By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

Protests held by supporters of the former ruling party – VMRO DPMNE – against a possible new coalition government in Macedonia are set to continue, amid fears rallies will become increasingly violent.

Supporters of Macedonia’s former ruling party, VMRO DPMNE, took to the streets for a second day on Tuesday to protest against a possible new coalition government following the December 11 general election.

Demonstrators claim the potential coalition between the Social Democratic Union of Macedonia, SDSM, and ethnic Albanian parties will endanger ethnic Macedonian interests.

The protests – organised by the newly-formed Civic Initiative for a United Macedonia – began on Monday in the capital.

Thousands attended Tuesday’s rally in Skopje and there were also protests in several other Macedonian towns including Bitola, Prilep, Kicevo, Kumanovo and Stip.

The Skopje rally was marred by violence as two journalists from the A1on news outlet – cameraman Vladimir Zelceski and journalist Aleksandar Todevski – were physically attacked while reporting on the protests.

“Participants at the protest attacked the reporters from behind, throwing punches towards their heads and kicking them. They have taken their camera, thrown it to the ground and started kicking it, managing to completely destroy it,” A1on editor-in-chief Predrag Petrovic said.

“Medical emergency [workers] were called right away and at the moment the two reporters are at the urgent medical centre where they are being examined.”

Photo-journalists at the scene managed to take pictures of the alleged attackers leaving the spot, and of the two reporters lying on the ground.

Violence fears

The protest organisers have pledged to continue demonstrations on Wednesday afternoon, despite fears rallies – which have been increasingly nationalist in tone – could be marred by further violence.

The rally in Skopje, attended among others by prominent members and supporters of the conservative VMRO DPMNE party, as well as by heads of various state enterprises, began in front of the government building.

Protesters waving flags and placards reading ‘Freedom or Death’ – the credo of the historic Ottoman-era Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization, VMRO – then marched to the front of the VMRO DPMNE party headquarters in central Skopje where they called on the party leadership, as well as other parties, to join them.

“The time for [the] defence of a unitary and united Macedonia is now. Let’s defend Macedonia, the way our ancestors left it to us,” the prominent actor Vanco Petrusevski told the crowd.

VMRO DPMNE has been in power since 2006 but could now find itself on the opposition benches after the SDSM leader, Zoran Zaev, announced he had secured the support of a majority in parliament. He is waiting for the president to award him with the mandate to form a new government after submitting proof of his parliamentary majority on Monday.

However, the demonstrators accuse Zaev of betraying Macedonian interests by striking a deal on a number of ethnic Albanian demands – such as passing a new language law extending recognition of Albanian as an official language throughout the country – in return for support to form a new coalition government.

Plea to stop ‘nationalist chanting’

Tuesday’s Skopje rally ended outside the Macedonian Parliament, where one of the organisers, Boris Damovski, appealed to the crowd to stop using “chauvinist and nationalist chants” during the rally.

He said that at Monday’s first rally in Skopje there were some nationalistic chants but that “they were few”.

Meanwhile, as Macedonian President Gjorge Ivanov is expected to hand over the mandate to Zaev on Wednesday and ethnic tension in the country is mounting, the US State Department issued a press release on Tuesday calling on “Macedonia’s leaders to form a new government without further delay”.

Insisting only a new government could end Macedonia’s deep political crisis, the US urged “all parties to put the interests of Macedonia and its citizens above all else”.

Macedonia has not yet formed a new government despite holding the general election more than two months ago. The vote ended in a near-tie between VMRO DPMNE and the SDSM.

The continuing political crisis in Macedonia revolves around opposition claims that VMRO DPMNE president and former PM Nikola Gruevski ordered the illegal surveillance of some 20,000 people, including his own ministers.

The SDSM started releasing batches of covertly recorded tapes in early 2015 that they claim contain incriminating evidence about many senior officials.

Gruevski denied the charge and insisted the tapes were “fabricated” by unnamed foreign intelligence services and given to the opposition to destabilise the country.

In his speech to Congress tonight Donald Trump once again showed that he lacks the basic understanding of policy issues expected of a president of either party. While this lack of understanding comes through in every area of public policy he addresses, nowhere is it clearer than in his discussion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Throughout his campaign he denounced the ACA in the strongest possible terms. He routinely pronounced it as a disaster and used other equally strong terms. He promised the public that he would replace the ACA with something terrific.

In the course of the campaign he never gave any specifics of a replacement for the ACA. Nor did he produce any specifics in the period between the election and his inauguration. Now, more than a month after he has taken office as president, he still has not produced even an outline of how he intends to replace the ACA, although he continues to affirm his commitment to ending the program.

This is an incredibly cruel hoax on the American people. More than twenty million people now have insurance through the ACA. Many of these people have serious health conditions that would have made it difficult or impossible to get insurance in the pre-ACA market.

However, the importance of the ACA goes well beyond the number of people who have insurance at any point in time. Five million people lose or leave their jobs every month. These people often leave jobs with employer-provided insurance and either go through a period of unemployment or get a new job that doesn’t provide insurance.

The ACA provides security to these workers and to tens of millions of others who know they now have the option to get insurance if they leave their job. This is the reason that the number of people choosing to work part-time has risen by more than two million since the ACA effect. The impact has been strongest among young parents and older workers who are still pre-Medicare age.

President Trump and the Republicans in Congress are threatening to take away this security with their promise to repeal the ACA. People need to make plans – some are considering retirement, others want to start a business. Unfortunately, President Trump still has not given even an outline of what his final plan might look like.

It is inconceivable that any prior president would have been so irresponsible in dealing with an issue that is both enormously important to the American people and that he himself has put front and center in his political agenda.

Trump and his Republican supporters must start to put some concrete proposals on the table. If Donald Trump isn’t prepared to be serious about health insurance then the adult Republicans in Congress will inevitably take the lead.

Mexico’s Interior Minister Miguel Angel Osorio Chong has made it clear that Mexico will not accept unauthorized immigrants deported from the United States – unless the deportees are citizens of Mexico, according to a homeland security report on Monday.

According to the Homeland Security News Wire, a major part of President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement plan is the deportation back to Mexico of any person or persons crossing the U.S.-Mexico border without permission or authorization, regardless of the deportee’s nationality.

The already hostile news media have stirred up resentment by claiming the current administration is trying to force the Mexican government to build facilities for housing the hundreds of thousands who will be deported.

In a meeting held in Mexico City last Thursday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the Department of Homeland Security’s retired Marine general, Secretary John Kelly, discussed the Trump immigration enforcement plan with Mexican officials, but Osorio Chong, said the next day that President Enrique Pena Nieto’s government informed the two U.S. cabinet members that Mexico will definitely refuse to accept, house and process those detainees who are not Mexican nationals.

“They can’t leave them here on the border because we have to reject them. There is no chance they would be received by Mexico,” Osorio Chong said, according to the HSNW report.

“They asked us that while their legal process is happening there if they could be here,” Osorio Chong told the Mexican people. “And we told them that there’s no way we can have them here during that process,” he stated.

A memorandum published on the DHS web site last week suggested that immigrants who are in the United States illegally should be deported “to the contiguous country” they had entered from, which in most cases would be Mexico.

The members of the U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) report that the majority of the immigrants crossing the United States/Mexico border during President Barack Obama’s two terms have been Central Americans, not Mexicans.

In fact, Obama, Mexico and officials from other Central American countries are well aware that U.S. government planes transported immigrants directly into the U.S., making it easier for illegal aliens to avoid problems in Mexico. Reports have indicated the Mexican border police routinely beats, robs and kills immigrants crossing their southern border.

Osorio Chong also threatened to cancel accepting U.S. funding as per the Mérida Initiative, which funds the fight against narco-traffickers and other organized crime. Mexico is willing to give up the U.S. funding which is more than $2 billion-per-year for fighting the drug cartels.

The Mérida Initiative was launched by President George W. Bush in 2008, and after about nine-years has been winding down.

“If that resource could be an issue for pressure or if they want to pressure the government, honestly, we have no problem, none, if they withdraw it,” Osorio Chong said.

Catholics in America make up about 25 percent of the population. Yet when it comes to negative stereotypes of religion, Hollywood targets us almost 100 percent of the time.

Nowhere is this more true than with gay-themed entertainment. The hostility shown toward all things Catholic made us wary when we heard about ABC’s miniseries on the history of the gay rights movement, “When We Rise.” As last night’s opening episode confirmed, we were right to be on guard.

The slaps at Catholics kept coming. There was the nun, in full habit, of course, who walks in on two teenage boys kissing, grunts, and walks out; the young woman from a “very Catholic” family, whose put-upon mother was beaten down by 10 pregnancies and a domineering husband who wouldn’t let her work outside the home; and the same young woman afraid to reveal her lesbian relationship because of that big Catholic family.

Most vicious was a discussion about holding a “women’s march” in Boston. “We get beat up by the very cops that refuse to protect us,” one character says, “in a city run by all Catholic cops.”

Right. Any negative comments about “Jewish bankers,” or “gay hairdressers,” or “black criminals”? Of course not. Those vicious and hurtful stereotypes would never be uttered on TV networks—and rightfully so. But it’s OK to stereotype “Catholic cops” who run a city and beat up women. As always, Catholics are the target of the entertainment industry’s bigotry.

Contact Ben Sherwood at Disney/ABC: ben.sherwood@abc.com

The Delloit survey on manufacturing competitiveness in 2016 ushered India into the future global factory for low cost manufacturing. The survey revealed that India will be the “New China “ in terms of low cost manufacturing country in the next five years. India will spurt to 5th rank in the global manufacturing competitiveness index in 2020 from 11th position at present. India will outsmart South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, Canada and Singapore in the race. USA, China, Germany and Japan will continue to be the top 4 countries in the global manufacturing competitive countries index. No other country was projected to grow faster in manufacturing competitiveness like India in the coming five years.

Indeed, it is surprising amidst the uncertainty of high economic growth due to demonetization. The factors to be attributed to India’s strength in manufacturing competitiveness are large pool of English speaking scientists, researchers and engineers, coupled with low wage cost ( estimated US $ 1.72 /hour 2015) , the survey said.

The Delloit survey, a Global Manufacturing Competitiveness Index (GMCI), 2016, covered 540  CEOs. The survey included the views of CEOs mostly from North America and EU countries. In the survey, CEOs were asked to rank six countries of current and future manufacturing competitiveness and India was one of them. These six nations account for 60 percent of world manufacturing GDP.

Ironically, while a foreign consultant boosts the foreign investors’ confidence in India’s manufacturing competitiveness, or say Make in India , the domestic think tanks wobble over tapering in the high growth trajectory. Underpinning the American survey as harbinger for growth, foreign investment in India continued to spur despite demonetization. . FDI flow in India surged by 22 percent during the nine month period of April-December 2016 – the record FDI flow ever.

The global influences of currency turmoil, recessions and the break-down of big trade blocks evoked a new landscape of manufacturing. The world is divided into two spaces – low cost manufacturing and high tech with high value manufacturing.

According to the survey, while China will lose the powerhouse of low cost manufacturing competitiveness, the Mighty Five – the five Asia Pacific nations , including Malaysia, India, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam – will emerge the choice for low cost manufacturing in place of China. India will be the frontrunner with the 4 countries chasing, the survey said.

China is in the transition period and will move to high tech manufacturing, conceding more space to India in the low cost manufacturing competitiveness. Currently, manufacturing goods in China is only 4 percent cheaper than USA, because wages in China increased by 80 percent since 2010 due to Yuan appreciation.

India’s growth in manufacturing competitiveness jittered China. Chinese media and the think tanks raised concerns over India going ahead in low cost manufacturing. When Apple of USA was considering to shift its manufacturing facilities along with supply chain to India from China and India broke the world record of largest number of satellite launch, the Chinese were aghast with India’s progress in manufacturing.

Chinese media Global Times was perturbed over Apple shifting to India. It said, “ if Apple expands in India, more global tech giants may follow suit and China is likely to see a further transfer of the supply chain, given India’s abundant supply of working-age labour and low labour costs. China cannot afford losing jobs “.

Even the Chinese domestic companies are contemplating to shift to India in the attraction of low cost competitiveness. The decisions of Chinese largest telecom company Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and a number of Chinese vendors to set up smart phone manufacturing plants in India perturbed the Chinese daily. It beaconed China’s loss of competitive edge and forecasted India to be on the way to become the world’s new hub for manufacturing. Vivo China has already set up a smart phone manufacturing unit in Greater Noida. Xiaomi , ZTE, One Plus, Gionee are in the queue to open their manufacturing shops in India.

With India launching record breaking 104 satellites in single rocket, Director in the new technology department of Shanghai Engineering Centre for Microsatellite , Dr. Zhang Yongho said. “It indicates that India can send commercial satellites into space at lower cost, giving the country’s competitiveness in the global race for burgeoning commercial space business.”

Chinese concern for losing its manufacturing edge was unveiled when China introduced Made in China campaign , immediately after Made in India. “Make in India” and “Made in China” evoked similar resonance for creation of job opportunities. But, conceptually they are different. While “Make in India” was a call to establish world’s biggest manufacturing hub in the area of low tech and low cost, “Made in China” was to built up China’s manufacturing competitiveness into high tech, such as bullet trains, super computer, advanced roboting, 3D printing, Smart, connected products( IoT) and others.

China’s slide in GDP growth engulfs China’s future for its dependence on manufacturing as a potential pillar for growth. China grew 6.9 percent in 2015 – a sharp slip from 11-12 percent growth since 2012 and the slowdown is likely to intensify to 6.3 and 6 percent in 2016 and 2017 respectively. One of the reasons was the slow growth in manufacturing activity, due to lower demand in the export , resulting excess capacity. Manufacturing share in GDP slipped from 41 percent in 2007 to 36 percent in 2014.

Despite the positives, India has many challenges. Make in India is yet to act a foolproof policy tool to attract investors. Currently, the important part of the Make in India is easing of business procedures which were broaching the investors’ initiative to expand investment in India. The main barriers to the investors are land acquisition, non- transparent tax system, delay in GST scheme and reluctance to open multi-brand retail to the foreign investors, which are yet to be dissipated.

Make In India should be revisited and a wish-list of investors should be included in the policy tool to spur the investment potential in 22 sectors, enlisted in the campaign. Given the acceleration in cross-border manufacturing investment, India’s competitiveness can be assessed by sectors horizontally across the countries.

Views are personal

The recent wave of terrorism has shocked Pakistan and left serious effects on the minds of peoples. A series of bomb blasts across the country has saddened the whole nation and there is strong fear of insecurity.

Pakistan is facing severe internal security threats. It may be noticed that actors involved in internal security environment are neighbors (whom we share ethnic and religious similarities), refugees and band outfits which are operating with different names and different styles. Despite the fact that enemy is within and behind these attacks, Afghan Refugees are either directly or indirectly involved, whom Pakistan has been hosting since the 1980s.

Pakistan is also facing tough resistance, a stronghold of religious parties and a variety of threats at the same time; an internal and external threat (especially Indo-Afghan threats), While the influx of Afghan Refugees is another burden. In addition, a coordinated Indian, and Afghan attack designed to fragment Pakistan along ethnic lines are also lurking in the minds of security planners. For the first time, Pakistan is facing a three-front threat scenario which neither any developed country nor any South Asian state has ever experienced.

The influxes of Afghan Refugees in Pakistan are working in the shape of facilitator, spies and as double agent. They are linked with terrorist organizations in Afghanistan and banned outfits in Pakistan. The soil of Afghanistan is being used against Pakistan and still, we are hosting these Afghans Refugees! This is a big question and an examination for government how to deal with?

UNHCR in his report said that 1.6 million Refugees resides in Pakistan are registered while the major chunk is not registered, Moreover 60,000 afghan children born here in Pakistan every year. If we estimate this number and apply in Baluchistan, we will see that very soon Baloch Population will be converted into the minority. They had captured the major share of resources of Baluchistan and it will lead to conflict.

Besides that, Pakistan is in amidst of three strategic doctrines of war at the same time; Cold Start Doctrine, AFPAK Strategy and Fourth Generation warfare. Cold Start is a military doctrine developed by the Indian Armed Forces for use in a possible war with Pakistan. It involves the various branches of India’s military conducting offensive operations as part of unified battle groups. In this strategy, more than 80% of Indian troops are deployed on border with Pakistan. Pakistani army is responded this Indian threat by conducting Azm-e-Nau exercise.

Simultaneously AFPAK strategy is another threat to internal security in Pakistan. The central problem confronting the United States in the region is no longer Al Qaeda or Taliban, it’s the Pakistan Army.

Fourth Generation warfare is another big threat which is difficult for army to respond it because such techniques are being used to misguide the public and create anarchy and uncertainty among the masses. Hence it is the responsibility of State loving media and nation to respond.

The contemporary spate of terrorism might be a part of isolation policy. Since the announcement Pakistan’s Super League (PSL) in Lahore and soon after that a series of bombs were exploded. Hence, Indian involvement can’t be ignored, similarly, authorities claimed that enemy wants to destabilize Pakistan by attacking soft targets, but the fact is that Eenemy is within and in the shape of refugees and local outfits while foreigner players are virtually a rider clause. Thus there is need of strong checkup rather than putting an eye on them.

Conversely, Pakistan is in state of a war, and every country in that situation of war passes through a bang-bang situation. In fact, Pakistan is facing the same case, where a myriad of internal problems is greatly aggravated by number of agents of external factors within the country. Once these agents are out of the picture, the internal problems will remain, but their resolution will not be as complex as it is now.

Today Pakistan’s internal security is on stake. More than 150 peoples lost their lives and dozens were maimed in recent wave of terrorism. Sehwan blast had mourned the whole nation and there is strong fear of Insecurity and terrorism is the agenda of discussion among masses. To cope with this problem Operation Radul Fasad” has been launched to counter terrorism and conduct intelligence based operations to eradicate the damn terrorism from Pakistan. A well known number of soldiers sacrifice their lives for the better and peaceful future of Pakistan but still we failed to eradicate terrorism in practical manner because enemy lies within and now it is more furious, supportive and powerful, which can be imagined from recent attacks.

Security in Pakistan is linked with Afghanistan and Peaceful Afghanistan is in the favor of Pakistan. To cope with this serious issues Pakistan needs to strengthen border security and its strong control over tribal areas. Finally, Pakistan shouldn’t expect much collaboration from Afghanistan but rather depend on its assets and techniques to secure the outskirt from the Pakistani side. These two measures will empower Pakistan to oversee successfully the drop out of the inward strife in Afghanistan in coming five to ten years.

The writer is a research affiliate at Strategic Vision Institute Islamabad and he can be reached at babar@thesvi.org/ babarkhanbozdar@yahoo.com

By Dr Subhash Kapila*

Ironically, Pakistan as a State-Sponsor of Terrorism for decades, exporting terrorist strikes against India and Afghanistan as instruments of State policy, finds itself inflicted by strikes by Pakistan’s home-grown indigenous terrorist groups in Pakistan’s Heartland with renewed viciousness.

Pakistan now stands bitten and stung by the snakes that it had reared in its backyard for decades to be used with deadly strikes against India and Afghanistan. Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had warned Pakistan against such an eventuality years back. But Pakistan Army saw no merit in this cautionary advice. Hopefully, this time around Pakistan would see reason.

That Pakistan’s wave of terrorism underway stands perpetrated by Pakistan’s home-grown indigenous terror groups stands conceded by Pakistan’s Interior Minister who over the weekend in an interaction with the media asserted that “The decision to launch OP RADD-UL-FASSAD was taken at PM House. It is against terrorists and their facilitators inside Pakistan unlike ZARB-E-AZB which was against terrorists in border areas.”

Pakistan’s flirtations with terrorism by adopting Islamist terrorist groups to achieve its geopolitical objectives against India and Afghanistan have landed up Pakistan in a ‘witches brew’ where it now projects to the world community that Pakistan too is a victim of terrorism. This assertion does not carry conviction as what are striking Pakistan’s Heartland currently are terrorist attacks by Pakistan’s home-grown indigenous terrorist groups. Neither India nor Afghanistan can be said to enjoy linkages or influence over Pakistan’s indigenous terror groups. It is the Pakistan Army which can be said to have provided cover to such groups at different stages, in the past.

Having created the ‘Monsters of Terrorism’ the Pakistani establishment seems to have run out of control over such groups. As is always said that it is easy to create a tiger but once riding on it, it becomes difficult to dismount it.

In seminars in the West focussing on the issue whether “Pakistan is the Victim of Terrorism or a Perpetrator of Terrorism” the vast majority of eminent discussants were of the view that ‘Pakistan is the Perpetrator of Terrorism.’ This needs to be flagged initially as it lays the context for the succeeding discussion of Pakistan Heartland being revisited viciously by terrorist strikes. Much that Pakistan would like to propagate that it is either India or Afghanistan, or both in coordination, are behind Pakistan’s current affliction, the ground realities are different as targets of Pakistan’s current terrorist strikes are beyond the physical reach or in areas difficult to breach by external terrorism elements.

Missing from internal debates within Pakistan on the ongoing trend is that this is a blowback from the much-heralded OP ZARB-E-AZB, the brutal Pakistan Army operations launched in FATA and other frontier areas by the previous Pak Army Chief General Raheel Sharif in the aftermath of the Peshawar Army Public School terrorist attack. The Pakistan Army went on a berserk selective rampage of death and destruction in Pakistan’s frontier areas. These areas with complicity of Pakistan Army Generals had earlier borne the brunt of US drone strikes for years.

The significant trend in the making is that this time around the terrorists’ attacks by Pakistan’s indigenous terrorist networks are targeted in urban and semi-urban areas. It is striking where it hurts most. Even in urban areas some of the attacks seem to be taking place in up-scale neighbourhoods frequented by Pakistan’s rich and mighty eg. Lahore Mall Road area and Gulberg area.

Underlying Pakistan media reports on this new spate of terrorist attacks in Pakistan Heartland one discerns panic and trauma in the citizens, that this time the terror attacks have taken place ‘too near to us’. In other words, Punjab and Lahore were oblivious to Pakistan Army’s brutal use of artillery and air power in their counter-terrorism operations of OP ZARB-E-AZB as these were conducted in Pakistan’s peripheral frontier areas, far away from the consciousness of Pakistan’s elitist circles.

Significantly again, the Sharif brothers, the Prime Minister in Islamabad and his younger brother as Chief Minister of Punjab sitting in Lahore had earlier been resisting the induction into Punjab of the infamous Pakistan Rangers, normally on border protection duties, who were given sweeping powers to quell Karachi disturbances. In the wake of the recent spurt of terrorist attacks, on the ‘request’ of the Punjab Chief Minister, Islamabad has agreed to provide a contingent of 2,500 Pakistan Rangers with ‘police powers’ to undertake counter-terrorism operations in Punjab.

The Pakistan Army has not learnt any lessons from its mistakes of OP ZARB-E AZB and has announced a similar overdrive against what it describes as ‘indiscriminate actions against residual terrorists groups’. As if to say, that terrorism stood wiped out earlier and that all that is required is mopping-up operations.

Pakistan has repeatedly been blaming the TPP or commonly known as Punjab Taliban for spurt of terrorist attacks. While TPP has an avowed aim to inflict damage on Pakistan Army and its assets, it cannot be ignored that reports do suggest that the Pakistan Army and its ISI have been earlier motivating TTP for terrorist operations in India’s Kashmir Valley along with Al Qaeda elements.

Pakistan media has been highlighting that Pakistan is now intent on cleansing the southern areas of its Punjab province of terrorist groups. This by itself is an admission that indigenous terrorist groups have taken up residence in Punjab. For a State like Pakistan which has a brutal surveillance system by its ubiquitous ISI intelligence agency, how come that this went unnoticed so far? Or, these were sanctuaries provided with official patronage for use of these assets against its neighbours?

How can Pakistan achieve its stated purposes when in Punjab it also houses the notorious outfits of Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad used to effect against India. Both Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar, leading these ISI affiliates stand condemned as ‘Global Terrorists’”. They still flourish in Pakistan Punjab courtesy the Pakistani Establishment and Pakistan’s strategic patron China which impedes UN sanctions against them.

Moving to an examination of various Taliban groups like the Taliban which provided Pakistan with a proxy hold over Afghanistan for years until the US military intervention, or the Afghan Taliban which stood ensconced in Quetta courtesy of the Pakistan Army or the Punjab Taliban which Pakistan now hates, the singular fact is that the existence of all three has been underwritten by the Pakistan Army and its clandestine agency, the ISI.

What is the guarantee that even the Afghan Taliban in future may turn against Pakistan as it would not like to appear as a Pakistani stooge in the eyes of its Afghan compatriots, when Pakistan Army is hell bent on achieving its footholds in Kabul once again and destroying the tribal homelands by artillery fire and aerial bombings.. Similarly, the TPP which draws its membership of nearly 40,000 strong from all the seven regions of FATA would not be a mute spectator when the Pakistan Army launches massive artillery and airstrikes against the FATA region as part of its counterterrorism operations?

In all of the above the subjectivity of the ethnic factor does come into play in the Pakistani calculus, directly or indirectly. In the wake of the recent terrorist strikes, Pakistan’s prime ministerial contender Imran Khan was constrained to comment that “Pashtuns were wrongly and cruelly targeted in wake of terrorist attacks within Pakistan.”

In an insightful Column in the Pakistani English DAWN newspaper today, Cyril Almeida has classified Pakistani terrorists in three categories (1 ) India-Centric Terrorist Groups (2 ) Afghanistan-Centric Terrorist Groups, and (3 ) Pakistan-Centric Terrorist Groups.

Summarising his observations on the attitude of the Pakistan Army and the Nawaz Government towards these three categories of Pakistani terrorist groups, Almeida highlights the following (1) Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif wants India-Centric terrorist groups to be muzzled. But the Pak Army is hesitant and would not like to do it under pressure. (2) Against Afghan-centric terrorist groups, the Government wants a downturn in violence so that international blame heaped on Pakistan on this account is diluted. However, no blueprint is visible given by the Government or implemented by Pak Army. (3) As regards the Pakistan-Centric terrorist groups, the Pakistan Army wants a total eradication. There seem to be a difference here as the government sees no role beyond maybe some of the sectarian strife.

Analysis of the above throws up some varying but interesting deductions. Firstly, the Pakistan Army in its current drive would persist in targeting FATA because of the TPP factor and cleansing of Pak-Centric terrorist groups. Secondly, Pakistan Army will not proceed against India-Centric terrorist groups. It will have a handy excuse that its hands are full with the other two. Thirdly, nightmarish scenarios of terrorist strikes in Pakistan Heartland, by whichever terrorist groups, will bring back the centrality of the Pakistan Army in Pakistan’s governance.

Implications for India of the unfolding situation will be challenging and complex. India needs to be prepared for vicious terrorist strikes in Indian Heartland as diversionary tactics. The security situation in Kashmir Valley could be stirred above more forcefully by proxy use of separatists’ leaders and the foolish utterances of ‘soft separatists’ in Valley political outfits. The simple maxim which would be uppermost in the minds of the Pakistani Establishment would be if that Pakistan is being struck by terrorist violence and is in a state of turbulence, then why India should be spared otherwise. India has to be vigilant. Routine intelligence warnings can no longer be the fig leaf for Indian intelligence agencies. Accurate intelligence and warnings are required for effective counter-terrorism operations by security forces.

Concluding, one is constrained to observe that Pakistan is in a long haul in its drive to eradicate terrorism from Pakistan’s midst simply for reason that the Pakistani Establishment itself planted the seedlings of state sponsored terrorism, nurtured it and was permissive on their activities. With Pakistan General Elections due next year, the situation becomes more challenging in terms of counter-terrorism operations when politics would tend to dominate the national scene in Pakistan. The implications for India are obvious.

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

A team of international researchers led by University of Freiburg hydrologist Dr. Andreas Hartmann suggests that inclusion of currently missing key hydrological processes in large-scale climate change impact models can significantly improve our estimates of water availability.

The study shows that groundwater recharge estimates for 560 million people in karst regions in Europe, the Middle East and Northern Africa, are much higher than previously estimated from current large-scale models.

The scientists have shown that model estimates based on entire continents up to now have greatly underestimated in places the amount of groundwater that is recharged from fractions of surface runoff. This finding suggests that more work is needed to ensure sufficient realism in large-scale hydrologic models before they can be reliably used for local water management. The team has published their research findings in the scientific journal “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).”

Groundwater is a vital resource in many regions around the globe. For managing drinking water, the recharge rate is an important quantity for securing sustainable supplies.

The researchers have compared two hydrological models that simulate groundwater recharge. One is a long-established global model with limited accounting for subsurface heterogeneity. The other is a continental model the researchers have developed themselves that includes, for example, variability in the thickness of soils and different subsurface permeabilities. They have carried out the comparison for all of the karst regions in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Karst regions are known for their great degree of subsurface heterogeneity, because carbonate rock shows greater susceptibility to chemical weathering – a process that is known as karstification. Karstification leads to varying soil depths and permeabilities.

A comparison of the models’ calculations with independent observations of groundwater recharge at 38 sites in the regions has shown that the model that accounts for heterogeneity produces more realistic estimates.

The researchers explain the reason for the difference between the two models as follows: In simulation, their newly developed model shows reduced fractions of surface According to the new model, a farmer in the Mediterranean region would potentially have up to a million liters more groundwater for extraction available in a year than the established model estimates, dependent on actual subsurface composition and the water demands of the local ecosystems.

When applied to the example of karst regions, the researchers’ approach shows how it is possible to adapt global models used to predict water shortages, drought or floods to account more realistically for regional conditions. Scientists from the University of Freiburg, Canada’s Victoria University, the University of Bristol in England and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria took part in the study.

The overburdening of city transport systems is becoming an increasing challenge. But before cities can take concrete action, they need to gather precise traffic data. This is often very time consuming and expensive.

A study by the Fraunhofer Institute for Industrial Engineering IAO in cooperation with Telefónica NEXT and the data analysis specialist Teralytics found that mobile network data can make a positive contribution to transport planning. To clarify, analyses were carried out for the city of Stuttgart with the help of anonymised and aggregated mobile network data, which provide detailed insights into the actual travel behaviour of Stuttgart residents. This gives an idea of the data’s potential.

In Telefónica Germany’s normal operation, mobile network data is generated by over 44 million customers. This happens when mobile phones communicate with mobile cell sites when using the internet or making calls. This data is anonymised via a three-step process, which is certified by the TÜV, so that it is no longer possible to draw conclusions back to individual persons. With “Advanced Data Analytics”, the new Telefónica company, Telefónica NEXT, is eyeing the social and economic advantage that can be obtained from analysing such large, anonymised and aggregated volumes of data.

By assigning a mobile phone to the mobile cell sites, anonymised flows of movement can be calculated that represent around half the population of Germany. The central question of the study carried out was what added value for transport planning and what potential uses these flows of movement offer.

“We face major challenges regarding transport planning, especially in urban areas. When used right, digital solutions can provide an important contribution for everyone’s benefit. We need to open the data treasure chest for this. We are very pleased that one of the leading research institutes has confirmed the potential of mobile network data. This gives us an important boost for further projects in the area of smart analysis of anonymous data”, said Florian Marquart, Managing Director of Telefónica NEXT, responsible for Advanced Data Analytics.

The strengths of mobile network data

“Recording mobility behaviour in cities across modes of transport is a complex undertaking. Our study shows that mobile network data can make a positive contribution to transport planning. The data is available in high spatial and temporal resolution, and provides new insight into the factors influencing urban transport”, explained Prof. Anette Weisbecker, deputy institute director of the Fraunhofer IAO.

Current transport planning relies, to a large extent, on manual recording in the form of surveys. Supplementary, real-time data sources, such as anonymised mobile network data, are a valuable addition. Compared to surveys, which are only conducted every one to ten years, mobile network data is available around the clock. It can minimize the number of expensive surveys and shorten the previous survey cycles. Another benefit is that no additional infrastructure is needed to collect mobile network data. The possibility of obtaining comprehensive information for the first time about non-users of mobility offers is also particularly interesting.

Thanks to these characteristics, complete journeys using different modes of transport can be understood, which was not previously possible as such. The mobile network data for Stuttgart, for example, shows that a lot of commuter traffic is directed through the state capital due to its basin location. However, the commuter flows are divided between road and commuter rail line, as is clearly apparent from the anonymised mobile network data. This possibility, of recording different modes of transport at the same time, could offer transport planners considerable added value in future.

The data could also help to examine time-limited events and external influencing factors. An analysis of the data during the Cannstatter Spring Festival and the Stuttgarter Weindorf shows the considerable impact of a public festival on the mobility behaviour of Stuttgart residents.

Where mobile network data could be used

In the short term, mobile network data serve to test and supplement existing transport models. In the medium term, the further development of special algorithms and models will allow for better planning of mobility systems and new findings on passenger transport. “The considerable potential of mobile network data can only be realized through the accompanying offer of corresponding analysis tools”, summarised the authors Alexander Schmidt and Tobias Männel.

The experts questioned also largely consider the new data source to be useful for transport planning. For example, they see great potential for route planning for local public transport.

“With the help of mobile network data, it would be possible to obtain continuous information on general transport demand. This could supplement our own manual transport surveys, which we carry out less frequently. One advantage of this would be that we could save costs on occasional surveys – for example, for certain events”, said Thomas Hachenberger, general manager of the Stuttgart Transport and Tariff Association (VVS).

Study relies on expert interviews and test analyses for Stuttgart

In order to determine the potential of mobile network data for transport planning, the Fraunhofer IAO compared mobile network data against existing data acquisition methods, such as traveler surveys, automatic counting stations, or GPS data. In addition, 18 experts from companies, syndicates, research, and politics were interviewed on the data’s potential. To clarify the current possibilities of mobile network data, the Fraunhofer IAO, for example, carried out analyses for the city of Stuttgart with anonymised data from Telefónica Germany.

Important start for optimizing the measuring method

Telefónica NEXT believes that the method’s further development will focus on being able to differentiate even more clearly between individual modes of transport in slow city traffic in future. This should be achievable especially through combination with other data sets. In addition, the method is to be used in other cities to optimize transport there.

The utilization of data for business and social solutions is a global aim of Telefónica S.A. in the business area called “LUCA” and is realized in various countries using different products. With Telefónica NEXT, Telefónica Germany is creating solutions for the needs of the German market, for example with an anonymisation process developed in-house.

Scientists at the Institute for Infectious Diseases, University of Bern have developed an in vitro stem cell-based bioassay grown on multi-electrode arrays capable of detecting the biological activity of Clostridium botulinum neurotoxins. Their assay could serve in minimizing animal experiments as well as provide a physiological relevant platform for drug-screening of neuroactive compounds.

The Clostridium botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs), produced by the Gram-positive bacterium Clostridium botulinum, are the most poisonous naturally-occurring protein toxins known to date. However, when applied in small quantities, the toxin causes a locally-confined paralysis, which is beneficial in the treatment of various diseases such as different forms of dystonia, hyperhidrosis, strabismus, chronic pain and headaches.

Currently, it is most widely used in aesthetic treatmet for the smoothing of wrinkles and frown lines – an application that has seen an enormous increase in use over the last few decades.

These toxins are natural products and produced by bacteria, therefore pharmaceutical batch-to-batch variations in concentration and activity occur. However, since the toxins e.g. Botox® are approved by the national regulatory authorities as pharmaceuticals, the safety for the patients has to be guaranteed by batch testing of the final product. Currently, the potency of biologically-active BoNT is monitored by intoxicating mice in so called mouse biosassay (MBA) that was introduced in the 1920s. In this assay, different dilutions of preparations containing BoNT are injected into mice and symptoms of paralysis are observed for several hours up to days.

Due to the enormous demand for pharmaceutical products containing BoNT, it is estimated that in the USA and Europe, annually more than 600,000 mice are sacrificed for these batch tests. This large amount of animals and suffering causes considerable ethical concerns. Therefore, there is a high demand for the replacement of the MBA.

In response to this high demand, a novel in vitro assay as an alternative to the widely used in vivo MBA has been developed by Stephen Jenkinson a PhD student in the lab of Prof. Dr. med. Stephen Leib at the Institute for Infectious Diseases in collaboration with the Department of Physiology , both at the University of Bern and with the Spiez Laboratory, Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection.

Growing new neurons

In the study the researchers demonstrated that neurons differentiated in vitro from mouse embryonic stem cells cultured on multi-electrode arrays (MEAs) can serve as a physiologically relevant cell-based method for detecting BoNT/A holotoxin and complex. The neuronal cultures formed functional networks composed of a heterogeneous mixture of excitatory and inhibitory neurons and upon treatment for 24 hours with ~ 1 pM BoNT/A holotoxin or Botox® a complete silencing of synaptic transmission was observed.

“Detection and quantification of BoNTs in pharmaceutical preparations is extremely challenging due to a multistep mechanism of cellular intoxication and the high potency of the toxins,” said Stephen Jenkinson, first author of the study.

To date, neuronal cell-based methods are the only in vitro alternative to the MBA and several assays have been developed using primary or embryonic stem cell derived neurons that show similar or even greater sensitivity than the MBA. However, most of these assays rely on destructive homogenization of tissue to allow BoNT quantification and assessment thus requiring additional methods and further hands-on time to yield a result.

“In addition, these methods do not allow a continuous monitoring of neuronal activity upon treatment with BoNTs,” added Stephen Leib.

The main advantage of this assay is the usage of stem cell derived neurons, thus making the usage of animals obsolete. Further, MEA recording techniques allow for a continuous non-invasive monitoring of neuronal activity and this approach can be easily up-scaled to meet the requirements for a prospective high-throughput screening of neuroactive compounds.

“In addition, the usage of commercially available MEA systems do not require highly trained staff,” said Jenkinson.

Though the presented assay holds a high sensitivity down to 1 pM of BoNT/A, further research has to be conducted in increasing the overall sensitivity. However, Stephen Jenkinson and Stephen Leib believe that the novel bioassay holds great potential to reduce animal use for BoNT detection and activity determination in pharmaceuticals. In addition, the assay can be expanded for the drug-screening of possible neuroactive compounds with an emphasis on synaptic activity. The study has now been published in Frontiers in Pharmacology.

An upset US-based Hindu group is urging online retailer Amazon for the immediate withdrawal of men’s underwear, doormat and sweatpants carrying images of Hindu deity Lord Hanuman, besides a Hanuman cloth doll; calling these highly inappropriate.

Hanuman men’s underwear, made from satin cloth, sells for $49.62 at Amazon.com.

Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada, said that Lord Hanuman was greatly revered in Hinduism and was meant to be worshiped in temples or home shrines and not to wear on your hip/crotch or legs or put your feet on or touch with your feet or to be randomly thrown around (in case of a cloth doll). Inappropriate usage of Hindu deities or concepts for commercial or other agenda was not okay as it hurt the faithful.

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, also urged Amazon President Jeffrey P. Bezos to offer a formal apology, besides withdrawing these products, as this was not the first time for the company to offer such products which were deemed offensive by Hindu devotees.

Symbols of any faith, larger or smaller, should not be mishandled, Rajan Zed indicated.

Zed further said that such trivialization of Hindu deities was disturbing to the Hindus world over. Hindus were for free artistic expression and speech as much as anybody else if not more. But faith was something sacred and attempts at trivializing it hurt the followers, Zed added.

All of King Mohammed VI’s visits to Côte d’Ivoire aim to shape a project for a shared future, and the two countries work tirelessly to maintain and cement the indissoluble bonds which unite them, in order to give this fraternity the brightest, most tangible illustration.

It is worth reminding that at the Moroccan-Ivorian Economic Forum, held in Abidjan in February 2014, King Mohammed VI laid out a compelling vision for Africa’s development – He said that “This objective [prosperity for future generations] will even be more readily attainable when Africa overcomes its Afro-pessimism and unlocks its intellectual and material potential as well as that of all African peoples. Just imagine what our continent will look like, once it frees itself of its constraints and burdens

The Moroccan monarch stated that “Sustainable development is not something which can be achieved through decisions and ready-made prescriptions,” he said. “Nor is there a single model in this area. Each country follows a path of its own, having taken into consideration its historical development, cultural heritage, human and natural resources, specific political circumstances, as well as its economic choices and the obstacles and challenges facing it.”

In another Royal message to the participants in the Crans Montana Forum held in Dakhla from March 12-14, King Mohammed VI stressed that “Morocco’s African policy is based on a comprehensive, integrated and inclusive approach designed to promote peace and stability, encourage sustainable human development and safeguard the cultural and spiritual identity of our populations, while respecting the universal values of human rights.”

“Morocco has been working untiringly to help forge a modern, bold, entrepreneurial and open Africa; an African continent which is proud of its identity, which derives its vibrancy from its cultural heritage and which is capable of transcending outdated ideologies,” he said

The King acknowledged that “the borders inherited from colonization often continue to be a major source of tension and conflict,” and that “Africa is a continent with growing and unsettling security issues”; but he stressed that “Africa’s tremendous human and natural resources should, instead, be a powerful catalyst for regional integration,” and urged that “It is up to us — Africans — to innovate in order to turn them into open spaces where fruitful exchange and interaction can flourish between African states.”

Today, fourteen agreements of public-private and private-private economic partnership were signed at the presidential palace in Abidjan in the presence of King Mohammed VI and Ivorian President H.E Alassane Dramane Ouattara, on the occasion of the presentation of the Côte d’Ivoire-Morocco Economic Impetus Working Group.

Here are the agreements:

• A memorandum of understanding for setting up a funding for the “HEXAGONE”, part of the priority projects of the 2016-2020 military programming law.
• A memorandum of understanding for financing the purchasing houses for military agents under the Ivorian armed forces.
• A memorandum of understanding for funding the project of building a pharmaceutical industrial unit in Côte d’Ivoire meant for manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products.
• A partnership agreement to subscribe to government securities issued by the State of Côte d’Ivoire in 2017.
• A partnership agreement on the setting up of a program for financing a road network in Côte d’Ivoire.
• A partnership agreement on funding women-managed SMEs.
• A framework agreement on the program of “Competences for Competitiveness and Employment”.
• A framework agreement on the development of social and solidarity-based economy and craft industry.
• An agreement on the creation of a “Technocenter” in Abidjan.
• A joint venture agreement for setting up a data processing center.
• A partnership agreement for creating a joint venture between Moroccan INVOLYS company and Côte d’Ivoire’s INOVA.
• A memorandum of understanding on the modernization and maintenance of the road transportation vehicles fleet for people and goods.
• A cooperation agreement in the field of logistics.
• A memorandum of understanding on cooperation in the fields of public transportation and road security.

Morocco as economy has grown and matured; a considerable amount of the capital generated in Morocco seeks new destinations outside the country, especially in Africa. Moroccan investors are aware of the potential of Cote d’Ivoire; with its large land mass, rich natural resources and youthful demography, as an important investment destination.

Undoubtedly, the Côte d’Ivoire-Morocco Economic Impetus Working Group will contribute to the strengthening of bilateral economic relations, which will result in the increase in investment flows between the two countries as well as raising the trade volume. It will certainly encourage Moroccan businesspeople and entrepreneurs to invest in Côte d’Ivoire and contribute to the development of the country through infrastructural investments in a number of fields.

Apparently, there are high expectations from both sides as Morocco and Côte d’Ivoire are looking forward to boost investment opportunities and therefore set a successful model of south-south cooperation in Africa.

Recently I was shaken to learn that the son of legendary boxer Muhammad Ali was detained for hours by immigration officials at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Florida on Feb. 7 after returning from speaking at a Black History Month event in Montego Bay, Jamaica.

They were pulled aside while going through customs because of their Arabic-sounding names, according to family friend and lawyer Chris Mancini. Immigration officials let Camacho-Ali go after she showed them a photo of herself with her ex-husband, but her son did not have such a photo and wasn’t as lucky. Mancini said officials held and questioned Ali Jr. for nearly two hours, repeatedly asking him, “Where did you get your name from?” and “Are you Muslim?”

When Ali Jr. responded that yes, he is a Muslim, the officers kept questioning him about his religion and where he was born. Ali Jr. was born in Philadelphia in 1972 and holds a U.S. passport.

When this kind of racial and religious profiling and harassment happened to Ali Jr., what chance does an ordinary Abdullah or Amina has to be spared when he or she doesn’t have a legendary father? It is simply shocking!

Trump’s unbridled remarks against ‘radical’ Muslims surely have something to do with such profiling. His anti-immigrant rhetoric is also emboldening many white supremacists to unleash their hate crimes against the ‘others’ – who don’t look like a white American.

This week, two Indians (who had legal permits) were shot in a bar in Kansas by an anti-immigrant bigot – Adam W. Purinton (wearing military medals) who tossed ethnic slurs at them and suggested that they did not belong in the United States. He killed one and wounded the other Indian. The assailant was captured in Missouri state.

The attack, which the federal and local authorities are investigating as a possible hate crime, reverberated far beyond both states. It raised new alarms about a climate of hostility toward foreigners in the United States, where President Trump has made clamping down on immigration a central plank of his “America first” agenda.

Early in February, a trial began in federal court in Tennessee of a self-professed Christian minister Robert Doggart – who plotted to kill Americans of another faith (Islam) to prove his “commitment to our God.” The trial did not get much publicity simply because the man on trial is not Muslim. If he were Muslim, Dean Obeidallah says, we would of course have heard of his sinister plot. But as we have seen time and time again, terrorist plots by non-Muslims are met with a collective yawn by most in our media.

Undercover FBI agents allege that Doggart was plotting to travel to upstate New York to kill Muslims there using explosives, an M-4 assault rifle and even a machete to cut the infidels to shreds. The FBI’s investigation also found that Doggart viewed himself as a religious “warrior” who wanted to kill Muslims to show to his commitment to his Christian God. Doggart even boasted that the attack on the Muslims “will be cruel. And we will burn down their buildings [Referring to their mosque and school.] … and if anybody attempts to harm us in any way… we will take them down.”

As rightly noted by Dean Obeidallah, this man “sounds no different from an ISIS terrorist wanting to kill people of other faiths in accordance with their own perverted interpretation of their religious faith.”

In December 2016 white supremacist Glendon Scott Crawford was sentenced to 30 years to life for trying to build a radioactive weapon to kill Muslim Americans. Crawford, a Navy Veteran and a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was an electrical engineer who has carried out extensive research on his radiation dispersal device designed to target a Muslim community.

In September 2016 three men known as “The Crusaders” were arrested for plotting to kill Muslim refugees in Kansas. Per the FBI, the three had been engaged in surveillance of the apartment complex where primarily Somalian Muslim refugees lived. The FBI also noted that the three spoke of dipping their bullets in pig’s blood before shooting the Muslims—which was reminiscent of a Trump’s campaign stump speech when he wrongly claimed that General Pershing had done the same when fighting in the Philippines.

This Saturday, dozens of headstones at Mt. Carmel Jewish cemetery in the Wissinoming section of Philadelphia have been broken and overturned. Last week, vandals toppled and damaged more than 100 headstones at the Chesed Shel Emeth Society cemetery in the St. Louis suburb of University City within the past week. The defacement was discovered on a weekend when 11 Jewish Community Centers received bomb threats. A Muslim-American group has helped raise more than $80,000 to help the vandalized Jewish cemetery in Missouri.

All these criminal activities, attacks and harassment of religious minorities in recent months are warning signs for the USA – the land of the immigrants, and parallel the evil activities of the old fascists of Italy and Germany against the so-called undesirables – the Jews and gypsies.

Is America heading towards fascism? To answer, let’s first look at how does fascism emerge. An analysis of the events leading up to the emergence of fascism in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s point to some important findings. These are:

1. High unemployment (1921 in Italy and 1932 in Germany.)
2. Destabilized government in the wake of WW I.   Both countries were at the mercy of factional strife, coups, and street fighting.
3. Fear of Communism.   When the Communists came to power in Russia, they executed Tsar Nicholas II, cruelly bayoneting his daughters.   This sent a down every royal spine in Europe (many of whom were related to Nicholas.)  The wealthy also feared for their power and riches.   Communists were active in both countries, trying to get themselves elected or take the government by force.   Both Mussolini and Hitler exploited this fear to secure help from the wealthy and powerful.
4. Wounded national pride in the wake of WW I.  Although Italy was among the victors of WW I, it was quickly marginalized by the other victors.   It received none of the spoils of war and no voice in the armistice.   Germany lost the war, much territory, and had to endure the Treaty of Versailles which inflicted total blame and financial reparations.
5. Many war veterans from WWI.   The streets were full of experienced soldiers, jobless, often still armed.   They were ripe to be organized against other political parties.   Political disputes often spilled over to gunfire in the streets.   These conditions favored the most ruthless political party.

In the light of current events, is the USA witnessing the birth of fascism? After all, there are much similarities that make the case for fascism, if one were to replace the word ‘communism’ with ISIS (DAESH) or the so-called Radical Islam as part of that fear tactics.

For instance, millions of jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector have moved away from the USA to countries, at least since the 1990s, where the costs of manufacturing are lower. Most of these jobs never returned to the USA. Many of those former employees are either out of job or are forced to work for low-paying jobs in parts of the USA that are commonly called these days as ‘rust belts.’ The 2008 economic melt-down, brought about by Bush Jr.’s hawkish policy, financial deregulation and neo-Crusades – the perennial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – saw many of their life-time savings evaporate; many lost their homes and businesses. [The 2008 financial crisis led to the Great Recession when housing prices fell 31.8 percent, more than during the Depression of the 1930s. Two years after the recession ended, unemployment was still above 9 percent.]

Although by the end of Obama’s presidency in 2016 the unemployment rate had declined to below 5% many low wage-earners, and surely unemployed Americans, remain bitter, angry and frustrated. They like to see a change for the better. They have been the major force along the ‘rust belt’ to elect Donald Trump as the 45th POTUS.

Ever since Barack H. Obama was elected as the 44th president, the USA has witnessed a series of tense events along racial fault lines (mostly involving police). The election outcome in November 2008 was undesirable to many White Americans who refused to accept the evolution of their country and government that has increasingly become diverse, slightly more tolerant on sensitive issues. Many of them joined white supremacist militia groups, preparing to bring about a race war against non-Whites and a federal government that they considered illegitimate and run by a ‘disguised Muslim’ (and not a ‘faithful’ follower of Jesus Christ) who – in their faulty understanding – was not even born within the USA.

After the loss of the Democrats to the Republicans in both the Houses in the 2010 mid-term election the Obama administration was weak to tackle a plethora of internal problems facing the divided country. The right-wing extremists and conservatives (including Christian evangelicals) saw the Obamacare as too expensive and thus, unhelpful to general public and rallied for its annulment. They also saw several of the executive orders of Obama, e.g., on LBGT, as warning signs for the conservatives to wake up and rally behind the Republican candidates.

The voices of these disgruntled White Americans found a very powerful advocate, or more correctly a provocateur, in ultra-right Fox TV News, owned by the neoconservative Rupert Murdoch. With a non-stop barrage of propaganda, based on ‘fake news’, fed by the conservative media outlets (including radio talk show hosts), the last couple of years of Obama administration saw the Congress as a lame-duck, which would not allow Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court to even get a hearing.
Even after the election win of Trump, voter anger is at an all-time high now. They want to see their problems solved immediately by the Trump administration with the supporting casts in the Capitol Hill – the Republicans controlling both the Houses. But what they are hearing (or not hearing) is not allaying their anxieties. Many Republican lawmakers are afraid of facing their electorates in town-hall meetings.

There is widespread perception that the electoral system is rigged, a constant theme during Trump’s election campaign, where the party insiders are stifling dissenting views and choices. The two-party system is apparently failing Americans. This also explains why voters chose Trump, as an outsider to politics, who seemed the least corrupt who was going to clean-out the mess in Washington D.C.

9/11 had already dug a gigantic, deep wound in American pride that had defined American psyche and politics ever since. No time in its history was the US mainland ever attacked by non-state actors that killed so many – nearly three thousand citizens. Rather than finding the root causes of the attack, the USA and its western partners attacked first Afghanistan and then Iraq savagely, killing in the process nearly a million unarmed citizens of those countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. Those regimes were soon toppled, the entire infra-structure of those countries destroyed, and puppet regimes installed. The rest is history!

More than a trillion dollars has already been spent in the Bush-initiated and Obama-continued ‘Global War on Terror’ in those countries to keep America ‘safe’ here from terrorists. [With all the expenses piling up for health care needs of injured veterans, the cost of the war may rise to six trillion dollars.] And yet, the illegal wars, started by the chicken-hawk, neocons within George W. Bush’s administration, have not ended with the American soldiers still dying there.

In spite of its gaping flaws, America’s war in faraway countries that did not attack the USA was sold to the general public and soldiers as a necessary and justifiable war. As part of the military’s rule of engagement, unarmed civilians – old and young, including toddlers and infants – were mercilessly killed or maimed unprovoked.

As a result of the evil that they committed in the killing fields of Iraq and Afghanistan, many of the soldiers are now suffering from chronic PTSD. The Veterans Administration has failed them. Consequently, many of the returning soldiers are now dependent on drugs to temporarily forget their war crimes. Some of them have also committed homicides. Many of them remain jobless and are very critical of the government for what they consider their abandonment. Many are joining private militias for a ‘higher’ cause and some are even killing non-Christians to that end.

Thanks to western savagery and the sectarian heavy-handed practices of the U.S.-supported Iraqi government, a new nemesis – Daesh (more commonly called ISIS/ISIL), an un-Islamic terrorist outfit – has emerged in the scene, which seems to be more dangerous and determined to not only take over the ownership of Iraq and Syria but also to encourage terrorism in both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Their mindless nihilism has killed and injured mostly Muslims; a much smaller number of Europeans and Americans has also been victimized by their brainwashed comrades. Daesh has recruited thousands – Muslims and non-Muslims alike – to join the rank and file to kill and be killed in an imbalanced war with the West. They remain a formidable force unless they are defeated both ideologically and materially.

As a result of continuing wars in vast territories of Asia and Africa, tens of millions of affected people are on the move now. While a vast majority of these refugees have found temporary shelters in nearby Muslim countries, a much smaller fraction of the refugees has also poured into Europe, Canada, Australia and the USA, which are overwhelmingly Christian countries, where the old racism of the past has resurfaced under the new insignia of anti-immigration movement. Not surprisingly, in the hands of racists and bigots the fear of ISIS and immigration has filled the vacuum left over by communism in many parts of Europe, Australia and the USA.

As psychologists would tell us anxiety and fear are what often draws people to leaders. Many astute political leaders, including Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders and other neo-fascists know this truth too well to turn people to their respective platform. They continuously remind their audience that they are under attack by these outsiders who are trying to steal their jobs, by murderers and rapists, by terrorists (coming as immigrants), and by the liberal media (feeding ‘fake’ news). And, then, if you trust them as your protectors, they would make their country ‘great’ again; you will be safe and secure to pursue your goals freely without any worry. To put succinctly, they are master manipulators of the human anxiety response.

Like the fascism of the past, while the perceived enemy’s face has changed, the new fascism glorifies war (by suggesting that if ‘we’ don’t defeat and crush ‘them’ ‘they’ will make ‘us’ inferior and force ‘us’ to alter our lifestyle) and promotes authoritarianism. It is populist. It is opposed to the free press and sees its function only as a vehicle to promote and propagate its agenda.

It is no accident that Senator McCain, an old guard of the Republican Party, sees fascist leanings in President Trump’s attacks against the media.

Like Mussolini and Hitler – Donald Trump has been able to exploit the dissatisfaction among the jobless White Americans, the fear of illegal Latinos and Muslim immigrants (from war-torn countries), let alone the so-called Islamic radicals and the ISIS, an erosion of conservative values, a divided Congress with a ‘rigged’ political system, the wounded pride of the Americans and the anger of the returning veterans to his advantage. His toxic formula to present himself as a populist leader, albeit an outsider, succeeded so well that in spite of his brazen and offensive utterings about women, many White Americans (including women) voted for him.

Many political observers imagined that once elected, and with time, Trump’s behavior would modify. But so far he has proven them wrong. He has also surrounded himself in the White House with advisers who are known more for espousing their despicable hatred and intolerance against ‘others’ than anything either noble or good, except probably the inclusion of two generals – one (retired) ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis and the other (a serving general) McMaster. Both the latter individuals are level-headed, honest and visionary leaders. Only time would show whether they would have a sobering effect on Trump to modulate his allegedly fascist-like behavior or become a casualty themselves.

There is no doubt that the USA is going through an unusual time under a new president whose rhetoric has made the world leaders jittery and wary of his intentions. There are many tasks ahead for Mr. Trump to deliver fast. He has to be careful what he says and what he tweets, esp. in this age of social media. Whatever his personal likings or leaning may be, he ought to know that what was possible for Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s is almost impossible to replicate in this digital age of alternative media.

Mr. Trump claims to know how to defeat Daesh. Still, let me lend him a free advice.

As I have noted in the past, history has repeatedly shown that it’s very difficult to defeat neo-Khawariz organizations like today’s Daesh, and yesterday’s Hashishyyin (Assassins). Even after their political defeat, they continue(d) to wreak havoc. Their task has become very easy in this era of social media; with a laptop computer they can continue to recruit ‘loan wolves’ anywhere to do their evil. The prudent way is to defeat them ideologically. It is there that the Muslim community can be an unmatched asset to mortally defeat them. [Sadly, the ‘travel ban’ plus hateful rhetoric against Muslims by the fascist-leaning leaders in many parts of the world (esp. Europe and the USA) is not helpful at all.] I am glad to note that this age-old wisdom is understood quite well by Generals McMaster and Mattis who are smart students of world history.

Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster told the staff of the National Security Council last Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic.” [He’s right. Truly, a terrorist cannot be Islamic. The phrase “Islamic terrorists” is an oxymoron. Muslims find the phrase very offensive.] That is a repudiation of the language regularly used by both the president and General McMaster’s predecessor, Michael T. Flynn, who resigned last week after admitting that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about a phone call with a Russian diplomat. It is also a sign that General McMaster, a veteran of the Iraq war known for his sense of history and independent streak, might move the council away from the ideologically charged views of Flynn. If he succeeds, this would be a great victory for all – here inside the USA and abroad.

Perhaps not everything is moving in the wrong direction in the USA. May be that common sense would prevail and the wiser few within the Trump administration would act as a deterrent force against the dark forces of fascism that surrounds Mr. Trump!

In order to stop fascism from becoming a reality in the USA, the media has a vital duty. It must be authentic and fair. It cannot afford either ‘yellow’ journalism or ‘embedded’ journalism -serving causes that make our world less safe, less peaceful and less inclusive. It must report on the threats by white supremacists and Christian radicals plotting to kill Muslim Americans and other religious minorities with the same intensity as when a Muslim suspect is involved. Otherwise, it won’t be too late when we shall all fall prey to an emerging fascism that the USA has never seen before. That would be a catastrophe for everyone everywhere in this small planet of ours!

By Jutta Wolf

United Nations experts have strongly criticised Germany for “crimes against Africans and people of African descent” adding that they are “deeply concerned about the human rights situation of people of African descent” in the country.

“Germany’s crimes against Africans and people of African descent are overshadowed by its focus on other parts of its history. Germany’s colonial past, the genocide of the Ovaherero and Nama peoples, and the sterilization, incarceration, and murder of Black people during Nazi Germany, is not adequately addressed in the national narrative,” said the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent in a statement to the media on February 27.

“The Berlin Africa conference in 1884 had a devastating and lasting impact on the continent of Africa,” five independent experts comprising the Working Griup recalled. They include: Ricardo A. Sunga III (the Philippines), current Chair-Rapporteur; Michal Balcerzak (Poland); Mireille Fanon Mendes-France (France), Sabelo Gumedze (South Africa) and Ahmed Reid (Jamaica).

“The genocide and abuse suffered by the Ovaherero and Nama peoples at the hands of the German authorities has left an indelible stain on the souls of the victims, as well as the perpetrators,” the statement said.

While taking note that the German government has apologized for the genocide and is providing targeted development projects, “the Working group regrets that the German Government has thus far not seriously consulted with the lawful representatives of the minority and indigenous victims of that genocide to discuss reparations”.

The statement by UN experts added: “Germany should recall its own share in the history of colonization, enslavement and genocide, and use a reparatory justice approach as a way forward. The Ovaherero and Nama people must be included in the negotiations currently ongoing between the German and Namibian governments.”

They further urge the Government to “legally recognize people of African descent in Germany as a minority group who have made and continue to make profound economic, political, social, cultural contributions to Germany”.

Despite Germany’s promotion of multiculturalism and diversity, and a series of “positive measures” to address structural racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, Afrophobia and related intolerance, “the Working Group is deeply concerned about the human rights situation of people of African descent in Germany”.

While the Basic Law guarantees equality, prohibits racial discrimination, and states that human dignity is inviolable, it is not being enforced, the experts said.

“While people of African descent are a diverse group their daily lives are marked by racism, negative stereotypes and structural racism. They are targeted and victims of racist violence and hate crimes. They fear for their safety and avoid certain places as they will be attacked. They are subjected to racial discrimination by their classmates, teachers, workmates, and structural racism by the government and criminal justice system. Despite the gravity of the situation they are not officially recognized as a group particularly exposed to racism.”

The experts take note that the Government is developing a new National Action Plan Against Racism and has created a NGO Forum for consultation with civil society, but “unfortunately no organization working for the rights of people of African descent has been selected to participate so far”.

The UN experts have urged the Government of Germany to undertake serious efforts to combat all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, Afrophobia and related intolerance. Some of the recommendations are:

Use of the term Afrophobia to describe the unique and specific form of racial discrimination affecting people of African descent and African Diaspora.

In consultation with people of African descent, find ways to create memorials to honor people of African descent and African victims of historic tragedies.

Replace street names that are insulting to people of African descent and replace with names which honour people of African descent.

Ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Respect the rights of people of African descent in accordance with Article 1 of the Basic Law. Formulate a definition of racial discrimination in accordance with Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and review and change all laws and regulations that lead to de-facto racial discrimination such as the Federal Police Act.

Create a National Institution to represent the interest of people of African descent in Germany to research and develop policies to address issues faced by people of African descent.

The statement said: “The views expressed in this statement are of a preliminary nature and our final findings and recommendations will be presented in our mission report to the United Nations Human Rights Council in September 2017.”

The Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent was established on April 25, 2002 by the then Commission on Human Rights, following the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban in 2001.

Efficient production lines, millions of jobs and affordable consumer products of all types depend on stable US-Chinese relations.

By Farok J. Contractor*

Alarm bells are ringing about President Donald Trump’s angry pronouncements against China, calling the nation a “currency manipulator” and threatening tariffs on Chinese imports. Official designation must come from the Treasury Department, and so far, these claims have been backed with little calculation of costs or jobs gained or lost.

Trump highlights the lopsided trade imbalance between China and the US – a deficit of $338 billion. So China has more to lose, but until 2014 plowed their surpluses back into US government Treasury bonds and securities. US consumers could expect higher prices, and China could retaliate on US-made products and services and sell its $1 trillion-plus investments in US securities – although this would hurt China too, as any attempt to unload large amounts of US securities would immediately reduce the dollar’s value.

Estimating the numbers of workers involved in US-China trade is a tricky task. Taking data from the World Bank surveys on the “labor share of export value” and inferring from that, the labor content in each country’s exports offers a rough estimate of 16.39 million Chinese workers engaged in exports to the US and 1.24 million American workers engaged in exports to China.

Calculations: The number of workers producing exports for China and the United States is inferred from a number of sources: a) US Census, b) World Bank, c) The Economist, d) BLS, e) YaleGlobal, f) National Association of Manufacturers

Foreign direct investment: Besides imports, consumers can obtain foreign products through foreign direct investment. A Chinese buying a Buick is not buying a car made in the US, but one made by the Shanghai subsidiary established by General Motors in 1997. An American who purchases a small refrigerator at Walmart is likely buying from Haier, a Chinese company whose US subsidiary, Haier America, Inc., produces refrigerators in South Carolina. Both products include parts imported from other firms along the supply chain, and this is among the many complications in understanding foreign direct investment data.

Chinese FDI in the US accelerated after 2010, according a 2016 report by the National Committee on US-China Relations and the Rhodium Group. By 2015, investment by Chinese companies in US operations had reached an annual level of $15.3 billion – $3.4 billion from Chinese government enterprises and $11.9 billion from presumably privately held Chinese companies.

The value of Chinese acquisitions of American firms was eight times the number of built-from-scratch investments, suggesting a Chinese strategy to gain technological and market knowledge. FDI from most emerging nations has a knowledge-seeking motivation.

Americans need not be alarmed for two reasons: The biggest Chinese investments are in innocuous sectors such as real estate, hospitality, and business services where proprietary technology is not an issue. The largest Chinese investment to date has been in pig farming. Even in sensitive sectors such as computer technology and life sciences, the White House–guided Committee on Foreign Investment has embargoed foreign investment in sectors deemed sensitive or if the intelligence services or Commerce Department indicate danger to competitiveness of American firms.

US firms, as far as FDI is concerned, have more to lose in the event of trade disputes. Chinese FDI in the US in 2015 amounted to $15.3 billion, but US investment in China was almost five times as big, at $74.6 billion. For 2015, there were 6,677 American company affiliates in China compared with around 1,200 Chinese-owned companies in the US.

Many more FDI jobs are at stake in China – up to 1.6 million according to Chinese Ministry of Commerce – because of greater use of cheap labor. The Rhodium Group estimates the 1,200 or more Chinese affiliates in the US employ directly around 90,000 Americans. Alternative estimates, including direct as well as indirect employment, suggest between 317,730 and 357,000 US workers connected with Chinese FDI in the US. The US Commerce Department reports that up to 10 million US residents work for foreign companies directly and indirectly, and Chinese FDI represents only about 3.5 percent of FDI  in the US.

In sum, with total US employment at 122 million and Chinese employment at 775 million, bilateral-FDI represents a small, albeit significant fraction of overall jobs for either nation.

Adding up the numbers for exports as well as FDI between China and the US, the maximum number of jobs at risk in China is up to 18 million, and in the US it is less than 1.6 million.

Such estimates represent maximum impact on jobs in the worst-case scenarios – and short of a calamitous dispute between the countries, the worst is unlikely to happen.  Still, the above estimates give an idea of the numbers of jobs at stake.

Extra costs to US consumers: The United States is one of the few nations that could produce almost everything domestically that it now imports from China – with higher costs for households and hundreds of billions in transition costs for businesses.

US consumers are patriotic, but they also care about their pocketbooks.  A Boston Consulting Group report found that more than 80 percent of US respondents said they prefer US-made items and are willing to pay more. But confronted with a tangible choice in an Associated Press survey, only 30 percent preferred US jeans priced at $85 over imported jeans for $50.

Moreover, of every dollar a consumer pays for a Chinese-made product, 55 cents is kept by US businesses for services such as marketing and sales. Only 45 cents goes to the Chinese producer. And only 2.7 percent of US consumer spending overall goes to products made in China, according to the Federal Reserve Bank and other studies. This sounds small, but the calculation works out that the additional cost for US consumers would be about $295 billion in 2016 alone, or $2,380 for each household.

Is re-shoring realistic? In the absence of dire national emergency, US consumers won’t prefer paying additional costs. The $2,380 estimate assumes replacing Chinese imports with US manufacturing. But a more realistic scenario is that if Chinese products were embargoed, production would move to other low-wage nations such as Vietnam or Bangladesh, as is already happening.

In 2015 General Electric’s appliance division tried to “re-shore” manufacturing to the US assuming that automation and productivity could offset higher US wages. But GE encountered another challenge – the parts-supply base for appliance components had disappeared from the US. Chinese parts suppliers are efficient and low-cost. Adding the transport costs of parts shipped from China to US assembly lines, plus management and additional inventory costs, made producing appliances in the US more costly.

In June 2016 GE sold their appliances division to the Chinese company Haier for $5.4 billion. Restoring all elements of the supply chain in the US would require decades and is a theoretical dream.

China’s $2 trillion in US securities: The Chinese government holds $1.3 trillion in US Treasury bonds, and Chinese entities collectively own about $2 trillion in US securities, second only to Japan, not counting the ownership of more than 1,200 US-based companies through FDI. The total may be higher, considering investments through Hong Kong and Caribbean tax havens where owners’ identities are often murky.

In an emergency, the Chinese could precipitously sell their US security holdings, panicking US bond and equity markets, eventually resulting in a plunge in the dollar’s value. But then, the Chinese would receive a lower return. The scenario is unlikely, short of a military confrontation. For the past 25 years, the Chinese government has regarded the US as its principal foreign market.

China has every incentive for keeping the US economy going strong. Simply put, it’s a matter of self-interest. The $2 trillion in investments in US securities do not earn a high return, but the investment is safe. In effect, the holdings demonstrate Chinese support for US-China trade and the global trading system.

While the Chinese may not be thrilled about entanglement with the US economy, both nations have a mutual self-interest. Together, they account for 40 percent of world GDP.

Participation in global trade has created employment for more than 100 million Chinese. The US gains from the relationship with up to 1.6 million jobs that depend on China, $295 billion annually in lower consumer prices, as well as investment in US securities and low interest rates.

Trump may be right in asserting that China has benefited more from the relationship than has the US. But international trade theory and practice never suggest consistent and perfect trade balances. Theory holds that nations are better off by participating in international trade. And his claim that the loss of US jobs is “…the greatest theft in the history of the world,” true only in small part, fails to consider that three out four US jobs have been lost due to automation, information technology and other productivity boosters.

Proposals to return jobs to the US are economically non-viable. Should the US carry out threats to levy a tariff on Chinese products, production is unlikely to return to the US. Other low-wage nations are ready to compete including Vietnam, India or Bangladesh, where hundreds of millions of people work for less than $1 per hour. With rising wages and a shortage of skilled workers, thousands of Chinese factories have already relocated to such low-wage nations. Disruption of global value chains would add hundreds of billions per year to US businesses, increasing prices for US buyers – with extra costs falling disproportionately on lower-income Americans.

The two great nations need each other. They can pursue a relationship that is “bipolar,” fraught with anxiety, or they can continue historic cooperation and lead to develop the 21st-century global economy.

*Farok J. Contractor is a professor in the Management and Global Business Department at Rutgers Business School. He has researched foreign direct investment for three decades and also taught at the Wharton School, Copenhagen Business School, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Nanyang Technological University, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade and other schools and conducted executive seminars in the US, Europe, Latin America and Asia. He produces a blog on Unbiased Perspectives on Global Business Issues. An expanded version of this article is in the March 2017 issue of Rutgers Business Review.

By Aleksandr Fisher*

(FPRI) — To a casual observer, Moldova and Ukraine appear quite similar with their common Soviet histories, heavily corrupt domestic politics, and a frozen conflict on their eastern borders. However, while Ukraine remains entrapped in a war with Russia over eastern Ukraine, Moldova has maintained amicable relations with both Russia and Ukraine, positioning itself as a bridge between East and West.

Some have noted that Moldova’s status as an interlocutor between East and West has become threatened with the recent election of President Igor Dodon in  December 2016. Dodon has consistently promised closer relations with the Kremlin. Yet, while the Moldovan economy is dependent on Russia and the Moldovan public is exposed to a steady stream of Russian propaganda, these factors do not preclude the development of strong Ukrainian-Moldovan relations as long as a pro-EU coalition retains control of Moldova’s parliament. Moldova and Ukraine—no matter their differences and disputes—must maintain close relations in order to combat Russian incursions and aggression.

Main Interests and Obstacles

Traditionally, Ukrainian-Moldovan foreign relations have centered on issues such as border demarcation and property disputes leftover from the collapse of the USSR. For Moldova, its main interests towards Ukraine are the development of infrastructure projects, environmental protection of the Dniester River, closer economic cooperation, and maintaining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. For Ukraine, interests include resolving the conflict in Transnistria, helping Moldova resist Russian propaganda, settling the state border between Ukraine and Moldova, and promoting economic partnerships.

Some of the main issues that have blocked deeper Ukrainian-Moldovan relations include the status of the Dniester HES-2 hydroelectric station, a 1990s land agreement near the village of Giurgiulesti, and a planned railway connecting Moldova to Odessa, which would have bypassed the breakaway region of Transnistria. These long-lasting concerns, combined with the implementation of protective quotas and duties on certain Ukrainian and Moldovan goods in 2016 have hindered relations between the two countries.

However, a February 2017 negotiation between President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine and Prime Minister Pavel Filip of Moldova has helped restore cooperation between the two countries. This has led to talks of “energy cooperation and restoration of stable electricity supply from Ukraine to Moldova,” as well as breakthroughs in discussions of environmental issues concerning the Dniester water basin. Additionally, Moldova decided not to extend restrictive measures to Ukrainian meat and dairy products introduced in 2016. These positive developments in Ukrainian-Moldovan relations are critical at a time when Dodon continues to cozy up to the Kremlin.

Russia’s Role

One cannot discuss relations between Ukraine and Moldova without analyzing the countries’ respective ties to Russia. After the annexation of Crimea in March 2014, observers were concerned that Moldova would follow a similar path as Ukraine due to the similarities between the two countries. However, the pro-EU coalitions within the parliament backed Ukraine and condemned Russia’s annexation. Former Prime Minister of Moldova Iurie Leancă visited Kyiv after the annexation as a sign of support for the Ukrainian government, while Petro Poroshenko visited Chişinău in November 2014, prior to parliamentary elections, to support the pro-European coalition in Moldova.

Attitudes within Moldovan society were split with 29% supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea with 44% against. Moreover, the pro-Russian Communist Party of Moldova continued to support Russia and helped to serve as a conduit for the Kremlin’s narrative of events within the country. Notably, in April 2014, the breakaway region Transnistria held a referendum to join the Russian Federation, leading many to worry that the Kremlin was planning to recreate the Ukraine scenario in Moldova.

However, Vladimir Putin did not find it in Russia’s best interest to formally annex the region, given its de facto control of the territory. Rather, the Kremlin uses existing domestic cleavages within Moldova to shape the country’s politics such as exploiting nostalgia for the Soviet Union and targeting citizens who feel as if they’ve not benefited from greater integration with the European Union.

While Russia’s economic leverage over its post-Soviet neighbors is declining, approximately 20% of Moldovan exports still go to Russia. This dependency gives the Kremlin influence over Moldovan politics, which it has used to ban Moldovan wines and implement measures against EU food products when the Moldovan government moves in a pro-European direction. It has not helped that Ukrainian authorities have made it difficult for Moldovan wines to enter the Ukrainian market, further incentivizing closer ties between Moldova and Russia, while breeding resentment amongst local producers.

From a domestic standpoint, the major corruption scandal in 2014, where over 1 billion dollars disappeared from Moldova’s leading banks, implicated many pro-European politicians and helped strengthen the pro-Russian coalitions in Moldova’s government. The pro-Russian opposition expertly utilized the corruption scandal to link the domestic troubles within Moldova to the European Union and the West. Most notably, Former Prime Minister and founder of the pro-EU Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova Vlad Filat was arrested in October 2015, helping pave the way for a pro-Russian president to win the presidential election.

Consequences of Moldova’s Pro-Russian President

With growing distrust towards Europe and the West, the pro-Russian Socialist candidate Igor Dodon managed to win 54 percent in the 2016 presidential election, compared to his pro-European challenger, Maia Sandu, who received just under 45 percent. Since his victory, Dodon has expressed that most Moldovans would support joining the Russia-led Eurasian Union, adding that Moldova has not benefited from European integration, and warned about closer ties with NATO (only 21% of Moldovans expressed support for joining NATO).

According to a September 2016 poll by the International Republican Institute (IRI), Russia is consistently seen as a more important economic partner than Ukraine (62% to 27%), and there is an even split between those who want to join the EU (40%) and the Eurasian Customs Union (43%). Perhaps most notably, the percentage of Moldovans who think that Russian troops in Transnistria are not a threat to Moldova has increased from 21% in September 2014 to 39% in September 2016.

Moreover, during a January 17 visit to Russia, Dodon noted that he would certainly support a policy that would terminate Moldova’s 2014 Association Agreement with the European Union. While he expressed hope that Russian-Ukrainian relations will resume as “friendly and brotherly ones,” his close relations to the Kremlin do not inspire confidence in those who hope for stronger Ukrainian-Moldovan relations.

Future of Ukraine-Moldova Relations

Despite these recent developments, it is important not to overemphasize the pro-Russian turn in Moldova’s foreign policy. More Moldovans say their country has better relations with the European Union (57%) and Ukraine (47%) than Russia (43%). Additionally, the current parliament continues to express dissatisfaction and opposition towards the president’s pro-Russian orientation. Prime Minister Filip expressed deep displeasure with Dodon’s statements about terminating the Association Agreement with the European Union and tried to assure international actors of the president’s inability to unilaterally make such decisions for the country.

Additionally, Moldova and Ukraine have enduring inter-governmental institutions like the Ukraine-Moldova Commission for Trade and Economic Cooperation, which serves as a forum for the two countries to work together to promote their economic and security interests. Therefore despite, Russian economic leverage over the Moldovan economy and targeted Russian propaganda towards Moldovan citizens, it is possible for Moldova to maintain both close relations with Russia and Ukraine as long as a pro-EU coalition controls the parliament to serve as a check on the Moldovan president. Observers of the region and Ukrainian-Moldovan relations should continue to pay close attention to the 2018 parliamentary elections, which could shape Moldova’s foreign policy agenda for the foreseeable future.

About the author:
*Aleksandr Fisher is an Associate Scholar at FPRI’s Eurasia Program and is currently pursuing a PhD in Political Science from the George Washington University.

Source:
This article was published by FPRI.

By Giancarlo Elia Valori*

Daniel Ray “Dan” Coats is the new Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) appointed by President Trump – a designation everyone was awaiting since last January. The DCI is a rather controversial figure in the wide and too much fragmented world of the US intelligence agencies.

The Director of Central Intelligence is a post created in 2004 after the evident failure of the main US intelligence services on September 11. Nevertheless it was often opposed by the CIA and NSA Directors who sometimes blocked every news flow from Langley to the DCI office – as happened in 2009 when Leon Panetta was the CIA Director.

Dan Coats was a member of the House of Representatives from 1981 to 1989 and later replaced Dan Qayle as Senator from Indiana – a Senate seat he held until 2016, by always working for the Select Committee on Intelligence.

After temporarily retiring from the Senate, Dan Coats served as US Ambassador to Germany from 2001 to 2005.

It is also worth recalling that Coats has been officially banned from travelling to Russia due to his heavy mockery and witticism about Putin and, above all, for his requesting much harsher sanctions against Russia for its annexation of Crimea.

However, what is particularly interesting for us is the work carried out by Coats at King & Spalding, the largest law firm for companies and public institutions, founded 130 years ago in Atlanta, Georgia.

Said law firm works for over 50% of the companies included in the Fortune 100 ranking and has over 900 lawyers and attorneys working in 19 branches throughout the United States.

In 2016 King & Spalding earned over 3.702 million dollars from its lobbying activities with representative institutions and government.

It is reported to be among the top ten lobbying organizations in the United States and, in the list of the “National Law Journal Survey”, King & Spalding is among the US top 50 influencers, i.e. structures of political and strategic influence.

Said law firm represented the Lockheed Martin in 2007 and has currently over 191 clients including Boeing.

It is a law firm which does not only deal with litigation. Thanks to its influence, it literally creates and drafts – as it has done also recently for Saudi Arabia – the rules it will later discuss, on behalf of its clients, in the most appropriate legal forums and institutions.

King & Spalding carries out all the lobbying activity for Saudi Arabia in the United States.

The clients of Dan Coats as a partner of King & Spalding include not only the abovementioned Lockheed Martin, for which he had the F-22 project and some arms sales abroad funded, but also the private equity firm “Cerberus Capital Management”, led by John W. Snow, former Secretary of the Treasury under George H. Bush’s Presidency.

Currently Cerberus’ portfolio amounts to 100 billion Us dollars and the firm operates both in the secondary market of securities and in the real estate sector.

Furthermore, Cerberus’ foreign investments are directed by Dan Qayle, former US vice-President with George H. Bush and Dan Coats’ predecessor as Senator from Indiana.

The aforementioned “private equity” firm also owns DynCorp, a private security company operating as a contractor for the US government.

DynCorp’s most recent contracts include the maintenance of logistical equipment and the military ground transmission network in Kosovo, as well as the aircraft management in some US Air Force bases.

In addition, and this is particularly interesting for us, DynCorp also works in the intelligence field, with training and certification programs for US public agencies. It also carries out data collection and independent analysis of said data on the ground, which it later provides to said agencies in exchange for consideration.

The privatization of intelligence services – a terrible future for State security – has already taken place, at least in the United States.

Finally, it is also worth noting that DynCorp owns GeoEye, an operator of earth observation satellites, almost entirely.

In 2013 GeoEye merged with DigitalGlobe.

Building and launching imaging satellites means gain a comparative advantage, in economic terms, to check trade flows across the world. It also means to gain a comparative advantage, in geological terms, to study and predict the development of oil or mineral resources, and in agricultural terms, to forecast the link between crops and global weather phenomena.

Moreover, Dan Coats has been selected to represent the interests of the Ad Hoc Coalition for Fair Pipe Imports from China, a lobby and advocacy group of US steel producers against steel imports from China.

Coats also worked for the Lithuanian Achema Group, a group of companies mainly dealing with fertilizers which also owns a small but important media empire in its own country.

The new DCI also lobbied for the purchase of industrial training programs from the German Festo Group in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

In short, which direction will the US intelligence privatization take during Trump’s Presidency?

Just take a look at the most recent appointments.

The appointment of Joe Hagin, the deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, directly implies an important role for the company he founded, namely the Command Consulting Group (CCG).

David Cohen, the former CIA Deputy Director for Operations, is a partner of CCG, a company whose founders also include Steve Atkiss, former Chief of Staff of the US Customs and Border Protection and Ralph Basham, former Head of the “United States Secret Service” (USSS), which is the structure in charge of protecting the US President, Vice-President and high-ranking government officials.

CCG also owns the Command Global Services (CGS), which led the operations designed to investigate and audit into Muammar Gaddafi’s financial reserves.

That specific activity was led by Charles Seidel, a former official of the CIA Directorate of Operations.

Currently Seidel chairs the Middle East unit of the Patriot Defense Group (PDG), founded by former CIA agent Todd Wilcox.

There is also the old and powerful private intelligence company Booz Allen Hamilton, which has been collecting, processing and analyzing data for the DCI and the major military officers and US government officials for at least thirty years – although we do not know to what extent it is close to the new US President.

In Trump’s era, we must also study the future of CSRA Inc. – which has developed and manages the NSA whole classified data internal system and carries out intelligence support actions for the US Commands in Europe and Africa – as well as the future of SAIC, a military contracting company which has entered the lucrative privatized intelligence business by buying SCITOR, a company which is well-established in the Pentagon secret satellite system.

In this strange picture of US privatized intelligence services, reference must also be made to CACI International, which hit the headlines for having supplied the staff for the interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison. Recently said company has bought the National Security Solutions and the Six3 Intelligence Solutions, which provided the targeting against the Taliban to the NATO forces in Afghanistan, and will shortly supply intelligence to the US forces arriving in Syria.

The staff used by these private agencies is huge: Booz Allen has 12,000 employees, including analysts and operatives, while CACI international has 10,000 employees. As a whole, all private intelligence agencies – including human intelligence (HUMINT) and signals intelligence (SIGINT) – deploy approximately 50,000 people.

The total number of people used by the Department of Defense (DoD) amounts to 1.4 million, including 770,000 civilian employees, while the private contractors working for the US DoD employ approximately 750,000 people for intelligence and other military activities.

In Iraq, in mid-2016, there were 2,485 contractors compared to 4,087 US military staff.

In Afghanistan, the US military staff envisaged for this year is around 8,000, but the “civilian” contractors will be at least 26,500.

According to some American journalists, approximately 70% of the budget for national intelligence is destined to private contractors and, with Trump’s Presidency, much of cybersecurity will be in private hands.

Hence if it is thought that intelligence is just a mere collection of individual sensitive and rare empirical data – as often happens in the US intelligence community – some privatization may be useful, considering the greater intrinsic flexibility of private companies compared to public bureaucratic structures.

Conversely, if we believe that intelligence services must not only collect – and use for media purposes – sensitive data which could not be acquired otherwise, but must mainly analyze said data with a strategic and geopolitical mind and perspective, the privatization of intelligence is both dangerous and useless.

Furthermore, if we rightly think that intelligence is a primary function of national interest, this privatization of intelligence services can be harmful because, also in this sensitive sector, a private enterprise wants above all to maintain and preserve its business indefinitely.

Moreover, “terrorism” is such a phenomenon as to provide material for an equally endless search of data and hotbeds.

Nevertheless, if we do not rethink, in a creative way, the cultural and political relationship between Islam and the West, between peaceful countries in the Muslim region and the “sword jihad” – and, finally, if we do not do wage credible “cultural wars” – jihadist terrorism will recur, according to the Hegelian category of “bad infinity.”

These are activities which cannot be entrusted to contractors, but rather to a political and strategic elite capable of rising up to future challenges and possibly not interested in making huge and quick profits.

As a Sunni Imam told to an agent of our intelligence services, “let us see one of your great men and we will be convinced you are right.”

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

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

Emirati-Yemeni singer Balqees Fathi and Arab Idol Mohammed Assaf are among the top speakers at the Dubai Lynx International Festival of Creativity, which takes place from March 5–7.

Festival speakers will explore the language of creativity through the lens of music, movies and dance.

The sessions will focus on entertainment’s evolution and the future of production.

Abe Naga, head of digital, and Samar Akrouk, group director of production, MBC Group, will sit down with Assaf to discuss how the entertainment industry can work with brands to produce content that strikes a human chord. The Arab Idol show launched Assaf’s hugely successful career which has since been followed worldwide and resulted in his status as a modern Palestinian hero.

Award-winning Fathi, meanwhile, is one of the Arab world’s biggest names in music and a highly successful social media influencer.

Since becoming a media icon almost 10 years ago she has leveraged her online presence of over 10 million followers to highlight important humanitarian causes. Discussing her creative process with Odience Media at Dubai Lynx, Fathi will explore the collaboration economy and how it is changing the way artists interact with followers.

“The entertainment industry is increasingly evolving and it’s time for us celebrities and influencers to lead that change. Social media has given us the opportunity to connect directly with our fans, talk and listen to them and be trusted by them. I have great pride in partnering with prestigious brands to create great content that offers something interesting, engaging and useful to my fans. Dubai Lynx is a wonderful opportunity to be inspired and I’m delighted to be onstage with Odience Media who are driving change,” she said.

Raha Moharrak, youngest Saudi female to climb Mt. Everest, will also speak at the event.
Dubai Lynx is the region’s top event for the creative communications industry to learn and network. The 2017 festival takes place at the Madinat Jumeirah, Dubai.

By Keyhan Barzegar

Donald Trump’s ascension to the White House has prompted a new round of antagonism against Iran. The new US President has announced that he would walk out or renegotiate the nuclear deal, trying to restrict Iran’s influence in the Middle East and isolate the country through fresh sanctions. What policies should Iran adopt under the new circumstances?

The main goal of Trump’s policies against Iran is a DeObamazation of the US regional policies. Ex-president Barack Obama wanted to prevent Iran’s nuclear program from entering a weaponization phase and to attract Iran’s cooperation on regional issues in return for the nuclear deal. Understanding Iran’s significance in the region, he did his best to control Iran through its involvement in the Middle East. Trump however wants to end the policy and return to US’ conventional policy, that is, to control Iran through sanctions and threats.

In recent decades, controlling Iran’s power in the region has been the main axis in US’ Middle East policy. Emphasis on the issue is based on a prevailing strategic approach in the US, which considers maintaining equilibrium among major ME powers the best way to protect US’ interests and security.

Iran’s active role in the fight against terrorism and extremism exercised by the IS and al-Qaeda, and its nuclear deal with world powers has augmented its regional influence more than ever. Obama and his State Secretary John Kerry repeatedly stressed that the nuclear deal was, beyond proliferation, a turning point for the resolution of wider regional issues. Finding that the best way to handle Iran’s influence in the region was to encourage its involvement in major regional issues, particularly in the Syrian crisis, the Obama administration turned away from George W. Bush’s policy of sanctions and threats. The shift worried US’ traditional allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and even Egypt, so much so that each of these countries, through its own specific method, called on the US to restrict Iran’s role.

On the other hand, the unprecedented growth of terrorism in the region, convinced the US and other global powers like Europeans, Russia, China, Japan, and India of the necessity for Iran’s participation in the regional order. In other words, Iran’s integration in regional issues was effectively caused by a geopolitical urge among the powers to prevent the spread of instability and extremism in the Middle East, which had wreaked great havoc on their interests, including an immigration rush, citizens who joined terrorist groups, trade, and energy.

Even though the Obama administration wisely tried to create a balance between the nuclear deal and Iran’s regional role, selling the deal and cooperation with Iran as something in the interest of US allies in the region, the political and bureaucratic structure in the US was stronger than to let the paradigm shift become fully realized. That resembles the scenario in which US allies like Japan, South Korea, and India were frustrated with US policies years after President Nixon’s deal with China in the 1970s.

Attacking Obama’s legacy, Trump has once again resorted to the old method employed by US conservatives, i.e. to use pressure in order to control Iran. He emphasizes that no option is taken off the table, implying the possibility of a military invasion against Iran.

The main problem with Trump’s policy toward Iran is the reduction of Iran relations to the nuclear deal and an absolute negligence of the Iran’s significant role in regional issues and the fight against terrorism.

But the success of Trump’s policy faces two major problems: how to fight terrorism and how to persuade other world powers. As far as terrorism is concerned, Trump has declared its foreign policy priority to be preserving US security through war with extremism in collaboration with Russia, particularly in Syria.

However, the truth is that the coalition among Iran, Russia, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon plays the main role on the ground and in the air as far as weakening ISIS, the al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups is concerned. And there is no doubt that Iran is the lynchpin of the coalition, providing ground contact. Seen in this light, Russia will not succeed in advancing peace plans in Syria and the fight against terrorism without Iran. Therefore, Trump’s likely rapprochement with Russia, aimed to isolate Iran in the region as some analysts have pointed out, will eventually fail. This will make Trump’s slogan of the fight against terrorism appear empty to American voters.

On the other hand, world powers like Europeans, Russia, China, and others agree on commitment to and legitimacy of the nuclear deal and the necessity for Iran’s involvement to participate and cooperate in regional crises and the fight against terrorism and extremism. It is in the same line that they constantly call for détente between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

If Trump fails to create balance between the nuclear deal and Iran’s regional role, it will cause further distrust on the part of Iran on the efficiency of collective collaboration in the region. This will doubtlessly cause rifts in US’ international position, because, more than anything, it will challenge multilateral cooperation for sustainable security and stability, encouraged by the world community.

Trump’s policy of reconsidering the nuclear deal will start a new era of bilateral political-security blocs (Saudi-US or US-Russia for instance) in the region, which will sure be seen by third parties, like Iran, to be against their interests.

Last but not least, the truth is that Trump’s policies in the Syrian crisis, the nuclear deal, ties with Russia, China, and regional allies like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and even the fight against terrorism have remained mere slogans and failed to turn into specific strategies. The American bureaucratic, political, and media structure is now vehemently standing against implementation and internalization of such policies.

In such circumstances, the best policy for Iran is to increase its legitimacy by keeping its international commitments under the nuclear deal. On the other hand, relying on its national power and geopolitical advantage, the country should adopt an innovative, multilateral approach in order to play an even more active role in the fight against terrorism and the resolution of regional crises. If so, Trump will definitely fail to form a new anti-Iran coalition based on the nuclear dossier and terrorism.

*Source: Ir-Diplomacy 

Common wisdom has it that ultimately failed or troubled popular revolts in 2011 in the Middle East and North Africa have sparked bloody civil wars and violent extremism, and given autocracy a new lease on life.

Indeed, there is no denying that a brutal civil war in Syria has killed hundreds of thousands and dislocated millions. Iraq, like Syria, is seeking to defeat the Islamic State (IS), the most vicious jihadist movement in recent history. Sectarianism and religious supremacism is ripping apart the fabric of societies in the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond.

Yet, the legacy of the 2011 revolts is not simply massive violence, brutal jihadism, and choking repression. In fact, the revolts kicked off an era of change, one that is ugly, destabilizing, violent and unpredictable, and that may not lead any time soon to more liberal, let alone democratic rule.

It is an era that is buffeted by autocrats’ need to push diversification of their economies and economic reform that involves a radical rewriting of social contracts. It also involves the need to upgrade autocracy to ensure sustainable economic change. That means making repressive rule more palatable by broadening the margins of acceptable social life and behaviour and creating channels for expressions of discontent and frustration.

Change by hook or by crook

Jihadist groups like IS have risen on the back of policies that have excluded or marginalized societal groups, counterrevolutions that have helped reverse advances made in 2011 without producing credible alternatives, mismanagement of expectations in the immediate wake of the popular revolts, and repression of whatever channels existed to express even modest or limited criticism.

IS, like it or not, constitutes a revolutionary force in the sense that it seeks radical and fundamental social, political and economic change. It may not be the kind of change many would want to embrace, but its philosophy thrives in an environment in which alternatives have little opportunity to blossom.

Saudi Arabia, for all its warts, including ideological roots that it shares with jihadism, is like others in the region experimenting with controlled, albeit risky social and economic change. Granted, the purpose of the exercise is to ensure the survival of the ruling Al Saud family. Nonetheless, social change such as greater entertainment opportunities in a culturally austere kingdom, less religious policing, and more opportunities for women, is tangible.

The problem, however, is as detailed in the 2016 Arab Human Development Report (AHDR), that social, economic and political reform is likely to succeed only if freedom to express grievances is guaranteed.

Warning that in the absence of freedoms “some Arabs would eventually resort to violence, with dire consequences,” the report noted that “the events of 2011 and their ramifications are the outcome of public policies over many decades that gradually led to the exclusion of large sectors of the population from economic, political and social life, depriving many people of appropriate health care, good educations and suitable livelihoods.”

A recipe for disaster

Little has changed in much of the Middle East and North Africa. The youth bulge is bulging with youth accounting for one third of the Arab world’s population. Employment prospects are limited and likely to deteriorate in the coming years.

“In the Arab region, the policies and laws that regulate the labour market hinder the growth of jobs in a manner that matches demographic growth and the needs of market. This affects youth in particular and prevents the economic empowerment of youth. The prevalence of nepotism and reliance on social connections play a large role in the distribution of the limited available jobs, prompting young people who are looking for jobs to depend on social relationships and family ties,” the report said.

Opportunities for political engagement are even more restricted. In short, issues that drove the 2011 revolts are six years later even more prevalent. Counter-revolutions have rolled back whatever openings were created by the uprisings and engineered situations in which civil war, brutality and political violence set the tone. It amounts to a recipe for disaster in an environment in which state-encouraged sectarianism, supremacist religious ideology, violence and repression create an explosive mix.

The writing is on the wall. The failure of governments to deliver leads many to increasingly stress religious, sectarian or tribal rather than national identities. Many young people have a sense of having been marginalized. The result is a hardening of battle lines. Fifteen years ago, five Arab countries were mired in conflict, today the number is eleven and increasing.

On the surface of things, the counterrevolution, the war in Syria, and the hard-handed policies of secret police and law enforcement have stifled appetite for protest in many Arab countries. Yet, much like in the walk-up to 2011, discontent is simmering. That does not mean that it by definition will erupt. It may not or perhaps more likely be sparked by an unpredictable black swan.

Protest in cycles

The AHDR charts a five-year cycle in the life of protest movements in the Arab world. Each cycle proves to be more volatile than its predecessor. IS is one expression of that. Youth “may prefer more direct, more violent means, especially if they are convinced that existing mechanisms for participation and accountability are useless,” the report warns.

At the bottom line, the counterrevolution coupled with autocratic attempts to ensure a continuation of the fundamental status quo with upgrades and limited reforms harbours the seeds of a next cycle of a push for change.

A survey by the United Nation’s Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) put the cost of armed conflict in the Arab world at $613.8 billion in lost economic activity and a $243.1 billion in fiscal deficits.

Decades of economic cronyism, lower productivity, reduced investment with the exception of the energy and real estate sectors, the choking of channels to express discontent, and greater emphasis on the repressive arms of the state at the expense of strengthening institutions make autocratic upgrades less likely to succeed and heighten the role of violence in efforts to force change.

Violence does not connote the end of what many believe to have been a short-lived effort to achieve change. It also does not mark an end to a short-lived Arab era of defiance and dissent. Instead, it serves as an indicator of how far Arab regimes are willing to go to ensure their survival and raises the cost of inevitable change.

The Arab world is since 2011 in transition, albeit one that is likely to continue to be bloody and brutal. It may well be a transition in cycles, some of which may be regressive rather than progressive on Lenin’s principle of two step forwards, one step backwards. What is nevertheless clear is that the status quo ante is history and change is the name of the game.

This story first ran on Mobilizing Ideas, a blog of the The Center for the Study of Social Movements at the University of Notre Dame