By R. Upadhyay

The Union Human Resources Development Minister Prakash Javedkar while inaugurating the 20th All India Urdu Book fair (Bhiwandi-Mumbai) on December 17, 2016 said that India won’t progress if one section of society (read Muslims) does not get good education. The Minister however, didn’t elaborate the reason as to why this section of Indian society lagged behind in getting good education despite equal opportunites provided to them since Independence.

When a delegation of Muslim leaders met the Prime Minister Modi on January 19, 2017; it eulogised him for his performance so far but didn’t talk about the need for good educational opportunities for the Indian Muslims. Instead of putting forward some constructive suggestions for good education to their community, all they did was to appreciate Saudi government’s decision to increase the quota of Haj pilgrims from India.

History

The history of Indian Muslims is so complex that their isolation from the national mainstream particularly good education and consequent socio-psychological confusion remained a puzzle for social scientists. A study on the factual developments related to this distinct and a unique religio-social group may help the reader to draw the right conclusions.

After partition, a sizeable section of Muslims chose to stay back for good reasons in a democratic and secular India. But then they made the mistake of turning to their religious leaders for guidance in social, educational and political development. Even Maulana Abul Kalam Azad as a first education minister in democratic and secular India did not take the initiative to encourage the community to go for mainstream education. This resulted in the Islamist priestly community gaining an upper hand on religious/madrassa education.

The Muslim bourgeoisie too supported the religious leaders as they saw this an opportunity to use the community as a vote bank to bargain with other political classes not for the benefit of the community but for their own selfish ends to get access to power centres. The Muslim Clerics were equally clear about the objectives of keeping the flock together with a separate identity for their own selfish ends. Thus the interests of the clerics and the Muslim political class converged to keep a stranglehold on the community with a separate identity to be used for their selfish ends and not for the welfare of the community as a whole. Add to this, the mind set of those descendants of the former ruling class and the converts from the upper castes who preferred to call themselves ‘Muslim Indians”- (read Muslim first and Indian later) who in league with the priestly class looked upon the common people of the community to be used as foot soldiers of Islam.

It is this group that kept the community as a separate class from the so called Qafirs. With a binary approach of Muslims and Qafirs they succeeded in keeping the people of the community away from common education with the mainstream people.

Post Independence

A look in the life and politics of post-Independence Muslim Indians suggests that they are solely responsible for hampering educational, social and political progress of Indian Muslims by discouraging them to be truly modern. One good example how the vote bank politics boomeranged on the community was their failure in 2014 Lok Sabha election when not a single Muslim was elected from Uttar Pradesh – a State that has over 20 percent Muslims.!

The disturbed socio-political Hindu-Muslim relation in India as we see today is nothing but the historical legacy of the enslaved mindset of Indian Muslims being carried forward from generation to generation. The answer to their problem of so-called religious identity as often highlighted by the leadership in the community therefore, solely lies in their freedom from the grip of Islamic radicals. Ironically, even the contemporary Muslim ‘liberals’ have not made any concerted and unified efforts to rectify this historical wrong.

Historically, the movement to keep the Indian Muslims under siege dates back to the last decade of sixteenth century when the great Mogul Emperor Akbar’s religious ‘liberalism’ started decaying. Starting from Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi (1564- 1624) and followed by Muslim thinkers like Shah Wali Ullah (1704-1762), Saiyid Ahmad Barelavi (1786-1831), Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan(1817-98), Mohammad Allama Iqbal (1873/76-1938) and others the movement for a separate Muslim identity which is basically synonymous to separate political identity remained a permanent feature of the Muslim society in India.

Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi (1564- 1624)

Sarhindi a hardcore Sunni Muslim and an eminent Islamic mystic of his time strongly rejected the ‘heterodoxies’ of the great Mogul Emperor Akbar and made a major contribution towards rehabilitation of orthodox Islam in India. He tried to influence the courtiers of Akbar and continued his tirade against the Hindus as well as Shia Muslims aggressively when Jahangir ascended the throne of Delhi. Widely known for his letters written in Persian not only to his disciples but also to the influential Muslims in the court of Jahangir, he succeeded in exercising great influence in turning the heterodoxies of Akbar to orthodoxies, which were pursued by all the subsequent Mogul rulers from Jahangir to Aurangzeb. His tomb at Sarhind in Patiala is still an object of veneration (Islamic Encyclopaedia, Vol. I, Page297).

Shah Wali Ullah (1704-1762)

Under the influence of Sarhindi’s writings Shah Wali Ullah another Islamist mystic who claimed his lineage from Quraysh tribe of Prophet Mohammad and of Umar, the second caliph was found more concerned with the political disorder after the death of Aurangzeb. The political rise of non-Muslims like Maratha, Jat and Sikh powers which led to the fading glory of Muslim power and consequent danger to Islam and its political heritage was unbearable to Shah Wali Ullah. The slogan of ‘Islam is in danger’ – was profoundly embedded to his hate-non-Muslim ideology. His religio-political thought that was based on the ‘Persio -Islamic theory of kingship’ (Shah Wali Allah and his Time by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, page 397) was the basis of the ideology of his political Islam. A great Muslim thinker and promoter of one of the most emotional chapters of Islamic revivalist movements in Indian subcontinent his political thought had brought the Indian Muslims under perpetual siege of Islamic orthodoxy. He wanted the Muslim masses to return to the Prophet era for the political unity of the then Muslim rulers for Islamic sovereignty in the sub-continent. His invitation to Ahmad Shah Abdali, the king of Afghanistan to fight against the Marathas to save the subjugation of Muslims by the Hindus vindicates his hate-Hindu ideology. In his letter to the Abdali he said, “…All control of power is with the Hindus because they are the only people who are industrious and adaptable. Riches and prosperity are theirs, while Muslims have nothing but poverty and misery. At this juncture you are the only person, who has the initiative, the foresight, the power and capability to defeat the enemy and free the Muslims from the clutches of the infidels. God forbid if their domination continues, Muslims will even forget Islam and become undistinguishable from the non-Muslims” (Dr. Sayed Riaz Ahmad in his book ‘Maulana Maududi and Islamic state’ – Lahore People’s Publishing House, page 15 – 1976). He translated the writings of Sarhindi from Persian to Arabic to inspire the Muslim Indians and sowed the seed of the separate political identity and Muslim separatism in a Hindu-majority India.

Being proud of his Arab origin Wali Ullah was strongly opposed to integration of Islamic culture in the cultural cauldron of the sub-continent and wanted the Muslims to ensure their distance from it. “Waliullah did not want the Muslims to become part of the general milieu of the sub-continent. He wanted them to keep alive their relation with rest of the Muslim world so that the spring of their inspiration and ideals might ever remain located in Islam and tradition of world community developed by it”. (The Muslim Community of Indo-Pakistan subcontinent by Istiaq Hussain Qureshi, 1985, Ibid. page 216).

The most significant contribution of Wali Ullah (Allah) for his community is that his teachings kept alive the religious life of Indian Muslims linked with their inner spirit for re-establishment of Islamic political authority in India. It was the political theory of Wali ullah that kept the Indian Muslims deprived from a forward-looking vision and good education.

Saiyid Ahmad Barelavi (1786-1831)

Waliullh’s son Abd al Aziz (1746-1823) carried forward the legacy of his father, used his disciple Saiyid Ahmad Barelavi (1786-1831) of Rai Bareli for execution of the jehadi spirit of the faith propounded by Waliullah and Sunni extremism of Maulana Wahab of Saudi Arabia. Accordingly, Barelvi launched jehad against the non-Islamic power of the Sikh kingdom of Ranjit Singh with a view to restore Dar-ul-Islam (A land, where Islam is having political power). Though, he was killed in the battle of Balkot in May 1831, Indian Muslims continue to regard him as martyr for the cause of Islam. Tired with their failures in re-establishing Muslim rule the followers of the jehadi spirit of faith kept their movement in suspended animation for decades due to the firm grip the British established on this country.

After the failure of the Sepoy mutiny in 1857, the demoralised Muslim radicals lost all hopes to restore Islamic power in India and launched an institutionalised Islamic movement.They founded Islamic institutions like Darul-Ulum at Deoband and Darul Uloom Nadwatul Ulama at Lucknow which have been carrying forward the legacy of the religio-political concept of Wahab and Waliullah. Farangi Mahall was already founded at Lucknow during the period of Mogul Emperor Aurangzeb. These institutions, which continue to draw students “mainly from the starving Muslim peasantry and working lower middle classes” (Deoband School and Demand for Pakistan by Faruqi, page 40) are the representative bodies of Muslim proletariat. Leave aside the restoration of Islamic polity, these theological seminaries are today producing thousands of unemployed or under employed Islamic clerics without caring for their material prosperity.

In the absence of any scope for re-interpretation of religion for democratic, secular, scientific, industrial and modern condition of the society, common Muslims do not see beyond mosques and madrasas. These institutions have therefore, succeeded in producing only self-proclaimed holy warriors of their jehadi faith. In the name of preserving the cultural identity of the Muslims these holy warriors are in fact serving the cause of self-seeking Muslim elite.

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-98)

Parallel to the Islamic revival movement through institutionalised theological education, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-98), a Mogul scion and loyalist to British power launched a unique Muslim separatist movement popularly known as Aligarh movement with a political and educational ideology with an objective to provide modern education to Indian Muslims. Though, a staunch believer in Sunni order of Islam, his outlook took a decisive change after the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857 when he had personally witnessed the sufferings of his community members at the hands of the British. Deeply aggrieved with the plight of Muslim Indians and “acutely sensitive to the ending of Mogul dominance”, his ambition was to restore the lost pride of his community. Widely known as founder of Islamic modernism in India his tactical move was to bring the Muslims into the confidence of the British to continue the dominance of the community over the Hindus who were the subjects of the Islamic rulers. He even convinced the British rulers that the two major religious communities of India were not capable of unity. (Hali’s Hayat-e-Javed, translated by K.H.Kadari and David Matthews, 1979, page 199, Idarh-e-adabiyat-e-Delhi Qasimjan Street, Delhi – Quoted from Pioneer dated 20.10 2004 in a letter to editor column by Roopa Kaushal). His loyalty to the British throne continued till his death.

Inspired with the ‘hate-Hindu campaign’ of Shaikh Sarhind, Shah Wai-Ullah and Ahmad Barelavi , Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan believed in tactical moderation of Islam and formulated the two-nation theory. Through scientific and modern education to Muslims his movement produced a sizeable section of Muslim middle class with doctors, engineers, scientists and scholars of modern subjects. This new class of Muslim however, also came under the influence of the fundamentalist forces, worked as the fighting force for Muslim elite and gradually succeeded in besieging the mindset of common Muslim masses. Strongly opposing the formation of Indian National Congress in 1885 on the plea that it was a Hindu dominated organisation Ahmad Khan prevented the Muslim elite from joining it. A noted Muslim scholar M.R.A.Baig also observed:

“Being a descendant of high Mogul officials, he emotionally could not accept that Muslims should be ruled by their former subjects (Read Hindus). He also feared that Hindu rule will result in the imposition of Aryo-Dravidian culture on the Muslim Perso-Arabic civilisation” (The Muslim Dilemma in India by M.R.A. Baig – page 51-52). Restoring confidence among the despairing Muslims of his age he is largely regarded “as a forerunner of Pakistan”.

Internationally known historian R.C.Majumdar in his book ‘Struggle for Freedom’ (Page 127, 1969) maintained:”Aligarh movement gradually alienated the Muslims from the Hindus in the political field…..The anti-Hindu feeling was conspicuously shown in the Muslims’ attitude towards Indian National Congress since its very inception”. He added, “the spirit of Syed Ahmad dominated the Muslims who with rare exceptions, regarded themselves as Muslim first and Indian afterwards” (Ibid. Page 152). He quoted Sir Percival Griffiths, ICS, who “stressed the Muslim belief that their interest must be regarded as completely separate from those of the Hindus, and that no fusion of the two communities was possible”(Ibid. Page153). “Middle class Muslim nationalism sabotaged the natural process of electoral democratisation”(Ameena A.Saeed in an interview in Times of India dated November 29, 2003).

The educational ideology of Sir Sayed Khan provoked a violent reaction from Islamic orthodoxy but his followers gradually overcame this problem. Aligarh Muslim University, a citadel of Muslim Middle class played a major role in Pakistan movement under the guidance of Muslim elite. The then Muslim leadership used this new class to strengthen the siege of Islamic orthodoxy over the common Muslims with the ultimate objective to achieve its political hegemony.

Allama Iqbal as Ideological Father of Pakistan

Allama Iqbal (1873/76-1938) widely known as a romantic and Indian nationalist poet of Muslim awakening in India. He however, experienced a “mental crisis” after his return from Europe in the first decade of nineteenth century when he used his intellectual brilliance only to strengthen the grip of All India Muslim League over Muslim masses. His spiritual and political guidance to his community for a separate Muslim state served as bedrock for demand for Pakistan. He is therefore, called ‘spiritual father of Pakistan’.

“Iqbal combines many contradictory trends in himself; his verses could serve both conservatives and progressives as weapons”(Encyclopaedia of Islam, Brill, Volume III, page 1059). “He stood for going ahead with the Quran and revival of Islamic polity without realising how the simple polity of earlier Islam was incompatible with the complexities of modern civilisation”. “He attempted to provide a systematic Islamic base to the socio-political ideas of Indian Muslims”. (Politics of Minorities by Moin Shakir, 1980, Ajanta Publication, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi, page142). His romantic ideas meant for reviving the interest of elite Muslim Indians to hypnotise the common Indian Muslims and subordinate them to the former. “Everything was made subordinate to the interest of ruling elite; science, philosophy, democracy, constitution and fundamental rights of equality and liberty were subservient to the exploiting class” (Ibid.).

Politicising the two-nation theory of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Iqbal also failed to assimilate his liberal thought with the global concept of democracy and could not free himself from the medieval moorings of Islam. He propagated the political solidarity of Muslims on the basis of religion, which fulfilled the political ambition of a section of Muslim elite who got independent power in Pakistan after partition of the country. Indian Muslims who supported the thesis of Iqbal but stayed back in India got nothing but only demoralisation and a betrayal of their leaders. But instead of taking any lesson from such betrayal there was hardly any change in their behaviour as they didn’t put any resistance against the multiplication of madrasas in post-colonial India, gave chance to the Islamist clerics to tighten their grip on the community and thereby kept away the latter from good education.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, through the ages from Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi to Shah Waliullah and from Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan to Sir Allama Iqbal the Indian Muslims have devolved themselves to maintain a separate identity. On the other hand, the few ‘secular’ Muslim intellectuals in post-Independence India who could have arrested the trend, failed to do so and allowed the Mullahs and the Muslim elites to rule and maintain a separate identity for the community.

In fact, there is no dearth of Muslim intellectuals who write about this bitter truth even today but it is an irony that they hardly speak assertively when they face Muslim congregations. They often quote the address of Maulam Azad to the demoralised Indian Muslims in front of Jama Masjid after partition but they never assert to ensure that the Indian Muslims are freed from their medieval mindset and grip of Muslim Indians. If they are genuinely serious with conviction, they should launch an assertive movement and intellectual jehad to generate collective concern among the Muslim leaders to free the masses from the siege of the Ulema.

This is possible only if all the theological seminaries are converted into educational institutions to impart modern and scientific education with a paper preferably optional on theological subject. Will this ever happen? Will the entrenched class allow modern education for the community? This is a serious issue that needs to be debated openly and fearlessly.

Arab Parliament Speaker Dr. Mishaal bin Fahm Al-Salami said he has decided to dispatch a correspondence calling on the British House of Commons to cancel the 100th celebration of Balfour Declaration, as it provokes the Arab world especially amid Israel’s constant rejection for all peaceful solutions for the Palestinian Cause and the establishment of the State of Palestine.

Salami told Asharq Al-Awsat that a request will be submitted during a meeting held in Bangladesh aiming to suspend Israel’s membership in the International Parliament, and noted that sessions of the Arab Parliament for this year have been themed “Jerusalem is Arab”.

He also warned from the dangers of threatening Arab national security driven by conflicts and wars in some countries, mainly in Syria, Libya, and Yemen, which affect the stability and security of the Arab world. He called on Iran to waive the Arab territories it has occupied, to stop it efforts to ignite sectarian discords, and to respect the sovereignty of its neighboring countries.

Salami said the Arab Parliament has a reconciliation committee working on diffusing the reconciliation culture, stating that many of the Arab world’s problems can be solved as part of the Arab League or through initiatives among Arab countries – he revealed that serious efforts are being made in this regard and results will be announced soon.

As per US intentions to move their embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Salami stressed the Arab identity of the city saying that it is the capital of Palestine and considered that such a step will undermine all efforts to reach a peaceful solution.

He also revealed that he intends to hold official talks with the international parliament on this matter.

Concerning the Iranian dilemma, he urged the Arab parliament for a unified position concerning Tehran’s interference in the Arab world, as Iran has occupied many Arab territories and has destabilized many states, mainly Bahrain and Yemen.

The speaker stated that many official complaints were submitted to the UN Security Council on the Iranian intervention, not only in political issues but also through the armament of some groups.

Commenting on the US JASTA bill, Salami said the Arab Parliament has coordinated with other international parliaments on this matter since it targets many countries and considered it a shameful law that threatens global security and stability.

Salami told the political committee in the parliament that he has worked and tracked all cases concerning Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and Palestine. He stated that a Parliamentary session will be held in mid-April to adopt the decisions expected to be taken at the Jordan summit on March 29.

The summit will focus on economic integration, he said, hoping it would also tackle Arab national security.

Original article

By Dr. S. Chandrasekharan

Media reports indicate that India has agreed to attend the next session of Indus Water Commission on March 20-21 2017 to be held at Lahore. This will be the 113th session of the Commission and the meeting is being held in Pakistan this time as mandated in the Treaty.

The Indian media has started reading too much into the meeting and the change of mind of India. This change is presumed to be the result of the softening of stand in Pakistan and of all things invitation to Indian Artists to the two art and cultural festivals at Karachi and Lahore is being cited as one of the reasons. Nothing could be farther from truth than this. Worse, the media has even speculated that this will pave the way for the two Prime Ministers to meet on the sidelines during the Shanghai Cooperation meeting in June this year!

Following the September Terror strike at Uri last year, India had decided to suspend the talks and also declared that it would review the Indus Water Treaty. Article VIII of the Indus Water Treaty states that the Indus Water Commission must meet once a year alternatively in India and Pakistan.

The Indian announcement was only about suspension of the talks and not the abrogation of the treaty as such. Yet while a review of the treaty internally was welcome and justified, the suspension of talks was wrong and against the rules laid down in the treaty. To say now that “India is always open to settling issues relating to the pact with Pakistan bilaterally” makes no sense as the pact is purely bilateral and the World Bank was only a facilitator and not a guarantor.

In a way it was good that the Indus Water Treaty came into focus once again after the terror strikes in Uri. Pakistan appears to have been rattled by the Indian decision after the review that India would fully utilise the rivers flowing through Jammu and Kashmir and exercise India’s full rights under the pact. This statement was long over due and instead of making empty threats, what is needed is to go ahead in building the infra structure necessary to implement the pact to the full. The pact is not flawless as it totally ignores the needs of Jammu and Kashmir. Yet this was the only way that the Indus Waters could have been shared and what was lacking was India’s failure to fully utilise what is legitimately her’s.

Pakistan cannot export terror on one hand and expect India to reciprocate by being generous. It is time to sensitize both the Indian public and the strategic analysts of the importance of the treaty.

One is not surprised by the vehemence of protests from Pakistan both at official and unofficial levels. It may be recalled that Pakistan had arranged in the past protests by the Pak. sponsored Jihadists at the time of the visits of Indian delegation during the meetings of the Indus Water Commission that India was “stealing the waters” that should legitimately go to Pakistan!

Pakistan has been systematically and some times frivolously raising series of technical objections on every project that is being planned on the Indian side. Besides the two projects Kishenganga and Ratle (refer our paper 6226), objections have also been raised on three other projects- Pakal Dul (1000MW), Miyar (120 MW) and Lower Kalnai (48 MW) all on Chenab river. In the disputes already settled by the neutral experts on the Baglihar and Kishenganga, it has been established that India is entitled to exploit the “western rivers” flowing into Pakistan for generation of hydro power.

It is suspected that Pakistan’s regular objections to the Indian build schemes under the pact is more to hide and divert their people’s attention from the mismanagement of the dwindling water resources and more seriously the unequal sharing of waters among the provinces. The lower riparian Sind Province is said to be not getting its legitimate quota of water while Punjab the upper riparian takes the major share!

It is in this connection that one should welcome the book “Indus Divided” by Prof. Daniel Haines of Bristol University who appears to have done considerable research on the Indus Water Treaty. Prof. Haines focusses on modern environmental history.

The author maintains that the Indus Water Treaty was a boldly unique solution and this could not be replicated anywhere else, although for a while the US toyed with the idea of applying the same principle of dividing the rivers than the waters in the dispute of sharing Ganga waters with the then East Pakistan.

One should recall that David Lilenthal of Tennesse Valley Authority who was instrumental in getting Indus Treaty hoped that solving Indus Water Sharing “was a necessary first step on the way to a Kashmiri settlement.” It was too simplistic a view and was not perhaps aware of many deep-rooted layers of conflicts between the two countries. Prof. Haines has also disabused the theory that Kashmir dispute is all about Pakistan trying to get control of the head waters of the rivers flowing into Pakistan.

One of the comments from the Pakistan on the book was that the book “highlights the fundamental place that Indus Waters have had in Pakistan and Indian politics since 1947″.

I wish it had been so but it was not. At least now, it should be-So that Pakistan is made to realise as PM Modi had said that Blood and Water do not go together

Dear Congressman Conyers,

Some of us are wondering why the 64 members of the House who have signed on to HR 676 – the single payer/full Medicare for all legislation – have not individually or collectively put this proposal on the table. Since the media is all over the drive by the Republicans to replace or repair or revoke Obamacare, there is an obvious opening to make HR 676 part of the national and Washington dialogue. After all, this proposal is more comprehensive, more humane, more efficient and greatly simpler for the millions of Americans who are fed up with complexity and trap door fine-print. Your 64 or more cosigners come from around the country, where they can make news locally on a health insurance policy that is supported by about 60 percent of the American people, according to a recent Pew survey. When 60 percent of the American people can support single payer without a major effort to publicize and support it by the Democratic Party, that’s a pretty good start wouldn’t you say?

In today’s Wall Street Journal, no friend of single payer, the lengthy lead editorial closes with these words: “The healthcare market is at a crossroads. Either it heads in a more market-based direction step by step or it moves toward single-payer step by step. If Republicans blow this chance and default to Democrats, they might as well endorse single-payer because that is where the politics will end up.”

Do the Wall Street Journal corporatist editorial writers have more faith in the energy and initiative of the cosigners of your bill than the cosigners of your bill do?

At long last, let’s get going on HR 676 besides nominal support by its cosigners.

Sincerely yours,

Ralph Nader

A normal president and a normal White House respond to facts or arguments they disagree with other verifiable facts and arguments that make their case.

But Trump and his White House don’t argue on the merits. They attack the credibility of the institutions that come up with inconvenient facts and arguments.

They even do it preemptively. Last Thursday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer warned the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office couldn’t trusted to come up with accurate numbers about the costs and coverage of the Republican’s replacement for the Affordable Care Act.

“If you’re looking at the CBO for accuracy, you’re looking in the wrong place,” he said.

Bear in mind the director of the CBO is a Republican economist and former George W. Bush administration official who was chosen for his position by the Republican Congress in 2015.

Attacking the credibility of an institution that delivers unwelcome data has a long-term cost: It undermines the capacity of that institution to function in the future.

For more than four decades the U.S. budget process has depended on the CBO’s analyses and forecasts. Under both Republican and Democratic appointees, it’s gained a reputation for honesty. The trumped-up attack will make it less able to do its work in the future.

This has been Trump’s MO.

When as a candidate Trump didn’t like the positive jobs numbers emanating from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, what did he do? He called the official unemployment rate “such a phony number,” “one of the biggest hoaxes in American modern politics” and “the biggest joke there is.”

It’s possible to take issue with the ways the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures unemployment, but why undermine public trust in the Bureau itself?

Spicer has tried to wrap Trump’s institutional attacks in populist garb: “I think [Trump] addressed that in his inaugural speech when he talked about shifting power outside of Washington D.C. back to the American people because for too long it’s been about stats … and it’s been about, what number are we looking at as opposed to what face are we looking at?”

Rubbish. By all means consider real people, real faces, real problems. But the only way we’re going to understand the true dimensions of problems real people face is with data about them from sources the public trusts.

If the public stops believing those sources are reliable, where else can it look? Presumably, only Trump himself.

On a few notable occasions the intelligence agencies at times have been notoriously wrong but over the long haul they’ve been competent and professional – and a president and the American public need their assessments.

So when Trump sends out disparaging tweets with “intelligence” in quotation marks and blames the intelligence agencies for the downfall of his first national security advisor, he’s impairing the ability of these agencies to do their jobs in the future.

When he labels a member of the judiciary who stopped his original travel ban a “so-called judge,” and attacks the appellate judges who uphold the stay as a judicial system “so political” it’s not “able to read a statement and do what’s right,” Trump isn’t just disputing their specific findings. He’s calling into question the legitimacy of the judicial branch of government.

When the press disputes Trump’s claims – that millions attended his inauguration, he won by a landslide, the election was marred by massive voter fraud, undocumented immigrants account for a disproportionate number of crimes – he doesn’t respond with data to back up his assertions.

Instead he calls the press “the enemy of the American people,” “dishonest,” purveyors of “fake news,” and “the opposition party,” and he questions their motives (they “have their own agenda, and it’s not your agenda, and it’s not the country’s agenda.”)

When pollsters show Trump has a low approval rating, he doesn’t say he expects the rating to improve. He attacks the pollsters, asserting “any negative polls are fake news.”

When scientists come up with conclusion he disagrees with, he doesn’t offer other sources of scientific data. He attacks science.

Trump thinks climate change is a hoax. His new head of the Environmental Protection Agency said last Wednesday that climate change isn’t caused by human activity.

What does the Trump administration do? It tells EPA staffers to remove pages from the EPA’s website concerning climate change, and threatens to review all the agency’s data and publications, and cuts the budgets of all scientific research in government.

Trump and his administration aren’t just telling big lies. They’re also waging war on the institutions we depend on as sources of truth.

In so doing, they’re undermining the basic building blocks of American democracy.

Shame on them.

By Hunter Lewis*

The Republicans have a problem. Healthcare prices are so swollen by government imposed monopolies that most people cannot possibly afford to pay the crazy bills without subsidies. What to do?

Example: my son recently went to an out-of-state emergency room for food poisoning. The bill came in at over $8,000. And how is this for fairness: our insurance company knocked it down to about $4,000. An uninsured person would have been liable for the full amount. Might even have faced bankruptcy for failure to pay it.

I personally lobbied for a provision in Obamacare preventing hospitals for charging the uninsured more than the insured. Obama said no. Why? Because the idea upset the hospitals. They wanted to be able to continue to exploit the uninsured. Whew. What does that tell us about Obama?

Under these circumstances, average people cannot possibly pay their medical bills unassisted. Yet if you repeal Obamacare by imposing new price controls and subsidies, in other words, pour old, spoiled wine into new bottles, you just perpetuate the problem. So what to do?

Prices can never be reduced by price controls, much less by price controls on government imposed monopoly prices. Most people do not realize that the government, through Medicare, has fixed medical prices for half a century and the results speak for themselves. At the same time, government has fed price increases by protecting monopolies set up by the drug companies and the American Medical Association. This is what government always does, and it wrecks any sector of the economy where this crony capitalist system is applied.

The only way to get prices down is to get supply up. That automatically does the job. The only way to get supply up is to free prices and markets so that suppliers have an incentive to provide more supply, improved supply, and above all, innovative forms of supply. The opportunity to compete for profit in a genuine market will in short order start to bring more and better supply with lower prices.

This market system, well known by now, is how automobiles, which were once a luxury item for the rich, became affordable for the masses, or at least affordable until recently, when crony capitalism again began to push them out of the reach of even the middle class. In a similar way, the market system brought computers from down from costing millions in today’s money to something that most households can still afford. The key is to create a system in which sellers have to compete with one another for the dollar of the consumer. To make this work, the consumer must be in charge, not the insurance companies and other agents of government. Only a consumer controlled market can do this.

What to do in the meantime? Isn’t it obvious that millions of people will be stranded without medical coverage while this transition is taking place? There are three ways to handle this. One is to pull the subsidies decisively. That would cause a great deal of suffering, but it would not take long for the market to correct the problem. The pain would be intense but short. On the other side of it, healthcare would be affordable without subsidies for most, and charity would have to fill in when needed. The second way would be to keep existing subsidies, but cut them every single year by at least 10%. Legislate their extinction by the end of the period. A third, and utterly self-defeating approach would be to create a new set of subsidy entitlements and controls to replace the old ones.

Let’s be clear. A phase out is not a statutory cliff, a fantasy that politicians love to create. A cliff is created when subsidies do not decline gradually by statute year by year, but instead suddenly disappear all at once at the end of some imaginary period. Everyone knows what that means. It means the government will eventually blink and reinstate the subsidies, which will just set off more price increases that will quickly consume the subsidies, leading to calls for ever more of them. It is a vicious circle with which we are all too familiar, not only in healthcare, but in education and elsewhere. Of course the principal defect of a phase out is that other politicians can stop it at any time in the future anyway. A phase out would represent the triumph of hope over experience.

Let’s hope Congress has the sense to get government out of control of healthcare. Only a consumer controlled market with freedom for provider to compete can work this magic. Together providers and consumers will drive prices down so low that today’s subsidies will in retrospect seem unimaginable.

So far what we have seen from Paul Ryan in the House is not encouraging. He not only keeps a government mandate on what must be covered in an insurance policy ( the kitchen sink), which will make policies unaffordable for most. He even maintains federal subsidies for insurance companies. And he introduces a brand new price fixing scheme.  Ryan has certainly revealed himself to be a foe of free markets and a fan of crony arrangements, notwithstanding his rhetoric to the contrary.

About the author:
*Hunter Lewis is author of nine books, including Where Keynes Went Wrong, Free Prices Now! and Crony Capitalism in America: 2008-2012. Lewis is co-founder of Against Crony Capitalism.org as well as co-founder and former CEO of Cambridge Associates, a global investment firm.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

Among all bilateral ties, the ones between the Cold War foes play the most significant place in world politics. Answers to several questions on international tensions could easily be found if one knows the aspects of US-Russia relations. At least for this reason, the relations between these top rival powers needs to be comprehended properly.

Donald Trump is perhaps the only US president who in years since the WW-II never made any criticism of Russia as part of his policy rhetoric. All his predecessors, keeping in view the views of the Neocons and Israeli leadership that speaks through the powerful Jewish leaders in USA, made a special reference to Russian policy to slam that arch rival as a US key position.

Upon the unexpected and rather shocking victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential election there have been ongoing allegations of Russia’s involvement in hacking in the election campaign  supporting Trump and against the “official” candidate Hillary Clinton. This has been emphatically denied by the Russian Government. Even as there is an ongoing debate and controversy, Trump has shrugged off allegations that Russia meddled in the election. Thus even as both Putin and Trump have denied wrongdoing, both seem to have benefited, according to a few critics.

As the Obama White House was battling to stop the master of aggressive rhetoric Donald Trump’s arrival as its custodian, President Putin managed to showcase his leadership quality, often critical, in the media in the USA. Putin has long believed that the United States has sought to manipulate Russia’s political structure, and provided covert support for democratic insurgencies through nongovernmental organizations.
On top of all this is the blatant Russian interference in the recent US national election, clearly aimed along partisan lines against the Democratic Party and its candidate, Secretary Clinton.

Every president at one point or other has said that the USA must reset ties with Russia for creating a genuinely peaceful world. But none has been serious about what they say in public. Trump has alone said it. The Obama regime tried to have a reset with Russia, which ended badly, as well as past efforts of the George W. Bush administration. There are fundamental differences in how the USA and Russia view the world. It is very easy to come to the agreement that they can collaborate on fighting the Islamic State and other emerging threats, but putting these pledges into real actionable policies is quite difficult.

Alliance or enmity?

Today, Russia is becoming a scandal the Trump regime just can’t shake. A steady drip of revelations regarding the Trump team’s communications with Russian officials is dismaying congressional Republicans, as well as Democrats, leading to calls for a more intensive investigation into the circumstances and substance of these connections. In particular, many lawmakers were surprised by a report in The Washington Post that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had twice spoken with the Russian ambassador during the presidential campaign. Some argue that in sworn testimony during his confirmation hearing, Sessions had appeared to say that no such conversations took place.

Trump might not be a thorough politician or authoritative diplomat, but he is well versed in business diplomacy. Putin’s shrewd diplomacy is evident from the fact that (as reported by the Russian press on December 30, 2016) after Trump was elected he opted out of a tit-for-tat retaliation against the USA which under Obama’s government in November 2016 had kicked out 35 Russian officials over allegations of hacking aimed at interfering in the US election, espionage, and harassment of US diplomats in Russia. At any rate this has further helped Trump to hold on to his contention in favor of Putin and improve relations with Russia. As a successful businessman Trump knows he would reap dividends from Russia if ties are strengthened.

President Trump is therefore very interested in trying to figure out a way to improve relations with Russia, while Putin wants all economic sanctions slapped on the Kremlin following the annexation of Crimea, withdrawn. It appears, Trump is not entirely averse to that, but there is a lot of talk in Washington about having a grand bargain with Russia. Trump wants to use Russia to fight ISIS, but Russia wants USA to support Syrian Assad, while  Israel and Neocons warn Trump not to fall into the Kremlin’s trap. Israel is unhappy that the USA has refused to abide by the Zionist demand of attacking Iran.

Throughout the campaign and the initial days of his presidency, Trump has continued to express admiration for President Putin and his desire for warmer relations with Moscow. Though he seemed to backtrack at a press conference in Washington and a weekend rally in Florida, and though Vice President Mike Pence offered boilerplate reassurances at a conference in Munich that Washington intends to hold Russia “accountable” for provocations aimed at undermining NATO and the European Union, Trump himself has clung to his view that closer cooperation with Russia is needed to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism. “If we have a good relationship with Russia, believe me,” he said, “that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.”

President Trump is yet to make up his mind over foreign policy issues. Against this backdrop, there are what the media call “mixed signals” coming from the White House, where Russia, among other topics, is concerned. The president’s attitude (it cannot be called a policy) so far is simply that it is better to have Russia as a friend than as an enemy. The new US secretary of state has been silent to date, while the US ambassador to the United Nations has taken a traditionally critical position concerning Russia’s actions in opposition to the US and its allies. And, perhaps most ominously, senior “strategists” in the White House have signaled, at least indirectly, that they welcome the rise of a right wing, across Western democracies, that identifies with Putin’s nationalism, cultural conservatism, religious orthodoxy, demonization of immigrants and resistance to social toleration.

Given the limited US interests, if the USA were to have some grand bargain with Russia, Central Asia would fall back into the Russian orbit as a place that Trump is not going to focus on. But there is counter-terrorism cooperation between Central Asian states and the USA. Some of the cooperation will remain, but it will be on a limited basis, not on any big initiatives.

Compounding the confusion is the appointment of a secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, whose considerable interactions with Russian officials have all been corporate and commercial. Conflicts in interests are well-known and documented: Russia’s seizure of Crimea and the de facto invasion of eastern Ukraine; tacit pressure on the “near abroad,” especially in the Baltic region; troublesome relations between the Putin regime and expanding western European right-wing political parties; and Russian military and political support for the Assad regime in Syria.

Putin plan?

Putin’s actions indicate he is seeking to make an effort to reestablish the Soviet Union in another form, though the Kremlin continues to deny that. While most former Soviet republics have joined the EU and NATO, even the corrupt Central Asian regimes are also not very keen to return to square one. The Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, stated prior to that meeting that Putin believed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was a mistake and disaster. While the disintegration cannot now be reversed, Putin believes in a “new integration in the space of the former Soviet Union”.

Putin’s leadership at domestic and regional levels has assumed significance. On December 26, 2016 Putin met with the leaders of several former Soviet republics in St. Petersburg, a day after the 25th anniversary of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The Presidents of Armenia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan were in St. Petersburg recently for the meetings, which included informal summits of the Eurasian Economic Union, that has become a reality in 2015, and Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). Hence with that objective at that summit Putin expressed his hope that the creation of a favorable business environment was needed to achieve full-fledged development of their economies. He opined that since forming a common market with the other Eurasian Economic Union countries about two years ago, trade between them has already increased significantly.

This has been possible since non-tariff trade barriers have been slashed by 30 percent and a single market for drug and medical products has been created. Thus by 2025 the EEU aimed at the formation of a common financial market and common markets for gas, oil, and petroleum products, with harmonized rules of trade. By this Putin’s objective and vision may partly be achieved. In fact, ever since Putin came to power in 1999, his mission has been to make Russia great again and restore its due place in contemporary world history.

Likewise, the Trump government’s attitude toward the Atlantic alliance, especially NATO, is un-tethered. The new president has called NATO “obsolete,” and a costly affair, but his secretary of defense James Mattis has confirmed America’s continuing commitment to the alliance to face “threats”. At the very least, this causes confusion in European capitals. Is the USA committed to its principal post–World War II security alliance, or should each nation make its own arrangement with Moscow? At stake in all this is not simply the future US-Russian relationship, but even more importantly the US relationship with Europe and the democratic world.

Trust deficit

Capitalist USA does not trust Russia and other Socialist countries mainly because they oppose capitalist and colonialist ideologies and as such they would perish. Most Americans believe Russia has not fully given up its ideological agenda though the last Soviet President Michael Gorbachev helped Russians shed communist-socialist ideals plus implemented and imbibed so-called democratic values being exported by the USA and other capitalist nations.

Humanist Gorbachev, however, mistook American political gimmicks as the intent and thought of western democracies are sincere about their claim of focusing on creating genuine peace globally ,but the USA in fact equates its capitalist ideology as mechanism for promoting neocolonialism and universal democratic values. That is the height of nonsense.

President Trump’s visceral belief, that it is better to have Russia as a friend than an enemy, makes sense. On the other hand, it blurs real differences between what Russia views as its interests and what the US views. And, for a president with no foreign-policy experience and still-dubious prior relationships with Russia, it can lead to serious misunderstandings and miscalculations.

Trump never criticized Russia or its president openly or rudely as he does with Muslims or even China, thereby leaving a playing field for diplomatic maneuvers. Who then says Trump does not know niceties of high level diplomacy?

President Trump has expressed his admiration for the Russian leadership’s quality and strength to deal with problems including fight against Islamic terrorism, which will also be his own policy priority. Moreover there is media speculation whether with improved relations with Putin, Trump will soften Western policy of economic sanctions on Russia for its annexation of Crimea and the ongoing conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine.

In fact it is important to note that Trump also did not support the media allegation against Putin as a ‘killer’ that was reported by Times Global on February 6, 2017. Russia has demanded an apology from the American media. Looking back, in 2016 along with Putin’s rising power certain events proved positive for Russia. For instance, the Brexit vote exposed the deep rifts in the European Union and have benefited Russia as some of the EU members are critical of Putin. It may be argued that Putin’s regime has taken careful aim at the soft underbelly of Western democratic institutions. Hence Donald Trump’s victory might pave the way for a break from the traditional Washington policy towards Moscow that Putin has been looking for.

There is a lot of pushback among the Democratic Party in the USA against a better relationship with Russia. The controversy in the US right now over what sort of influence the Russian government had in the US political system during the campaign complicates Trump’s ability to implement his Russia policy. But Trump is, sometimes, unrelenting when he decides to do something. My inclination is that such a decision or policy might not be a successful one. Like the Obama, Bush regimes, the Trump Administration may find that the US-Russia relations end up far worse than when they began.

No one in US Congress wants to take a stand on the Russia question, to be disproved by later events. After all, former national security adviser Michael Flynn initially denied contacts with the Russian ambassador prior to the election. That turned out to be untrue and he was forced to resign. Some ruling GOP members are now joining Democratic members in calling for Sessions to step aside from an investigation into Russian interference in the election, or even appoint a special prosecutor for an independent effort. Such a probe could distract and dispirit the White House for months, as Benghazi and Iran-Contra investigations did for other administrations in different times and circumstances.

Russia boosts image in Mideast

Energy rich Mideast has one major problem — Israel which succeeded in garnering high precision terror goods from USA and Europe, maneuvering the corrupt US politicians cutting across their bi-party mischief.

Notwithstanding mutual tensions, Russia and USA have coordinated their pro-Israeli policies to terrorize the Palestinians, whose lands they have allowedto be confiscated.

Both USA and Russia have been competing for bulk military orders from Arab nations and both enjoy their strong presence in Mideast — eminently aided by Israeli provocative politics — but now wing the Arab Spring and NATO terror wars in Mideast with Israeli backing has led to the USA losing its advantage at least for the time being to Russia.

Arrogance and Zionist instincts displayed openly by President Donald Trump, coupled with his anti-Muslim rhetoric has emboldened  Israel. As one of first foreign “dignitaries”, Trump welcomed PM Benjamin Netanyahu at White House.

The image of Putin’s Russia as becoming a very important military power has become explicit with its interventions in Crimea, East Germany, Syria. It is a matter of great global significance that Putin has been able to bring about a ceasefire deal in the Syrian conflict. On December 28, 2016 the Syria ceasefire deal was signed and Russia and Turkey were ‘Guarantors’ for the same. Putin, having signed the ceasefire agreement with Turkey, stated that the Russian military would scale down its presence in Syria, but he didn’t say how many troops and weapons would be withdrawn. It appears, both the USA and Russia won’t vacate the land they occupy and as Putin may not withdraw his forces from Syria at least in the near future because most Russians resent the way the Soviet troops were given the march-back order by Gorbachev and now they don’t appreciate any withdrawal from Syria.

More importantly, Putin has asserted that Russia will continue “fighting international terrorism in Syria” and supporting the Assad Government. The terrorism plank offers Russia the right to stay in Syria as long as it wants. While the West had been critical of Russia’s aggressive acts in Syria during the last couple of years, there has been a drastic change with the signing of the peace treaty in Astana in January 2017. It is opined by some analysts including Vasily Maximov that Moscow’s intervention under the leadership of Putin in Syria has an important dimension and that Russia has succeeded in trying to boost its position in the Middle East and demonstrate its global stature while attaining leverage in negotiations with the West.

In fact Putin is aware that what is binding Russia and China together has been their shared interest in balancing the USA on global issues. Putin has succeeded in increasing convergence between Russia and China on many global issues during the past few years.

It is significant that in December 2016 Putin displayed renewed interest in the long-delayed China-Russia highway across the Amur River by extending technical and financial assistance to it; it is to be completed by 2019 and will enhance trade relations. China is thirsty for energy and raw materials from Russia to fuel its economic growth. It needs to be stated that another major factor drawing them together is a mutual dependence because even as Russia, though superior to China in nuclear weapons, is no match as far as the Chinese conventional military weaponry is concerned. Russia’s Look-East policy subsequent to the conflict with Ukraine on the Crimean issue in 2014, which worsened Russia’s political and economic relations with Europe and the USA, was welcomed by Beijing and that was “an axis of convenience” as rightly stated by Alexander Gabuev of the Carnegie Moscow Centre highlighting Russia-China relations.

Russia is also in recent years growing closer to Pakistan and this is a matter of anxiety, especially at a time that India is trying to isolate Pakistan in this region by supporting the USA against funds meant for Pakistan. China is already a strong supporter of Pakistan and with the two major powers involving themselves with Pakistan; it is certainly not good news as far as India is concerned.

Russia held its first ever joint military exercise with Pakistan days after the Uri terror strike in September 2016 in the Indian administered State of Jammu Kashmir and at the BRICS Goa Summit, India felt let down by Russia as Moscow did not support Delhi’s stand by publicly naming the Pakistan-based “terror outfits”, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, as opined by Sachin Parashar. It needs to be noted that one cannot deny that both Russia and Pakistan are opening a new era of strategic and political alliance. President Putin’s proposed visit to Pakistan in May of this year will witness the inauguration of the US $ 2 billion LNG North-South Pipeline from Karachi to Lahore, as reported in the International News by Noor Aftab. This is possibly intended by Putin who wants to enhance Russia’s presence and influence in South Asia.

On the domestic front Putin enjoys support and popularity by over 80 percent of the population. Even as there are some opposition parties and political leaders, including Alexei Navalny who proposes to contest in the presidential election against Putin, he has made sure that no political opposition exists to challenge his authoritarian rule. It is worth noting that Russia’s annexation of Crimea has boosted Putin’s popularity at home even as there is strong opposition in the West. Russians constitute a substantial portion of the population in Crimea which has helped in the referendum held for the annexation. Russia claims that all legal processes were in place for that purpose.

In his annual state-of-the-nation address on December 1, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the country is unified like never before and is fully capable of achieving its strategic economic and geopolitical goals. Speaking at the Defence Ministry on December 22, 2016 Putin asserted that Russia’s military is now stronger than any possible attacker but must be prepared to adjust plans to neutralise the potential threats to the country.

Observations

It is difficult to imagine normalization of US-Russian relations, either in a traditional sense or on some new, yet un-articulated basis, until the mystery of the president’s personal attitudes toward Putin and whatever background they represent are clarified and laid to rest. It is difficult to disprove a negative, to prove that something that didn’t happen, didn’t happen. But the only known way to do that is to turn over every rock, not only where Trump is concerned, but also regarding the several individuals close to him who have dabbled in Russia in recent years. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Unfortunately, one of the rocks that must be overturned has to do with Trump’s taxes, and that seems an immovable stone wall.

For US presidents, no single foreign policy challenge is more contentious, or crucial, than getting Russia right. Under President Donald Trump, Republicans and Democrats have embraced diametrically opposing views on how to handle President Vladimir Putin. Both seem to have got it wrong. Resisting Russian intimidation should be more than a campaign slogan. While almost no one wants a return to the Cold War, a world in which Russian hegemony is unrestrained increases the chance of global conflict.

For Trump officials, their deepening Russia problems are frustrating at best. Many of their attempts to get past the controversy end up feeding it – witness their attempt to enlist the FBI to knock down a previous New York Times story about the administration’s possible Russia connections. That only produced more headlines on the subject.

In that context, an independent prosecutor could turn the probe into something analogous to Benghazi – much more difficult for the subject of the investigation to limit in time or subject. Remember that the Benghazi inquiry, ostensibly about a 2012 tragedy at a US outpost in Libya, turned up evidence that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton conducted government business on a private email service.

Perhaps a new approach to clearing the air and the deck where the Trump regime and Russia are concerned should be considered. Because of the role it played in the recent election, whatever investigations the FBI is undertaking regarding Russian connections may be suspect or discredited. Congressional inquiries, even with a Republican majority, will be partisan, politicized and media saturated. Consideration, therefore, might be given to a special panel composed of respected statesmen and stateswomen of both parties empowered to compel testimony under oath, inspect personal and classified documents (including tax returns), and issue a public report that either eliminates all suspicion of prior Trump-related activities in Russia or identifies areas of conflicting interest.

Otherwise, it seems inevitable that a cloud will linger for years to come regarding how relations between the current US government and the Putin government are being formulated, and whether in response to some prior arrangements or personal understandings. That will confuse whatever policies are adopted, either to strengthen US-Russian ties, or draw lines against Russian actions in opposition to the interests of the United States and our allies.

Depending on what the investigations in the USA about relations between the Trump campaign and Russia find out, it could have very significant impacts on the Trump presidency and Trump’s ability to engage with Russia. There is harsh anti-America rhetoric in Russia. After this campaign, among a certain sector of the American population, there is harsh anti-Russia sentiment in the US the overcoming of which will be challenging.

U.S. President Donald Trump told Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Friday, March 10 that it’s time for a comprehensive agreement to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, The Washington Times reports.

“The president emphasized his personal belief that peace is possible and that the time has come to make a deal,” the White House said in a readout of the phone conversation between the two leaders. “The president noted that such a deal would not only give Israelis and Palestinians the peace and security they deserve, but that it would reverberate positively throughout the region and the world.”

Trump invited Abbas to a meeting at the White House soon.

The president “underscored that such a peace agreement must be negotiated directly between the two parties, and that the United States will work closely with Palestinian and Israeli leadership to make progress toward that goal,” the White House said.

“The president noted that the United States cannot impose a solution on the Israelis and Palestinians, nor can one side impose an agreement on the other,” the statement said.

Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah said Abbas “stressed the commitment to peace as a strategic choice to establish a Palestinian State alongside the state of Israel,” according to the official Palestinian WAFA news agency.

Palestinians are concerned at the more favorable approach shown by Washington toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since Trump came to power. Netanyahu and Trump have spoken on the phone at least twice since the inauguration, and Netanyahu visited Washington last month.

Palestinian officials indicated Abbas would emphasize his concern about Israeli settlement-building on occupied land and the need for a two-state solution to the conflict.— This article is based on wire-service reports.

A member of parliament in India spoke in the parliament demanding that India should declare Pakistan as a terrorist state. Not surprisingly, a few other members of parliament and some politicians in India also echoed this improper and unwise demand. It is good that Narendra Modi government has not reacted to this demand and have just ignored this call.

There are millions of Indians as well as Pakistanis who understand that India and Pakistan should maintain harmonious relationship and should benefit mutually by various measures including collaboration, trade and cultural exchange. Whenever opportunities are provided and appropriate climate sought to be created, the people in India and Pakistan have responded to each other with goodwill, warmth and understanding.

The fact is that due to the prolonged and what now appears to be unending conflict and acrimonious relationships between both the countries, India and Pakistan are spending millions of dollars in maintaining the military strength and procuring arms and ammunitions from abroad. By such approach, only the arms merchants and weapon manufacturers in developed countries are benefited.

It is a fact that extremist elements and terror outfits in Pakistan are creating tensions in Jammu and Kashmir and are whipping up feelings of hate and unrest among the people against India. Obviously, such terror outfits get sort of support from Pakistan government and are given base in Pakistan. India is justified in feeling aggrieved over such conditions.

Of late, Pakistan government has admitted that Pakistan itself has become a victim of terrorist acts, as large number of innocent people including children in schools have been killed in bomb attacks by the terrorist groups. The conditions are so bad that Pakistan is unable to organize even international sports events in Pakistan and the sport loving people of Pakistan are left deeply disappointed. On several occasions in recent times, the Chief of army in Pakistan and Prime Minister of Pakistan have declared that they would wipe out terrorist base in Pakistan at any cost.

However, the ground reality is that terrorist outfits have not yet been silenced in Pakistan.

One is not sure as to whether the continued terrorist attacks in Pakistan are due to the inability of the government of Pakistan to put it down with the force needed or its lack of will. This situation also raises suspicion as to whether the core leadership of Pakistan are being checked and controlled by the terrorist outfits.

In any case, India should recognize that large segment of people of Pakistan are very unhappy and frustrated about the terrorist activities on the Pakistan soil. Possibly , there is realization among the Pakistani people themselves that Pakistan cannot be instrumental in encouraging terrorist acts in Jammu and Kashmir and at the same time expect that Pakistan should get rid of terrorism on it’s soil.

Unfortunately, in most countries in the world today, the views and acts of the government are not fully supported or even understood by the people. Even in regions of conflicts like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and others, most of the citizens feel helpless , as their motherland are being torn by acts of politicians of one color or the other, who fight between themselves to gain control over the country. Innocents suffer beyond description.

While Pakistan government may be directly or indirectly or helplessly harboring the terrorist elements on it’s soil and consequently causing problems for India, the fact is that India would not be anyway benefited by declaring Pakistan as a terrorist state. This would be a counter productive and extremely bad strategy, that would totally prevent any feasibility of improving the relationships between India and Pakistan in the foreseeable future.

There are hawkish elements both in India and Pakistan, who seem to think that war is the solution for the problems . They need to be discouraged by the people in both the countries. They should be clearly told that their voice is not the voice of ordinary people, who have no particular vested interests in politics or conflicts and want to lead peaceful life.

Due to the acts of terror, politicians and those in the seat of power rarely suffer but only the ordinary people feel the pain in variety of ways and for many of them, life gets uprooted. As the pain of the victims of terrorism become more intense, their longing for peace become more intense and they pray that harmony in society should return.

When the peace loving and concerned people assert themselves in both the countries , survival of terrorists will become impossible and peace will inevitably return. The ball is clearly in the court of people of India and Pakistan.

By Jordan J. Ballor, PhD*

Writing in 2013, Moisés Naím, formerly executive director of the World Bank and currently at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, decried the increasing impotency of elites to lead in a fractured and fractious global public square. Naím’s concerns were voiced before the most recent surge in populist movements around the world, from Brexit to Trump’s victory in America.

As Naím put it, “Insurgents, fringe political parties, innovative startups, hackers, loosely organized activists, upstart citizen media, leaderless young people in city squares, and charismatic individuals who seem to have ‘come from nowhere’ are shaking up the old order. Not all are savory; but each is contributing to the decay of power of the navies and police forces, television networks, traditional political parties, and large banks.” In one sense Naím’s observations were prescient and foreshadowed the localist, nationalist, and populist strains of the last year or so.

But in another sense, Naím’s analysis is only half of the story. What Naím laments is the resulting “end of power,” as the title of his book casts it, in which political, educational, and bureaucratic elites no longer are able to exercise the influence and leadership necessary to good governance in a complex and complicated world. At the same time that in Naím’s account power seems to be flowing downward, to “micropowers,” as he calls them, a corresponding shift is occurring that continues to concentrate power upwards, in so-called “megapowers.”

This is the central dynamic of inequality: it isn’t just that the elites have more and more power while the rest of us are increasingly powerless. Instead, the perceived impotence of the majority holds within itself a latent power to call forth a new leader, a new guard, a new order to protect and promote its interests. This is why populist movements, which rely so much on majoritarian social support, are so often connected with particular figureheads and strongmen. The leader and the masses go together.

What is really left behind in such a scenario isn’t the dynamic of elites and those they lead. The power is still there, but the relationship of leader to those led changes. In times of extreme inequality, power flows upward and downward, to the elites and simultaneously to the lower classes. At the same time power is evacuated from the middle. There will always be an aristocracy and plebs of some sort or another. What is tenuous and historically contingent is the middle class and the values, virtues, and social order it represents.

Almost every account that describes modern inequality trades on a basic dichotomy of some sort: between the ruling class and the ruled; the elites and the lowbrow; the 1% and the left behind; red states and blues states; the coasts and flyover country; city mouse and country mouse; the West and the rest. In Charles Murray’s description, the distinction is between Belmont and Fishtown. For Nicholas Eberstadt, it’s between the makers and the takers. For Tyler Cowen, it’s between the talented and the talentless.

As power flows out from the middle in both directions, the basic features of a free and virtuous society are lost. The foundations of civil society wither. The sustaining virtues of a flourishing society become scarce. In a hyper-stylized celebrity culture and hyper-partisan political community, the quiet practices of fidelity, prudence, and thrift are drowned out by bling and #winning.

All this is in sharp contrast to the true inheritance of the American system, one of middle-class and bourgeois virtues. It is easy to see why winning elections, sports championships, and Academy awards is attractive. It is also easy to feel compassion for the oppressed and the downtrodden. But few, if any, will speak out in praise of mediocrity, stability, and predictability.

The great social philosopher Michael Novak once observed that this was a great danger endemic to the system of democratic capitalism. “In one of the choice ironies of intellectual history,” writes Novak, “many great scholars and artists of the first rank, themselves children of the middle class, celebrated the virtues of aristocracy in preference to those of their own class.” That’s another way of saying they forgot where they came from and how they got where they did. And this is something America is in danger of doing as well. Lost in all this is the social necessity of those bourgeois virtues of thrift, honesty, diligence, and prudence, which when pursued in the midst of a just social order ought to allow for more dynamic socio-economic opportunity.

Thus, observes Novak, “the success of democratic capitalism in producing prosperity and liberty is its own greatest danger. The virtues required to ‘increase the wealth of nations’ are less easily observed once wealth is attained. Parents brought up under poverty do not know how to bring up children under affluence.” As we have gotten wealthier, we have gotten more worldly, and our politics reflects that worldliness. When wealth seems to cover a multitude of problems, the discord over distribution and redistribution of material goods shifts into a higher key. And all the while the solutions offered by eating, drinking, and making merry may meet our bodily needs, but they leave us morally bereft and spiritually adrift.

The challenges we face today are not primarily political or policy-related. The political and social crises of our times are rooted in moral and spiritual malaise. And it is on resources in these realms that we must find our aid. Let us hope that we still have eyes to see them and ears to hear them.

About the author:
*Jordan J. Ballor (Dr. theol., University of Zurich; Ph.D., Calvin Theological Seminary) is a senior research fellow and director of publishing at the Acton Institute where he also serves as executive editor of the Journal of Markets & Morality.

Source:
This article was published by the Acton Institute

Kevin D. Williamson’s Sunday National Review editorial “Word Games” may lead readers to believe that people who criticize neoconservatives or the deep state are presenting anti-Semitic arguments or are anti-Semitic.

The editorial does not conclude that all people who present such criticisms are anti-Semitic. But, a take-away for some readers will be that challenging the deep state or neoconservatives indicates a person is likely, or should be assumed to be, anti-Semitic.

People who have read Williamson’s editorial may further their education regarding neoconservatism and the deep state by looking to some of the plentiful anti-Semitism-free criticisms of neoconservatism and the deep state.

In particular, they can read Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity (RPI) Chairman Ron Paul’s July of 2003 United States House of Representatives floor speech “Neo-Conned” and watch Paul and RPI Executive Director Daniel McAdams’ February of 2016 Ron Paul Liberty Report interview with The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government author Mike Lofgren.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

Donald J. Trump was a builder of casinos and high-priced hotels and golf courses. Now he is a builder of a tower of contradictions for the American people that is making “America Great” at  their expense.

He  made many conflicting promises throughout his presidential campaign. He was going to be the “voice of the people.” He was going to make their safety and their job expansion his number one priority. He was going to make sure that everybody had health insurance under his then unannounced plan. He was going to deregulate businesses, cut taxes, increase the military budget, build and repair the country’s public infrastructure and not surge the deficit. He was going to scrap the trade agreements known as NAFTA and the WTO.

Now in the White House, he proceeds to push programs and policies that contradict many of his promises. He is ballooning an already massive, bloated military budget by cutting the health and safety budgets of consumer, environmental and labor regulatory agencies and housing and energy assistance. Reportedly he wants to cut one billion dollars out of the budget of the Centers for Disease Control that works to detect and prevent global epidemics! Just today, the Congressional Budget Office announced that under the proposed Republican Health Plan, 24 million people will lose health care by 2026. Apparently he is oblivious to the perils of Avian Flu, SARS, Ebola and Zika threatening our national security and the health and lives of millions of people.

There is more to this emerging betrayal. Trump is supporting Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s “you’re on your own, folks” devastating health insurance plan. Slash and burn Ryan, comfortably fully insured by the taxpayers, publicly admits he doesn’t know how many people will lose their health insurance. Imagine the impact of strip-mining Medicaid on the poor – nearly 70 million, including many children, are on that program. Runaway Ryan even fantasizes over going after Medicare next and corporatize it.

Republicans such as Mick Mulvaney, the new director of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget, argue that these measures are necessary for “efficiency.” Yet neither Trump, nor Mulvaney, nor Ryan, nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have ever gone after $60 billion in business fraud on Medicare each year. The Congressional Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) reports ten percent of all health care spending is drained away by computer billing fraud and abuse.=That would be about $340 billion this year alone – an estimate considered rock bottom by the nation’s leading expert on health care billing fraud – Professor Malcolm Sparrow of Harvard University!

It gets nuttier. Trump wants to increase the budget of the sprawling Department of Homeland Security but cut the budget of the US Coast Guard (which is part of the Department) and whose budget is already strapped in safeguarding our coastlines (See David Helvarg’s engrossing book, Rescue Warriors, which describes the Coast Guard’s often unsung missions).

Trump seems unwilling to oppose the more extreme “mad dogs” among the Congressional Republicans who want to erase the budgets for legal services for the poor (150 corporate law firms last week signed a letter saying they support maintaining the budget for legal services for the poor), public broadcasting and the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. The total number of dollars for all these programs is about $1 billion annually,  or one thirteenth the cost of another redundant air craft carrier (we already have twelve in service—more active service carriers than the rest of the world combined).

Moreover, this self-touted “voice of the people” is instead placing in the highest government positions the “voices” of Wall Street billionaires. Next door to his Oval Office is Gary Cohn, former Goldman Sachs boss, a supposedly smart man who just mimicked Trump by absurdly claiming “we have no alternative but to reinvest in our military and make ourselves a military power once again.” Who in the world doesn’t think US Empire, bristling with arrays of weapons of mass destruction and able to immediately destroy far weaker adversaries in the air, on the sea and land is not a military power?

Wall Street and the mega-wealthy now run the Treasury Department, the State Department, and the Department of Education while corporatists and militarists run other major departments and agencies. Where are the people’s voices in that plutocratic park?

As the opposition coalesces in their resistance to various measures pushed by Trump’s tantrums, it is interesting to note the surprising diversity of those challenging President Trump. More than a few corporate leaders are appalled by extreme Trumpism and their opposition is not restricted to the destabilizing bill to replace Obamacare or to Silicon Valley.

Sure, corporate CEOs are tempted by the tax cuts and jettisoning of some regulations. But they know they are making record after-tax profits, record corporate after-tax pay for themselves, and the stock market is soaring. As they watch the growing rumble from the people in street demonstrations and at Congressional town meetings, there is building a little foreboding.

They’re thinking – why rock the boats (or yachts) – Trump is taking away what people already have – their health insurance –  and their health and safety protections while the Republicans plan to continue depressing their vote and rigging the electoral districts by gerrymandering. When a society, blocked from advancing justice, is unraveling what fair play there remains, the corporate bosses, who see beyond tomorrow, get worried, for good reason.

The tower of contradictions, being constructed by Trump and the most extreme Republican Party in its history, won’t be camouflaged or distracted for long by provocative, prevaricating 3:00 am tweets from the White House.

Recent weeks have seen the Singapore government articulate and emphasise the need to guard against inter-communal tension and conflict. Greater inter-communal conversations and an uninterrupted, honest and forthright feedback loop will be essential for state and society to function as efficient partners to protect Singapore’s social fabric.

By Nur Diyanah Binte Anwar and Pravin Prakash*

At a recent symposium on religion, conflict and peacebuilding, Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam stated how the government prioritised pragmatism from early on to ensure “the safety, security and freedom of religion to all” in Singapore’s multicultural milieu. The Minister’s statements were timely, in light of the recent immigration bans forwarded by President Donald Trump which have caused disaffection globally.

Singapore is not immune to threats which may jeopardise its social cohesion. While Singapore has prided itself for its success at maintaining harmony amongst the different racial and religious groups, more can be done to enhance Singapore’s social cohesion.
What has worked for Singapore: Principles, Policies and Laws

Minister Shanmugam reinforced Singapore’s three-pronged approach which has framed Singapore’s management of the different racial and religious groups, while protecting equality to minority groups.

First, several core principles have guided the development of Singapore’s multicultural society. Singapore prioritises “equality, and equality of opportunity” for all, and does not privilege one race or religion over another. At the same time, the government encourages its citizens to accept the differences which exist between different communal groups, while building an overarching Singapore identity. The government also manages racial and religious diversity by facilitating common spaces for interaction and understanding within society.

Second, well-established policies have been essential in organising the society and ensuring each community’s needs are met. Singapore’s core principles have largely been fulfilled through government-led policies espousing meritocracy as a means of rewarding hard work, and other policies encouraging common lived experiences such as the public housing quota system to encourage spatial and social interaction.

Minister Shanmugam also cited self-help groups as being successful as a source of leadership and guidance for the various communal groups organised along racial and/or religious lines. The Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC), Mendaki, the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA) and the Eurasian Association are viewed as an important conduit between the political leadership and the respective communities they represent. They also address issues within their respective communities which may be deemed sensitive.

Boundaries on Issues of Race and Religion

Third, the Singapore government also enforces robust laws intended to delineate what one can do or say with regard to race and religion. This includes penalties for insensitive acts of proselytisation of religion; protection against offensive remarks meant to create ill-feelings within any racial or religious group; and a limit to the freedom of speech.

Therefore, Minister Shanmugam emphasised how “whoever forms the government in Singapore must be committed to maintaining these values, protecting the minorities, and not play racial [or religious] politics”.

There thus exists a general consensus that Singapore’s policies have to a large degree functioned well and kept Singapore safe. There will unlikely be a revolutionary shift in the government’s strategy at maintaining a harmonious multicultural society. Instead, Singapore’s approach will most likely develop an evolutionary nature, pivoting from the entrenched principles, policies and laws which have kept Singapore stable thus far. Their necessity and importance in managing Singapore society will continue to be reinforced as both effective and pragmatic.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The necessary evolution will not come from a reduced role of a strong state – but from an expanding role society can play in fostering cohesion and coexistence, and a realisation that state and society do not exist in a zero-sum game in the public sphere. To continue to guard against inter-communal tension and conflict, a strong state must be partnered with an active citizenry, equipped to combat these challenges.

Minister Shanmugam noted how community leaders have to redefine their roles as being beyond just the advocacy and promotion of their own communities and faiths. He contended it critical they “advocate, work hard at enlarging the common space, push back against polarisation, champion the cause of integration and interaction, rather than create greater differences”.

Therefore, the role society can play has to also go beyond the confines of respective self-help groups and self-organised units structured along racial and religious lines. While their efforts are laudable in fostering interracial and inter-religious understanding thus far, more needs be done to build upon existing approaches and ensure Singapore’s social fabric remains strong.

Foremost would be the need to create greater space for active dialogue and discussion at the grassroots level. Calls for greater inter-faith or inter-communal dialogue often come under criticism as having little practical application, with participants rarely finding consensus. The purpose of the platform was never to bring about agreement over different views; conversations across communal differences helped humanise ‘the Other’ instead, to look past different views and develop a sense of shared purpose and humanity.

Need for More Open Dialogues

While it is essential that interfaith and interethnic dialogue continues to take place amongst community leaders, the way forward is for greater inter-communal exchange at a deeper, more grassroots level. This would ensure conversations also take place between ordinary citizens, whose opinions and views can influence society as a whole.

In this regard, self-help groups and religious organisations are perfectly placed to ensure that potentially difficult conversations can take place in safe settings – especially in handling strands of anti-immigrant, xenophobic and anti-Muslim sentiments which have occasionally bubbled to the surface. They would be able to better reach out to Singaporeans on the ground, and may also prove to be even better facilitators at moderating discussions on misconstrued perceptions of religion, ethnicity and culture.

Increased open dialogues within and between community organisations will also help ensure an uninterrupted, honest and forthright feedback loop can exist between society and the state. Community organisations must take the lead and work together to engage all communities in difficult or sensitive conversations at the heart of society, and educate the government on existing perceptions and sentiments in a frank manner.

While this exists to some degree today, organisations must also be bolder both in engaging traditionally taboo topics and in resisting the temptation to self-censor the reporting of unpleasant and disturbing sentiments amongst the community. These dialogues should nurture greater openness to share one’s concerns and opinions, for Singapore’s continued stability and cohesion within society.

*Nur Diyanah Anwar is a Research Analyst and Pravin Prakash an Associate Research Fellow with the Social Resilience Programme at the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

US actress Angelina Jolie will soon visit Gaziantep, a province in south-central Turkey, to shoot for a TV show about a Syrian family fleeing the country’s civil war.

The Turkish TV series, “Hayat Koprusu” (Bridge of Life), will also feature Real Madrid superstar Christiano Ronaldo and Lebanese singer Nancy Ajram.

Director Eyup Dirlik said that because of the busy schedules of both Jolie and Ronaldo, shooting is an issue but “we will choose a schedule that is appropriate for both.”

Dirlik had earlier said filming will begin in the first week of April.

The show will have three seasons and will air simultaneously in Turkey, the Middle East and Latin America.

Jolie is known for her humanitarian work in the Middle East. She has been a strong ally of Syrian refugees ever since the crisis started, donating $100,000 to their relief in 2012.

“After five years (Syrian) refugees do not want to know by what percentage their lives might be made fractionally more bearable, but when they will be able to go home. They do not want to be the passive recipients of aid, they want a political solution,” she said in a press release last September.

Ronaldo has supported Syrian refugees as well. Last December, he sent a message of hope to the children of Syria, telling them that they are “true heroes.”

Ronaldo also has business interests in Turkey and previously joined Turkish Football Federation president Yildirim Demiroren for the opening of his shopping mall in Istanbul in 2011.

Meanwhile, Ajram has been a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador since 2009, acting as a regional ambassador for the Middle East and North Africa.

Researchers at the University of Bath have gained new insights into the mechanisms of the Northern Lights, providing an opportunity to develop better satellite technology that can negate outages caused by this natural phenomenon.

Previous research has shown that the natural lights of the Northern Lights — also known as or Aurora Borealis — interfere with Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) signals which are heavily relied upon in the transport and civil aviation industries.

The presence of plasma turbulence within the Northern Lights was traditionally deemed responsible for causing GNSS inaccuracies. However, this latest research found that turbulence does not exist, suggesting new, unknown mechanisms are actually responsible for outages on GNSS signals.

This is the first time it has been shown that turbulence does not take place within the Northern Lights and this new knowledge will enable new technological solutions to overcome these outages.

The research team from the University of Bath’s Department of Electronic & Electrical Engineering in collaboration with the European Incoherent Scatter Scientific Association (EISCAT) observed the Northern Lights in Tromsø, northern Norway, where they observed and analysed the Northern Lights simultaneously using radar and a co-located GNSS receiver.

GNSS signals were used to identify how the Northern Lights interfere with GPS signals. Radar analysis provided a visual snap shot of the make-up of this famous and spectacular phenomenon.

GNSS is used to pinpoint the geographic location of a user’s receiver anywhere in the world. Numerous systems are in use across the world including the widely known United States’ Global Positioning System (GPS), the Russian Federation’s Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) and Europe’s Galileo.

Each of the GNSS systems employs a constellation of satellites orbiting the Earth at an altitude of 20,000 km satellites, working in conjunction with a network of ground stations. Originally developed by the US government for military navigation, satellite navigation systems are now widely used by anyone with a GNSS device, such as an in-car SatNav, mobile phone or handheld navigation unit, which can receive the radio signals that the satellites broadcast.

The Northern Lights occur at North and South magnetic Poles, and are the result of collisions between gaseous particles in the Earth’s atmosphere with charged particles released from the sun’s atmosphere.

The researchers believe this heightened understanding of the Northern Lights will inform the creation of new types of GNSS technology which are robust against the disturbances of the Northern Lights, and help influence GNSS regulations used in industries such as civil aviation, land management, drone technology, mobile communications, transport and autonomous vehicles.

Lead researcher and Lecturer in the Department of Electronic & Electrical Engineering at the University of Bath, Dr Biagio Forte, said: “With increasing dependency upon GNSS with the planned introduction of 5G networks and autonomous vehicles which rely heavily on GNSS, the need for accurate and reliable satellite navigation systems everywhere in the world has never been more critical.

“The potential impact of inaccurate GNSS signals could be severe. Whilst outages in mobile phones may not be life threatening, unreliability in satellite navigations systems in autonomous vehicles or drones delivering payloads could result in serious harm to both humans and the environment.

“This new understanding of the mechanisms which affect GNSS outages will lead to new technology that will enable safe and reliable satellite navigation.”

Astronomers have found evidence for a star that whips around a black hole about twice an hour. This may be the tightest orbital dance ever witnessed for a black hole and a companion star.

Michigan State University scientists were part of the team that made this discovery, which used NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory as well as NASA’s NuSTAR and the Australia Telescope Compact Array.

The close-in stellar couple – known as a binary – is located in the globular cluster 47 Tucanae, a dense cluster of stars in our galaxy about 14,800 light years away from Earth. While astronomers have observed this binary for many years, it wasn’t until 2015 that radio observations revealed the pair likely contains a black hole pulling material from a companion star called a white dwarf, a low-mass star that has exhausted most or all of its nuclear fuel.

New Chandra data of this system, known as X9, show that it changes in X-ray brightness in the same manner every 28 minutes, which is likely the length of time it takes the companion star to make one complete orbit around the black hole. Chandra data also shows evidence for large amounts of oxygen in the system a characteristic of white dwarfs. A strong case can, therefore, be made that that the companion star is a white dwarf, which would then be orbiting the black hole at only about 2.5 times the separation between the Earth and the moon.

“This white dwarf is so close to the black hole that material is being pulled away from the star and dumped onto a disk of matter around the black hole before falling in,” said Arash Bahramian, lead author with the University of Alberta (Canada) and MSU. “Luckily for this star, we don’t think it will follow this path into oblivion, but instead will stay in orbit.”

Although the white dwarf does not appear to be in danger of falling in or being torn apart by the black hole, its fate is uncertain.

“For a long time astronomers thought that black holes were rare or totally absent in globular star clusters,” said Jay Strader, MSU astronomer and co-author of the paper. “This discovery is additional evidence that, rather than being one of the worst places to look for black holes, globular clusters might be one of the best.”

How did the black hole get such a close companion? One possibility is that the black hole smashed into a red giant star, and then gas from the outer regions of the star was ejected from the binary. The remaining core of the red giant would form into a white dwarf, which becomes a binary companion to the black hole. The orbit of the binary would then have shrunk as gravitational waves were emitted, until the black hole started pulling material from the white dwarf.

The gravitational waves currently being produced by the binary have a frequency that is too low to be detected with Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory, LIGO, that has recently detected gravitational waves from merging black holes. Sources like X9 could potentially be detected with future gravitational wave observatories in space.

An alternative explanation for the observations is that the white dwarf is partnered with a neutron star, rather than a black hole. In this scenario, the neutron star spins faster as it pulls material from a companion star via a disk, a process that can decrease the rotational period of the neutron star to a few thousandths of a second. A few such objects, called transitional millisecond pulsars, have been observed near the end of this spinning-up phase. The authors do not favor this possibility as transitional millisecond pulsars have properties not seen in X9, such as extreme variability at X-ray and radio wavelengths. However, they cannot disprove this explanation.

The European Union on Monday, March 13 warned President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to avoid inflammatory rhetoric as a diplomatic crisis between Turkey and the Netherlands deepened over the blocking of Turkish ministers from holding rallies to win support for plans to expand his powers, AFP reports.

Erdogan at the weekend twice accused NATO ally Netherlands of acting like the Nazis, comments that sparked outrage in a country bombed and occupied by German forces in World War II.

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who faces a major challenge from the far-right in a key general election Wednesday, said Erdogan’s comments were unacceptable and it was Ankara that should apologise.

In an escalating standoff that risks damaging Turkey’s already deteriorating relations with the European Union ahead of the April 16 referendum on constitutional change, Brussels sternly warned Ankara to avoid making the situation worse.

In apparent reference to Erdogan’s comments, EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and EU Enlargement Commissioner Johannes Hahn called on Turkey to “refrain from excessive statements and actions that risk further exacerbating the situation.

“It is essential to avoid further escalation and find ways to calm down the situation,” their statement added.

NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg also urged Turkey and its NATO allies to “show mutual respect, to be calm and have a measured approach to contribute to de-escalate the tensions”.

(EurActiv) — The Scottish government announced today (13 March) a new independence vote, pre-empting this week’s expected start of the Brexit process. Nicola Sturgeon will seek the power to call a new referendum on whether Scotland should follow the UK out of the EU or form its own country.

Prime Minister Theresa May could announce as early as tomorrow (14 March) that she is triggering the Article 50 process of withdrawing from the European Union, putting Britain on course to leave by March 2019 after four decades of membership.

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has long warned that largely pro-European Scotland would not accept a damaging break with the EU and today (13 March) she made good on her threat.

“I will now take the steps necessary to make sure that Scotland will have a choice at the end of this process,” she said at a hastily convened press conference in Edinburgh.

This would be “a choice of whether to follow the UK to a hard Brexit or to become an independent country, able to secure a real partnership of equals with the rest of the UK and our own relationship with Europe”, she said.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) leader said she would next week begin seeking authority for a vote between autumn 2018 and early 2019, before Britain leaves the EU.

May’s government has repeatedly made clear it does not believe there should be another vote after a first Scottish referendum in 2014 in which a majority voted against independence, and she has the power to block Sturgeon’s request.

“Another referendum would be divisive and cause huge economic uncertainty at the worst possible time,” a Downing Street spokesman said.

But rejecting Sturgeon’s request would likely only energise the Scottish nationalists’ cause and is a major headache for May as she enters Brexit negotiations with the other 27 EU member states.

Sturgeon’s announcement came just hours before legislation empowering May to trigger Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty returns to parliament for its final stages.

After heated debate and a delay in the upper House of Lords, the bill could win final approval by both houses by this evening.

It could be signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II as early as Tuesday, leaving May’s path clear to begin Brexit whenever she wants.

‘Firmly on track’

May has promised to trigger Article 50 by the end of March, a timetable her spokesman said today the government was “firmly on track to achieve”.

At a summit in Brussels last week, the prime minister said: “Our European partners have made clear to me that they want to get on with the negotiations, and so do I.”

Once May has notified the EU of her decision by letter, the other 27 EU leaders will take just 48 hours to issue their first draft proposal for the negotiations.

But talks are not expected to begin for months as both sides finalise strategies for two years of mammoth negotiations.

EU leaders have planned a follow-up meeting on April 6, “provided that the prime minister moves Article 50, I think by March 15th”, Irish PM Enda Kenny said.

Article 50 provides only two years for Britain to unravel four decades of membership and forged new trade ties when it leaves the single European market.

EU leaders are determined that Brexit will not undermine the unity of the bloc, and that the final terms do not encourage other member states to follow Britain and jump ship.

Britain’s opposition Labour Party is braced for May to trigger Article 50 on Wednesday or Thursday (15 or 16 March) but Sturgeon said she had no idea when it would happen, proof, she said, that Scotland was being sidelined.

A BMG survey for Scottish newspaper The Herald found that 56% were opposed to a new independence referendum before Brexit, and 52% said they were against Scotland seceding from the UK.

Father Stanley Rother, the Oklahoma-born martyr who served as a priest in Guatemala, will be beatified in Oklahoma City on Sept. 23, 2017.

The beatification announcement was made by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City on March 13. Fr. Rother was a priest of the archdiocese. The beautification Mass will take place at 10 a.m. at the Cox Convention Center.

In December 2016, Pope Francis officially acknowledged Fr. Rother’s martyrdom, making him the first recognized martyr to have been born in the United States.

Fr. Rother was from the unassuming town of Okarche, Okla., where the parish, school and farm were the pillars of community life. He went to the same school his whole life and lived with his family until he left for seminary.

Surrounded by good priests and a vibrant parish life, Stanley felt God calling him to the priesthood from a young age. But despite a strong calling, Stanley would struggle in the seminary, failing several classes and even out of one seminary before graduating from Mount St. Mary’s seminary in Maryland.

Hearing of Stanely’s struggles, Sister Clarissa Tenbrick, his 5th grade teacher, wrote him to offer encouragement, reminding him that the patron of all priests, St. John Vianney, also struggled in seminary.

“Both of them were simple men who knew they had a call to the priesthood and then had somebody empower them so that they could complete their studies and be priests,” Maria Scaperlanda, author of The Shepherd Who Didn’t Run, a biography of the martyr, told CNA in an interview last year.

“And they brought a goodness, simplicity and generous heart with them in (everything) they did.”

When Stanley was still in seminary, St. John XXIII asked the Churches of North America to send assistance and establish missions in Central America. Soon after, the dioceses of Oklahoma City and Tulsa established a mission in Santiago Atitlan in Guatemala, a poor rural community of mostly indigenous people.

A few years after he was ordained, Fr. Stanley accepted an invitation to join the mission team, where he would spend the next 13 years of his life.

When he arrived to the mission, the Tz’utujil Mayan Indians in the village had no native equivalent for Stanley, so they took to calling him Padre Francisco, after his baptismal name of Francis.

The work ethic Fr. Stanley learned on his family’s farm would serve him well in this new place. As a mission priest, he was called on not just to say Mass, but to fix the broken truck or work the fields. He built a farmers’ co-op, a school, a hospital, and the first Catholic radio station, which was used for catechesis to the even more remote villages.

“What I think is tremendous is how God doesn’t waste any details,” Scaperlanda said. “That same love for the land and the small town where everybody helps each other, all those things that he learned in Okarche is exactly what he needed when he arrived in Santiago.”

The beloved Padre Francisco was also known for his kindness, selflessness, joy and attentive presence among his parishioners. Dozens of pictures show giggling children running after Padre Francisco and grabbing his hands, Scaperlanda said.

“It was Father Stanley’s natural disposition to share the labor with them, to break bread with them, and celebrate life with them, that made the community in Guatemala say of Father Stanley, ‘he was our priest,’” she said.

Over the years, the violence of the Guatemalan civil war inched closer to the once-peaceful village. Disappearances, killings and danger soon became a part of daily life, but Fr. Stanley remained steadfast and supportive of his people.

In 1980-1981, the violence escalated to an almost unbearable point. Fr. Stanley was constantly seeing friends and parishioners abducted or killed. In a letter to Oklahoma Catholics during what would be his last Christmas, the priest relayed to the people back home the dangers his mission parish faced daily.

“The reality is that we are in danger. But we don’t know when or what form the government will use to further repress the Church…. Given the situation, I am not ready to leave here just yet… But if it is my destiny that I should give my life here, then so be it…. I don’t want to desert these people, and that is what will be said, even after all these years. There is still a lot of good that can be done under the circumstances.”

He ended the letter with what would become his signature quote:

“The shepherd cannot run at the first sign of danger. Pray for us that we may be a sign of the love of Christ for our people, that our presence among them will fortify them to endure these sufferings in preparation for the coming of the Kingdom.”

In January 1981, in immediate danger and his name on a death list, Fr. Stanley did return to Oklahoma for a few months. But as Easter approached, he wanted to spend Holy Week with his people in Guatemala.

“Father Stanley could not abandon his people,” Scaperlanda said. “He made a point of returning to his Guatemala parish in time to celebrate Holy Week with his parishioners that year – and ultimately was killed for living out his Catholic faith.”

The morning of July 28, 1981, three Ladinos, the non-indigenous men who had been fighting the native people and rural poor of Guatemala since the 1960s, broke into Fr. Rother’s rectory. They wished to disappear him, but he refused. Not wanting to endanger the others at the parish mission, he struggled but did not call for help. Fifteen minutes and two gunshots later, Father Stanley was dead and the men fled the mission grounds.

Scaperlanda, who has worked on Fr. Stanley’s cause for canonization, said the priest is a great witness and example: “He fed the hungry, sheltered the homeless, visited the sick, comforted the afflicted, bore wrongs patiently, buried the dead – all of it.”

His life is also a great example of ordinary people being called to do extraordinary things for God, she said.

“(W)hat impacted me the most about Father Stanley’s life was how ordinary it was!” she said.

“I love how simply Oklahoma City’s Archbishop Paul Coakley states it: ‘We need the witness of holy men and women who remind us that we are all called to holiness – and that holy men and women come from ordinary places like Okarche, Oklahoma,’” she said.

“Although the details are different, I believe the call is the same – and the challenge is also the same. Like Father Stanley, each of us is called to say ‘yes’ to God with our whole heart. We are all asked to see the Other standing before us as a child of God, to treat them with respect and a generous heart,” she added.

“We are called to holiness – whether we live in Okarche, Oklahoma, or New York City or Guatemala City.”

A Japanese Jesuit apologized on behalf of Japan for keeping sex slaves known as “comfort women” during World War II and colonial rule.

Father Jun Nakai from Simonoseki made his apology during the Weekly Mass for the Just Settlement of Comfort Women Issue out the front of the Japanese embassy on March 1, Ash Wednesday. “After I learned about the wrong doings my heart ached so much,” Father Nakai said.

“When I go back to Japan, I will try to make Japan remember the past violent history and set forth a new future by erecting statues in the hearts of each Japanese,” the priest added, referring to the statue of a comfort woman that stands outside the Japanese embassy in Seoul.

Franciscan Father Charles Ho Myeong-hwan, chairperson of the Korean Conference of Major Superiors of Men’s Religious Institutes and Societies of Apostolic Life, said in his homily, “I pray to God for the revelation of the truth related to comfort women and an apology from the Japanese government.”

In December 2015, foreign ministers of both countries agreed that Japan would pay for a foundation to take care of the sex slave survivors. The agreement also declared that both governments would regard the issue as being finally resolved.