no sign whatsoever, nor water, just fantasies,” the bishop wrote.

The statement also makes detailed reference to the inconsistencies among the various visionaries regarding the purpose of the apparitions, as well as their duration.

“All the ‘visionaries’ but one agreed that the Virgin would appear for three more days … but she appeared to have changed her mind and still ‘appears’ for 37 years,” Bishop Radic said.

The statement mentions other irregularities, such as a strange trembling in the apparition, a false anniversary of the beginning of the apparition, inconsistencies in whether the apparition has a child, inexplicable silences, strange messages, discrepancies in dress, nervousness rather than peace among the seers, scandalous touching of the apparition, and intentional manipulation of the apparition.

“Considering everything that has been examined and studied by this diocesan Curia, including the investigation of the first seven days of the alleged apparitions, we can affirm in peace: the Madonna has not appeared in Medjugorje! This is the truth that we sustain, and we believe in the word of Jesus, according to which the truth will set us free.”

In April 1991, the bishops of the former Yugoslavia determined that “on the basis of the research that has been done, it is not possible to state that there were apparitions or supernatural revelations.”

On the basis of those findings the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith directed in October 2013 that clerics and the faithful “are not permitted to participate in meetings, conferences or public celebrations during which the credibility of such ‘apparitions’ would be taken for granted.”

In January 2014, a Vatican commission completed an investigation into the supposed apparitions’ doctrinal and disciplinary aspects, and was to have submitted its findings to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Pope Francis visited Bosnia and Herzegovina in June 2015, but declined to stop at Medjugorje during his trip.

Earlier this month, Francis appointed Archbishop Henryk Hoser of Warszawa-Praga as a delegate of the Holy See to look into the pastoral situation at Medjugorje. The Polish archbishop is to “suggest possible pastoral initiatives for the future” after acquiring a deeper knowledge of the local pastoral situation.

The night vision of frogs and toads appears to be superior to that of all other animals. They have the ability to see colour even when it is so dark that humans are not able to see anything at all. This has been shown in a new study by researchers from Lund University in Sweden.

Most vertebrates, including humans, have two types of visual cells located in the retina, namely cones and rods. The cones enable us to see colour, but they usually require a lot of light and therefore stop working when it gets dark, in which case the rods take over so that we can at least find our way home, albeit in black and white.

In toads and frogs the rods are a bit special, however. It was previously known that toads and frogs are unique in having rods with two different sensitivities. This has not been found in other vertebrates, and it is also the reason why researchers have long suspected that frogs and toads might be able to see colour also in low-light conditions. The new study was first in proving this to be true, and the results exceeded all expectations.

“It’s amazing that these animals can actually see colour in extreme darkness, down to the absolute threshold of the visual system. These results were unexpected”, said Professor of Sensory Biology Almut Kelber at the Faculty of Science, Lund University.

It was during the third of three experiments that the researchers discovered that frogs are able to use their rods to distinguish colour in extreme darkness. The researchers studied the frogs in a situation that is as serious as it is common, namely, when frogs need to find their way out in case they are trapped in conditions of complete darkness. This is potentially an everyday occurrence, taking place in dark dens and passageways on the ground. In such instances, finding the exit becomes crucial, which also means that the frog is inclined to make use of any sensory information that is available.

In the other experiments the researchers studied to what extent frogs and toads use their colour vision when searching for a mate or hunting for food. The results showed that the animals stop using their colour information fairly early when it comes to finding someone with whom to mate, whereas they continue to take advantage of their colour vision to select food in such low-light conditions that humans lose their ability to see colour.

“We have previously shown moths and geckos are also able to see colour in inferior light conditions compared to humans. However, frogs apparently have a unique ability to see colour in the dark”, said Almut Kelber.

The study was conducted in collaboration with researchers from the University of Helsinki in Finland and Vladivostok in Russia. The main author, Carola Yovanovich, has been in charge of the work on the study in Almut Kelber’s research group at Lund University. The findings are published in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

Lies are one thing; disinformation quite another, as the late Nathalie Grant warned decades ago. The first can muddy the waters but are typically quickly exposed by anyone who examines them. They have a far greater and long lasting influence because the lies are wrapped in facts.

Indeed, one could say that the flood of lies is nothing but a means to make disinformation more effective because those who recognize these falsehoods may deceive themselves when it comes to more carefully constructed narratives of disinformation which are accepted because so many parts of them are true.

Consequently, identifying such disinformation and carefully sifting the lies it contains that are surrounded by facts is a far more important but also far more difficult task than simply unmasking lies. The latter may make those who do it feel better; but only the former can protest us against those who deploy disinformation skillfully.

That makes a new article by US-based Russian journalist Kseniya Kirillova especially important. Indeed, in many ways, it is a model of the challenge the world faces in dealing with Russian disinformation and the care that needs to be exercised in exposing and thus countering it (ru.krymr.com/a/28334404.html).

Last week, she notes, the Ukrainian media was filled with stories that Ukrainian defense plants were selling military equipment to Russia. The reports cited the conclusions of the distinguished Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and even appeared plausible given that Ukrainian plants had supplied Russian ones before 2014.

Such stories have two target audiences: Ukrainians who might conclude that their elites were betraying them and their country out of greed, and Europeans who might conclude that there was no reason to defend Ukraine or maintain sanctions on Russia for its invasion if the Ukrainians weren’t willing to prevent such sales.

But the stories, however plausible and apparently fact-based they appeared to be, were entirely false. Indeed, as experts at the Kyiv Center for Research on the Army, Conversion and Disarmament point out, those behind this disinformation did not report accurately even about what SIPRI did say.

Mikhail Samus, deputy head of the center, notes that “it is important to understand that SIPRI did not publish precisely the information” these stories contained. Instead, the stories were based on its own collective summaries of materials rather than on the actual evidence the Stockholm institute gathered.

For journalists who choose to rely on the summaries rather than on the report itself, the stories placed in the Ukrainian media appear accurate, whereas those who examine the SIPRI study will see that such conclusions are not only inaccurate but designed to hide what SIPRI did highlight in its latest report: Russian arms shipments to its forces in the Donbass and Crimea.

And one Ukrainian journalist, Aleksandr Demchenko, adds that the way in which SIPRI presented the data it has on Ukrainian arms sales further confused the situation. The Swedish center based its findings not on data from the last year but rather for a five-year-period, from 2012 to 2016, which includes a time when Ukrainian firms did supply Russian ones.

Moscow is only too pleased to use such “inaccuracies” to discredit Ukraine in Europe and to hide its own illegal supply of weapons to its own forces and clients in the Donbass and to Russian-occupied Crimea. By pushing the inaccurate story of Ukrainian arms sales at the same time and with the same sources, Moscow at least in part has achieved its goals.

Exposing this kind of thing, as Kirillova has done here, is far more difficult and time-consuming that simply pointing to lies, but it is also far more important. And as she notes, “this isn’t the first such case” since Russia invaded Ukraine; and it certainly won’t be the last either there or elsewhere.

By Salvador Llaudes*

The year 2016 is a thing of the past, a historic (not in the good sense of the word) one for the process of integration: for the first time, and as a consequence of the referendum of 23 June, a member has decided to leave the club. This was when British voters decided not to confront globalisation in the company of the continent. They preferred to isolate themselves. The year 2016 also saw other referendums in the EU, which followed the same pattern of rejection: in the Netherlands on the Association Agreement with Ukraine and in Hungary in relation to the compulsory nature of refugee quotas. Last year also consolidated the about-turn in EU priorities, placing security (terrorism, the refugee crisis, management of borders and conflicts abroad) at the top of the political agenda, while at the same time strengthening the intergovernmental vision of the EU, given the increasingly prominent role of the European Council, not least in the period of reflection following Brexit.

The new year is even more challenging for the EU. Adding to concerns about terrorism, the handling of the refugee crisis and existing economic risks, there is the delicate management of the UK’s departure, the unpredictability of the new US President and, above all, an electoral calendar that offers no let-up. Elections are set to be held in at least the Czech Republic and three of the EU’s founding states (the Netherlands, France and Germany, which may be joined by an Italy embroiled in an internal crisis following Matteo Renzi’s resignation), to a large extent determining where the EU heads next. Especially important is the case of France, where all the polls suggest that the National Front candidate, Marine Le Pen, will make it through to the second round of the presidential elections. If she emerges as the winner, the blow to the EU could be mortal. Nor are the consequences that could stem from strong showings by Geert Wilders in the Netherlands or the AfD in Germany exactly negligible, although in both cases it is hard to imagine a scenario in which such populist and Eurosceptical forces could take the reins of power.

Over the course of 2017 a close eye will need to be kept on the process of reflection begun by the member states in the wake of the British referendum and launched with the Bratislava Declaration, after a summer break full of meetings; the leaders present at Bratislava reiterated their commitment to establishing clear red lines with the UK, which would henceforth include not embarking upon withdrawal negotiations until Theresa May chooses to trigger Article 50 of the EU Treaty (something she has promised to do before the end of March), and the indissoluble nature of the EU’s four basic freedoms, including the free movement of workers. These negotiations will undoubtedly be followed extremely closely in Spain, not only because of the importance of the bilateral relationship in purely economic terms but because of the considerable ties than join the two countries together (the unresolved dispute over Gibraltar notwithstanding).

Nor should it be forgotten that the procedure known as the ‘Rule of Law Mechanism’, triggered last year by the European Commission in an attempt to control the illiberal direction that Poland is taking, remains in force. The Commission’s recommendation from last summer was joined by a complementary recommendation in December that gives the Polish government two months to respond. If it fails to do so, activation of Article 7 of the Treaty of the EU, which may even lead to Poland losing its voting rights on the Council, cannot be ruled out. Moreover, 2017 will once again see attempts to make headway on the effective handling of the refugee crisis, after a year in which perhaps the most notable events were the controversial agreement with Turkey –which sought to close off the Aegean migration route (something it achieved, given that the number of undocumented immigrants fell 72%, although at the same time the indices of mortality in the Mediterranean climbed by an alarming 38%)– and the agreement to create the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. The success of both projects will fundamentally rely on the member states’ commitment to European values.

Other matters will similarly take on importance in 2017. The advent of Donald Trump as US President imbues relations between the US and the EU with uncertainty, and the NATO framework too. The great initiative that the two trading powers have embarked upon in recent years is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Trump’s criticisms of American trade policy (together with the doubts expressed by European civil society) make it unlikely that the agreement will be sealed. In any case the EU should take advantage of Trump’s arrival to make headway in the security and defence arena that makes it less dependent on its American partners, while simultaneously turning the new context into a real opportunity to get the most out of the EU Global Strategy, recently endorsed under the leadership of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini.

In foreign affairs it is important not to overlook the policy of enlarging the EU, where there has been a foreseeable lack of major developments recently, with the exception of the recommendation to start negotiations with Albania. The withdrawal of the British, traditional supporters of EU enlargement, could complicate the prospects of the Balkan states even further. There are risks here however for the EU too, which must handle the situation deftly, given Russia’s interests in the region and the demonstration that it will not hesitate to try to destabilise European interests in places such as Montenegro, Serbia and Bosnia. Meanwhile Turkey’s prospects of joining the club become more fraught by the minute, even more so after the failed coup d’état that led to the further radicalisation of President Erdoğan, who has gone so far as to talk about a possible reintroduction of the death penalty. If this should happen, it would lead almost automatically to Turkey leaving the accession process.

For all the reasons set out above, the EU confronts in 2017 one of the most challenging times it has faced, coinciding with events to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. Both internal challenges (managing Brexit, administering the Rule of Law Mechanism on one of its members, a round of elections characterised by the hopeful prospects of Eurosceptics and a process of uncertain reflection on the future of integration) and external challenges (redefining the transatlantic relationship following Trump’s victory, the growing assertiveness of Putin’s Russia, not least in the Balkans, and the handling of the refugee crisis, including the much-needed end to the war in Syria and cooperation with Turkey to stem migrant flows) will probably mark a ‘before’ and ‘after’ in the process of integration. Up to now, albeit with difficulties, the EU has been able to surmount its hurdles. Those of 2017 will not be any less high.

About the author:
*Salvador Llaudes, Analyst, Elcano Royal Institute | @sllaudes

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute

A new report launched Wednesday by the University of Liverpool assesses an innovative solution to the problem of long-term care for survivors of modern slavery in the UK.

Although slavery was officially abolished in the 19th century it still continues today in one form or another around the world. From women forced into prostitution, children and adults forced to work in agriculture, domestic work, or factories and sweatshops producing goods for global supply chains, entire families forced to work for nothing to pay off debts, the illegal practice continues.

There are a growing number of individuals who have been identified as victims of modern slavery in the UK. In 2015 there were 3,266 potential victims referred – a 40% increase on 2014, but still much lower than the 10-13,000 people estimated by the government to be suffering from this crime.

Cliff-edge

According to the report, entitled ‘Fresh Start – Integrating survivors of modern slavery’ written by Dr Alex Balch, the problem facing survivors of modern slavery in the UK is a ‘cliff-edge’ of support following the 45-day statutory period of ‘reflection and recovery’ made available through the National Referral Mechanism (NRM).

There is growing evidence that those who experience these crimes tend to experience serious post-traumatic effects including depression and anxiety. Specific vulnerabilities mean that an absence of long-term monitoring and support can lead to a cycle of exploitation and abuse.

The report evaluated a collaborative programme of support between the University’s Centre for the Study of International Slavery (CSIS) and City Hearts designed to integrate survivors over several years.

The program was found to reduce risks of homelessness, destitution and re-trafficking among those who participated. The report found that its success was linked to core elements within a comprehensive support system that includes community engagement and partnership with employers.

At the centre of this lies the combination of one-on-one coaching and regular contacts with wider networks.

High-risk

The report makes a series of recommendations about the need to improve the evidence base in this area. It also outlines the ways in which the program could be further developed, including plans to make the ISP a sustainable, national-scale program.

Dr Alex Balch, said: “Unfortunately we have found that, after leaving Government funded safe houses, a significant number of modern slavery survivors are at high risk of becoming homeless, going back to the control of traffickers or returning to exploitative situations.”

Paul Gerrard, Group Policy and Campaigns Director at the Co-op, said: “It is the Co-op Way to campaign on contemporary social issues and that is why we are committed to adopting practical interventions to help reduce modern slavery as well as doing everything we can to raise awareness of the issue amongst our members, customers and suppliers.

“It is imperative that victims are supported in order to help them rebuild their lives and central to that is the dignity that paid, freely chosen employment provides. Without this, there is a real chance that they could fall back into the hands of those who have exploited them and for the terrible, unspeakable cycle of enslavement to begin again.

“Modern slavery will only be stopped by Government, businesses and society working together to ensure supply chains are transparent, so giving this shocking crime no shadow to hide in.”

Fresh start

Phill Clayton, City Hearts, said: “City Hearts believes in the freedom and restoration of every person. The Integration Support Program seeks to connect people to meaningful community and sustained income so that they can have a fresh start. We have seen that longer terms support is crucial in reducing vulnerability and releasing people into true freedom. It is a privilege to work alongside the Co-op creating a project that brings about tangible change through an atmosphere of empowerment and genuine hope.”

Kevin Hyland OBE, Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, said: “We cannot claim to truly care for victims of modern slavery if we stop support mid-recovery. A holistic approach is vital. Once victims exit government-funded accommodation, further long-term support must be provided to end the cycle of exploitation, prevent re-trafficking and ultimately see the victim journey towards a bright future.”

Jane Kennedy, Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner, said: “Modern day slavery is real and it is happening here.

“Awareness and understanding of this horrific crime is gradually on the rise and there are far better support services in place to rescue and care for those who have been subjected to a life of abuse, exploitation and violence. But it is also vitally important that survivors receive ongoing and sustained support, help and guidance to ensure they can move forward and rebuild their lives. While the National Referral Mechanism provides accommodation and services for a minimum of 45 days, it is clear that people who have been subjected to enslavement need care for far longer.

“That is why I welcome this collaboration by the University of Liverpool and City Hearts to evaluate the effectiveness of the long-term care provided to survivors of modern day slavery in the months and years following their release. It is obvious from their report that this type of on-going support is necessary if we are to protect survivors from further harm and exploitation and help them to forge new lives free from control and coercion.”