US President Donald J. Trump’s vow to defeat what he terms radical Islamic terrorism forces the United States to manoeuvre the Middle East and North Africa’s murky world of ever shifting alliances and labyrinth of power struggles within power struggles.

The pitfalls are complex and multiple. They range from differences within the 68-member, anti-Islamic State (IS) alliance over what constitutes terrorism to diverging political priorities to varying degrees of willingness to tacitly employ jihadists to pursue geopolitical goals. The pitfalls are most evident in Yemen and Syria and involve two long-standing US allies, NATO ally Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

US Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson travels to Turkey this week as US and Russian troops create separate buffers in Syria to prevent a Turkish assault on the northern town of Manbij. Manbij, located 40 kilometres from the Turkish border, is controlled by Kurdish forces, viewed by the US as a key ground force in the fight with the Islamic State.

Until a series of devastating IS suicide bombings in Turkish cities, Turkish forces appeared to concentrate on weakening the Kurds rather than the jihadists in Syria. Stepped-up Turkish action against IS has not weakened Turkey’s resolve to prevent Kurds from emerging as one of the victors in the Syrian conflict.

At the heart of US-Turkish differences over the Kurds is the age-old-adage that one man’s terrorist is another man’s liberation fighter. The US has a long history of empathy towards Kurdish cultural and national rights and enabled the emergence of a Kurdish state in waiting in northern Iraq. The differences also go to an equally large elephant in the room: the question whether Syria, Yemen and Iraq will survive as nation states in a post-war era.

That may be the real issue at the core of US-Turkish differences. Many Turks hark back in their suspicion that foreign powers are bent on breaking up the Turkish state to the 1920 Treaty of Sevre that called for a referendum in which Kurds would determine their future.

Visionary Mustafa Kemal Ataturk carved modern Turkey out of the ruins of the Ottoman empire. He mandated a unified Turkish identity that superseded identities of a nation whose population was to a large degree made up of refugees from far flung parts of the former empire and ethnic and religious minorities.

Turkey charges that Syrian Kurdish fighters are aligned with the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), a Turkish Kurdish group that has been fighting for Kurdish rights for more than three decades and has been designated terrorist by Turkey, the United States and Europe.

US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford, Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov and Turkey’s Chief of the General Staff Hulusi Abkar met in the southern Turkish city of Antalya in advance of Mr. Tillerson’s visit to lower tensions that threaten planned efforts to capture Raqqa, the Islamic State’s capital.

In many ways, the pitfalls are similar in Yemen, where Mr. Trump has stepped up support for Saudi Arabia’s devastating intervention that this month entered its third year and has increased attacks on Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) viewed as one of Al Qaeda’s most dangerous affiliates.

It took Al Qaeda attacks inside the kingdom in 2003-4 and jihadist operations since as well as growing international suggestions of an ideological affinity between Saudi Arabia’s Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism and jihadism for the kingdom to view Islamic militants on par with Iran, which Saudis see as an existential threat.

Nonetheless, Saudi Arabia, despite a litany of denials, has seen militant Islamists as useful tools in its proxy wars with Iran in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Sunni ultra-conservatives are frequently at the forefront of Saudi-led efforts to dislodge the Yemeni Houthis from their strongholds.

Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen has in fact given AQAP a new lease on life. Prior to the war, AQAP had been driven to near irrelevance by the rise of IS and security crackdowns. In a report in February, the International Crisis Group (ICG) concluded that AQAP was “stronger than it has ever been.”

The group “appears ever more embedded in the fabric of opposition to the Houthi/Saleh alliance …that is fighting the internationally recognised, Saudi-backed interim government of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi,” the report said. It was referring to Iranian-backed Houthi rebels who are aligned with former Yemeni leader Ali Abdullah Saleh.

AQAP’s resurgence is as much a result of Saudi Arabia’s single-minded focus on the Iranian threat posed in the kingdom’s perception by the Houthis as it is potentially related to a murky web of indirect or tacit relationships with the group.

“In prosecuting the war, the Saudi-led coalition has relegated confronting AQAP and IS to a second-tier priority… Saudi-led coalition statements that fighting the group is a top priority and announcements of military victories against AQAP in the south are belied by events,” the ICG said.

The kingdom’s willingness to cooperate with Islamists such as Yemen’s Islah party, a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, and unclear attitude towards AQAP has sparked strains within the anti-Houthi coalition, particularly with the staunchly anti-Islamist UAE.

AQAP has been able to rearm itself through the indirect acquisition of weapons from the Saudi-led coalition as well as raids on Yemeni military camps. AQAP is believed to have received advance notice and to have coordinated with the Saudis its withdrawal from the crucial port of Mukalla before an assault by UAE and Yemeni forces, according to the ICG.

Saudi Arabia was conspicuously low key when in January a US Navy Seal died in a raid on AQAP in which the US military seized information that this month prompted the Trump administration and Britain to ban carry-on electronics aboard U.S. and London-bound flights from select airports in North Africa and the Middle East, including two in Saudi Arabia.

Arab News, Saudi Arabia’s leading English-language newspaper, this week quoted Saudi officials as saying that AQAP, widely believed to be well advanced in its ability to target aircraft with explosives smuggled on board, had lost its capability to operate overseas.

The officials said that Saudi Arabia, which has cozied up to the Trump administration and endorsed the president’s ban on travel to the US from six Muslim majority countries, was concerned about IS and Shiite militants rather than AQAP. “They (AQAP) don’t have the power to export their activities,” Arab news quoted Abdullah Al-Shehri, a senior Saudi interior ministry official, as saying.

The ministry’s spokesman, Mansour Al-Turki, noted that ´ “Qaeda actually has not been involved in any real kind of terrorism-related incident in Saudi Arabia for three years. Most of the incidents came from Daesh (the Arab acronym for IS) or militant groups related to Shiites in the eastern province.”

The United States and some of its key allies, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia, may be able to paper over differences that allow for short-term advances against IS. But in the longer term, it could be the failure to address those differences head on that will create new breeding grounds for militancy. It’s the kind of trade-off that in the past has produced short-term results only to create even greater problems down the road.

By Jp Cortez*

The Dunning-Kruger effect is the idea that low-ability people tend to suffer from illusory superiority. The phenomenon, first studied by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, says that people who know the least tend to overvalue their own competence, and tend to believe that they are experiencing some sort of upper-echelon level of thinking.

While the original study was conducted in 1999, we witnessed what appeared to be the Dunning-Kruger effect in action earlier this month on the floor of the Idaho House of Representatives.

And while it’s only March, we also have identified the front-runner for our “Aurophobe of the Year” award. (Aurophobia is the irrational fear of gold.).

During the March 14^th floor debate on Idaho’s House Bill 206, a measure that promotes sound money by removing Idaho income taxation from precious metals, Democrat Representative Mat Erpelding — the House Minority Leader — couldn’t help himself and had to share his two cents, even after asserting that he had no opinion on the bill (but then voted against it).

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t have an opinion on this bill. However, I do have an opinion on facts. Facts are somewhat important,” Representative Erpelding said with an air of superiority. “If we say that gold is going to protect us from inflation, I want to point out that in 1868, gold was $27 an ounce, and today gold is $1,218 an ounce. So, we can’t say that gold is going to protect us from inflation when you have that type of a price range over the last hundred years. So, I just want to point out that facts are important.

Huh? The purchasing power of the dollar versus gold has fallen nearly 98% and gold therefore offers no protection against inflation?

Despite Minority Leader Erpelding’s objection, House Bill 206 overwhelmingly passed in the House 56–13. Next, sound money supporters hope to receive a hearing and a vote in the Idaho Senate.

See the video:

About the author:
*Jp Cortez is the assistant director of the Sound Money Defense League, an organization which is working to bring back gold and silver as America’s constitutional money.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

By Farhad Daneshvar

The Islamic Republic of Iran hopes that President Hassan Rouhani’s upcoming visit to Moscow would be a turning point in bilateral cooperation in various areas in particular economic, trade and industrial cooperation, a senior diplomat says.

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Bahram Qassemi has described Russia as a powerful and influential country, adding that the two countries have promoted proper cooperation on bilateral and regional issues over the recent years, ILNA news agency reported.

Speaking about ups and downs in diplomatic ties between the two countries over the past five centuries, he said that Tehran and Moscow had considerable and effective cooperation over the recent years as they share common viewpoints on tackling extremism and terrorist groups.

Although there are some differences between Tehran and Moscow on tackling terrorism, but cooperation between the two countries has slowed the growth of terrorist groups, he added.

According to the spokesperson, President Rouhani and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, are expected to discuss regional issues in particular Syrian crisis and ways to put an end to the issue as well as tackling terrorism and extremism during the two day visit in Moscow.

He further touched upon economic ties between Iran and Russia expressing his dissatisfaction with the level of economic relations and called for making efforts aimed at increasing the volume of trade.

Bahram Qassemi said that about ten documents on cooperation in various fields are expected to be inked during the visit.

President Rouhani is slated to arrive in Moscow on March 27.

By Golnaz Esfandiari*

(RFE/RL) — Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is no fan of gender equality, which he routinely decries as a Western concept that damages women and distracts them from their vital roles as wives and mothers.

And again this week, at a speech on March 19 marking the birth of the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad, Fatima Zahra, Khamenei doubled down, suggesting that Westerners themselves are having second thoughts.

“Today, Western thinkers and those who pursue issues such as gender equality regret the corruption that it has brought about,” said the man who has the final say in religious and political matters in a country of 83 million people.

He even blasted gender equality as a “Zionist plot” aimed at corrupting women’s role in society.

Designating women as goods & means of pleasure in western world, most probably, is among Zionists’ plots to destroy human community.

— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) March 19, 2017

“Making women a commodity and an object of gratification in the Western world is most likely among the Zionist plots aiming to destroy society,” Khamenei was also quoted as saying.

Women in Iran are denied equal rights before the law in divorce, child custody, inheritance, and other areas. A woman’s testimony in court is considered to be half the value of a man’s. Women need the permission of their father or husband to travel. And women are forced to cover their hair and body.

There are rare reports of women being sentenced to death by stoning, although it is unclear how many such sentences are carried out under Iran’s opaque justice system.

Khamenei suggested that Western views of women used to be “more decent,” “more prudent,” and “more suitable” with “the nature of men and women.”

“When you look at the literature in European countries in the 18th and 19th centuries, it was absolutely different from the 20th century,” Khamenei said. He added that “it is obvious that there has been political work from the Zionist and the colonial system.”

Khamenei went on to say that Iran’s overwhelmingly male, clerically dominated establishment does not aim to keep women at home. Yet he added that, in his eyes, the roles of mother and wife are the most important a woman can play.

“The role a woman can play as a family member is in my view more important than all other roles that a woman can play,” the Iranian leader said. “The question is whether a woman has the right to ruin her role as a mother and a wife because of all the good, interesting, and sweet [opportunities] that could be there for her outside the family environment.”

Khamenei has said in the past that the effort to establish equality between men and women was “one of the biggest intellectual mistakes” of the Western world. “Why should a job that is masculine be given to a woman? What kind of honor is it for a woman to do a man’s job?” he asked in a 2014 speech.

Iranian hard-liners routinely accuse women’s rights champions of promoting “obsolete” feminist views and claim that such views and demands are anti-Islamic.

In December, the head of Iran’s female Basij militia called the promotion of gender equality illegal and demanded that the country’s powerful judiciary take action against people who speak out against gender discrimination.

Women’s rights activists have been persecuted by the Iranian state through interrogation, arrest, and jail sentences. Many have been forced to leave the country.

Homa Hoodfar, a retired professor at Concordia University in Montreal known for her work on gender relations, was imprisoned in Iran last year for more than 100 days for what a state prosecutor called “dabbling in feminism and security matters.”

Iran’s lone Nobel laureate, lawyer and 2003 Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, now lives abroad following years of persecution for her work on human rights cases.

In a 2009 contribution to The Guardian, Ebadi noted that “despite the cultural, social and historical heritage of Iranian women, the Islamic republic has imposed discriminatory regulations against them.”

She added, “The laws imposed on Iranian women are incompatible with their status and, consequently, the equality movement is very strong.”

The views expressed in this article post do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL

*Golnaz Esfandiari is a senior correspondent with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. She can be reached at EsfandiariG@rferl.org

China captured 2,566 fugitives who had fled to more than 90 countries and regions and recovered 8.6 billion yuan (125 million U.S. dollars) during the “Sky Net” manhunt from 2014 to 2016, Xinhua reports.

Of them, 1,283 turned themselves in or were persuaded to return to China, according to a statement issued Saturday, March 25 by the office in charge of fugitives under the central anti-graft coordination group.

A total of 410 had been members of the Communist Party of China or official staff, according to the statement. So far, 39 of China’s 100 most-wanted have returned or been returned.

The campaign has effectively stopped corrupt officials from fleeing overseas, the statement said. The number of those who fled abroad dropped significantly over the period, from 101 in 2014 to 19 last year.

According to another statement by the Ministry of Public Security on Saturday, the “Fox hunt” campaign, an important part of “Sky Net,” netted 951 fugitives suspected of economic offenses from 72 countries and regions in 2016.

Police nationwide have worked with the People’s Bank of China and solved 380 cases of underground banks and money laundering, closing more than 500 underground banks.

A new study suggests that coral reefs–already under existential threat from global warming–may be undergoing further damage from invading bacteria and fungi coming from land-based sources, such as outfall from sewage treatment plants and coastal inlets.

The study raised the possibility that microbes from these sources are invading reefs off of the southeastern coast of Florida. The research is published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, a journal of the American Society for Microbiology.

In the study, the researchers, led by Chan Lan Chun, PhD, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Natural Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota, Duluth, took water samples from coastal inlets, and from oceanic outfall effluent from water treatment plants along Florida’s southeastern coast, as well as from water and coral tissues in reefs. Their work showed that certain bacterial species and fungal families are present both in the land-based sources and in water and tissues within the coral reefs. The distance from the sewage outfall pipes to the reefs ranges from 5.5 to 25 miles.

The investigators used techniques called “high throughput next generation DNA sequencing” and to analyze each of the water samples to identify and quantify the bacteria and fungi living therein, said Chun.

They then used software called SourceTracker “to evaluate and quantify the potential contributions from each of the land-based sources to the reef,” said Chun.

The fact that a small number of previous studies have failed to find on other reefs the microbes that appear both on nearby land and on reefs in this study suggest that those microbes have invaded these reefs, said coauthor Michael Sadowsky PhD, professor of Soil, Water, and Climate, and director of the Biotechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, St. Paul. “The metagenomic data we have now strongly suggests that anthropogenic input sources are becoming established on reefs.”

Experiments would need to be done to prove the hypothesis, said Sadowsky. “We would need to infect part of a pristine reef in a lab mesocosm study and follow the microbial ecology–the growth and survival–of the microorganisms that become established on the reef.”

Assuming the hypothetical invaders actually are invaders, these microbes will have almost certainly changed the community structure of the reef microbiome. That could be damaging because the microbiome “plays various roles in nutrient cycling, coral health, and creating a habitat that is conducive to the various animals and plants that live in the reef,” Chun explained.

Thus, invaders would likely disrupt the ecology of the animal and plant communities of the reef, and since the coral depends on all of the above for its health and sustenance, it would likely be harmed as well, said Chun. She said that previous studies have shown that runoff from land can harm coral reefs by infecting the coral, and disrupting the ecology of the animals and plants, including preventing growth and reproduction of some species.

The current U.S. Debt hovers around 23 trillion dollars, and the overall debt is rumored to be around ten times that, and is expected to grow by another $10 trillion in the next 10 years.

It is absolutely and totally unpayable, and has doomed the American people (and its government) to complete and total slavery.

The American people no longer have a government that answers to or works for them, but rather takes their marching orders from the international central banks, and in the case of the United States, its incarnation as the Federal Reserve.

Born of a total fraud, a fraudulent inducement to contract foisted on the American people in December 1913, the bill enacting this financially extortionate and fiat currency banking system was literally rammed through Congress and the Senate during the Christmas festivities at that time, when 99% of the U.S. Government was home for the holidays.

The legislation itself, which was drafted in secret by an ultra secret financial banker cabal at the aptly named Jekyll Island, by men who literally used fake names in their transportation to get there, the entire process was a criminal conspiracy of the highest order.

This process alone would void and vitiate the U.S. debt alone, because it is standard contract common law that one can void a contract by virtue of fraudulent inducement, misrepresentation, void for vagueness, non-disclosure, incapacity to contract, illegality, or for criminal purposes.

Past Presidents Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson fought viciously against central banking in the United States, opting instead for government-coined currency rather than farming it out to third party interests, and certainly foreign ones at that.

They fought long, hard and bloody wars, and in fact many would argue that the United States itself was founded and declared independence from England exactly because of the stranglehold the European Central Banks had over their originating country, but included the War for Independence of 1776, The War of 1812, and subsequently most major wars after that, all across the world, wherein the international bankers have commanded their host government country leaders to wage cruel, bloody wars against other nations who refused to host one of their international parasitic banks with which to exploit, drain, and extort their people with fractional reserve banking tactics and schemes.

Donald Trump is a seasoned and tough New York City businessman, who has declared bankruptcy himself several times for his companies when he realized that it was no longer feasible, moral, or possible to pay bad or disputed debts – he also is no sucker, and has a proven track record of telling bad debtors to go “pound sand” when they have presented him with inv0ices for faulty, sub-standard, shoddy, fraudulent, frivolous, illegal, or fictitious debt.

Therefore he is exactly the man for the this job – to tell the Federal Reserve and the international central bankers to “take a long walk, off of a short pier.”

The American people never consented to, or were informed, fully or adequately, about the “deal with the devil” that is the Federal Reserve.

Had this vote been taken today, in the age of the internet, alternative media, social media, Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube, they would overwhelmingly refuse to partake in the outright selling out of their country, their children and families, their property, their freedom, and their birthright.

Unfortunately the fraud has come full circle – the American people are teetering at the brink of the abyss – and their nation and all its worth are being sold on the chopping block for the benefit of the global deep state oligarchy/plutocracy, who all plan to bail on this great nation for hopes of a better future and tomorrow, without them of course.

The American people will not abide by this – and they have duly elected Donald Trump because they truly believe that he will be the man who finally puts this outrageous, fraudulent and fictitious debt down for good, either though outright cancellation, repudiation, or renegotiation, perhaps for pennies on the dollar.

And who will come to collect if the USA doesn’t pay?

The United States of America is pound for pound, the strongest, most militarily superior, most patriotic nation where each and every one of its citizens is armed to the teeth – and we have tens of thousands of nuclear weapons.

As the Greek saying goes, “Molon Labe” – come and take it – usually this phrase refers to the refusal to relinquish weapons, but in this case, this could also refer to the “U.S. debt.”

Donald Trump needs to re-set the clock, re-set the debt, link our currency to tangibles such as gold, real property, and silver instead of fiat fractional reserve paper promissory notes, and get on with “Making America Great Again.”

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas received a special “Hope for Peace” prize at the Steiger Award ceremony in Germany on Saturday.

The Steiger Award said on its website that it had chosen to hand the prize to Abbas as a “clear signal” vis-a-vis the stagnating Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

In a speech during the ceremony in the German city of Dortmund, Abbas said that the Palestinian Authority (PA), which he heads, had created a committee to “maintain and support tolerance and coexistence” between Palestinians and Israelis, with the goal of achieving a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

Abbas stated that the Palestinian struggle against Israel was not anti-Semitic, “but rather against occupation which controls our people and land,” restating his respect for Judaism.

Abbas added that the PA stood against “terrorism, violence, and extremism in our region and in the world, regardless of its source or its types.”

Hamas, the de facto ruling party in the besieged Gaza Strip, denounced on Sunday Abbas’ statements in Germany regarding a two-state solution, saying that the PA president’s stance on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict only laid claim to 22 percent of historical Palestine for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Such small demands, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum said, were “extremely dangerous” and constituted a “national crime that negates the Palestinian people’s right in their lands and strengthen the occupation.”

While the Steiger Award says it recognizes individuals for their “straightforwardness, openness, humanity and tolerance,” Abbas has faced growing anger at home.

Elected president of the PA in 2005, Abbas indefinitely extended his mandate in 2009.

In the 12 years of Abbas’ rule, the PA has been on the receiving end of mounting criticism over its corruption and seeming inability to advance towards a just solution for Palestinians.

However, it is the PA’s security coordination with Israel — which has been denounced by critics as a “revolving door policy” of funneling Palestinians from PA jails into Israeli prisons — which has become the most prominent target for critics of Abbas’ government, as detention raids by Palestinian police have sparked violent clashes, in recent weeks.

The killing of prominent Palestinian activist Basel al-Araj at the hands of Israeli forces earlier this month, months after he was released from Palestinian custody, has also inspired anti-PA protests, which were violently suppressed by Palestinian police.

Major oil producers are scheduled to meet in Kuwait to deliberate on the outcome of their collective cut in production. It is expected that they won’t make any decisions until May, but are likely discuss the slow pace of market adjustment.

A survey of 13 oil market analysts by Bloomberg concludes that OPEC has little choice but to continue their production cuts. “They’ll probably think they need to grin and bear it longer. The glue that bound them together to begin with, which was higher prices, is the glue that will continue to bind them together.”

A point to be dealt with by all is ‘Saudi Arabia might demand Iran cutback if OPEC is to extend deal’. Speculation about whether or not OPEC will extend its production cut deal for another six months will be one of the most significant variables affecting oil prices in the short run. Western media has once again started spreading disinformation, “Saudi Arabia might only agree to an extension if Iran agrees to cut its production, something that it did not have to do as part of the initial deal”.

The western media is prompting, “Iran agreed to a cap on production slightly higher than its October baseline for the January to June period, but Saudi Arabia is growing tired of taking on the bulk of the sacrifice for the market adjustment and might stipulate that other countries make a larger sacrifice if the deal is to be extended through the end of the year”.

The western pinch can be understood by a Reuters report quoting a Saudi energy ministry official that crude exports to the United States in March would fall by around 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) from February and hold at those levels for the next few months.

The official said the expected drop, in line with OPEC’s agreement, could help draw down inventories in the United States that stood at a record 533 million barrels last week. It is also believed that Saudi exports to other regions, notably Asia, will not face any cut, rather these may increase. Therefore, the western media is once again making hue and cry that unless OPEC extends the curbs beyond June or makes bigger cuts, oil prices are not likely to improve.

The question remains whether OPEC, whose committee monitoring the cuts will meet over the weekend in Kuwait, will extend the deal? In Russia, private oil producers are ditching their skepticism and lining up behind an extension of output cuts after previous oil price increases compensated for lost income.

In the United States, shale drilling has pushed up oil production by more than 8 percent since mid-2016 to just above 9.1 million bpd, though producers have left a record number of wells unfinished in Permian, the largest oilfield in the country, a sign that output may not rise as swiftly as drilling activity would indicate.

While, I am not an expert to suggest anything to OPEC, I would have no option but to tell them that if no cap is put on oil output in the United States, they (OPEC) have no obligation to cut output. On the contrary they should start dumping their oil in the United States, rather than giving it a chance to increase indigenous production. OPEC must once again let the price go down below US$25 per barrel. This will render the producers from the United States uneconomical. OPEC should also stop considering Iran its enemy as it (Iran) can’t increase output in near term.

The world’s most dangerous arms race is not to be found in Moscow and Washington, or in East Asia, where pressures are high in the Western Pacific between Beijing and the United States. Nor it is to be found in the Middle East, a region in turmoil where the two powers of Iran and Saudi Arabia are occupied with intermediary fighting in a few hotspots. The world’s most dangerous arms race lies in South Asia and the progressing contention between India and Pakistan.

The Indian-Pakistani challenge is a worldwide issue well on the way to delivering a huge scale war between two major, powerful countries and the result in the deployment of nuclear weapons while the rate of new developments in this arms race is an alarming situation for regional peace and prosperity.

The dominant factor in the continuity of Indo-Pakistan rivalry lies in the support that the US, Russia, and China along with other arms exporter have extended the regional challenges involved in regional disputes. India was supported by Former the Soviet Union while China continuously helped Pakistan. The US has played double policy in this regard. Sometimes it has supported Pakistan and sometimes imposed sanctions. In the meantime, India has benefited from Russia. So, the arms race history of South Asia is not so prolonged, but it has made the rivalry prolonged.

In recent developments, both countries have tested missiles and redefined systems for deployments. The Indian aggressive posture is to kill two birds with one stone. On one side it deters China and on another it is threatening Pakistan. Moreover, India as it considers China as the enemy, thus it deploys new ballistic missiles. Pakistan is developing a new delivery system in the light of developments in India. As a result, there is a continuous rise in the arms race.

Pakistan launched a sea-based cruise missile Babur-3 capable of nuclear warheads in the response of India’s sea-based nuclear deterrent and advance ballistic missile defense system. It is the variant of a ground-launched Babur-2 cruise missile with an estimated range of 450 km. It gives Islamabad a credible second strike capability.

The K-4 is an intermediate-range ballistic missile assessed to have a range of approximately 3,500 kilometers, as opposed to the K-15, which has a range of approximately 750 kilometers. The K-15 reportedly was tested twice in March 2016 and is now in production. In the response, Pakistan tested Babur-3 to counter Indian missile hegemony.

Recently, India completed its nuclear triad with the commissioning of INS Arihant Submarine as part of Indian Navy, which is believed to be operational and capable of launching nuclear warheads. This can carry India’s nuclear capable K-4 or K-15 ballistic missiles. Simultaneously India claiming no first uses policy while it is strengthening military muscles too by successful testing of missile like Agni series.

India also added nuclear capable aircraft including Dassault Mirage 2000H and Dassault Rafale etc. Mirage 2000H is the part of Indian Air force since 1985 and their number grew time to time, while Rafale deal was materialized in 2016. It signifies Indian military capability and growing interest toward armament, which pose a serious threat to the peace and prosperity in the region.

This has made Pakistan thoroughly consider her nuclear arms stockpile and retaliatory potential in such unverifiable terms with India, because of Pakistan’s India-Specific Nuclear tenet. Pakistan has officially developed Naval Strategic Force Command (NSFC) in later past. However, Pakistan has not yet set up her entire, solid sea-based missile setup.

Moreover, Pakistan does not have an active nuclear triad but Pakistan have several missiles to maintain sovereignty in case of any Indian offense and I think it is necessary for its survival and to maintain the balance of power with India.

In fact, both states are trying to enjoy leverage over one another, thus there is serious competition between two rivals.

Meanwhile, it is believed that both countries have separated their warheads from missiles. Until when will such an unattractive scenario not be developed? If any terrorist group developed a scenario either in Pakistan or India, both countries would not let them deploy missiles. As it is now, this rivalry runs counter to  creating a peaceful environment.

Insecurity is at the heart of every rivalry and the element of insecurity is heightened day by day between the two. They claim to follow no-first-use doctrine, but at the same time, both are aggressive enough to deny no-first-use policy with a cause of each other’s existence as rivals, with some external gamers playing their efficient role in escalating this rivalry in pursuit of their own regional interests and retaining their strategic influence.

The region of third world countries is surrounded by numerous social issues. Defense is being given more priority instead of nontraditional security threats. These Nontraditional threats are more dangerous than traditional threats and have server implications in future. More than 41 percent of Population is living below the new international poverty line in India and near of it in Pakistan. This shows bad governance and mismanagement in both countries.

It is a fact that, whereever arms flow, violence follows. Missiles replace ballots as the solution to political dispute. Therefore it is our prime responsibility to raise our voice for complete disarmament in the region and resolve our all issues by other means.

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

Carrie Lam, 59, has been elected as Hong Kong’s first woman chief executive – the top government job. Lam had the backing of the Chinese government in Beijing and was widely expected to win. Lam garnered 777 votes to Tsang’s 365. Woo received 21. Lam’s main rival, former finance chief John Tsang, was the public’s favorite, according to opinion polls. The third candidate, and the most liberal, was retired judge Woo Kwok-hing. Pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong, who was among those protesting and was a lead figure in the umbrella movement, has called the electoral process “a selection rather than an election”. When the result was announced, he tweeted that Lam had been elected with “only 777 votes”.

Hong Kong is governed under the principle of “one country, two systems”, under which China has agreed to give the region semi-autonomous status since its 1997 handover from Britain.

The chief executive is not chosen by public vote, but by a 1,200-strong committee dominated by pro-Beijing electors. Hong Kong’s Election Committee picked Lam to succeed current leader CY Leung, who will step down in July. She was formerly his deputy. Hong Kong has a degree of autonomy from Beijing but protests have been growing over Chinese interference. Pro-democracy groups held protests outside the election venue, calling the process a sham. Calls for fully free elections have failed, despite intense demonstrations, known as the “umbrella protests” in 2014.

The Election Committee includes 70 members of the territory’s legislature, the Legislative Council – half of whom are directly elected. However, most of the Election Committee is chosen by business, professional or special interest groups. Critics say entities that lean towards Beijing are given disproportionately large representation.

Social tensions

In her acceptance speech, Lam said her first priority during her five-year term would be to reduce social tensions. She said she welcomed and encouraged a spectrum of voices and vowed to “tap the forces of our young people”. “They are often at the forefront of society, pulling and pushing us as a whole to make progress.” Lam also promised to uphold Hong Kong’s “core values” such as “inclusiveness, freedoms of the press and of speech, respect for human rights” and the rule of law.

Earlier, Hong Kong chief executive CY Leung had said he will not seek re-election in March, citing family reasons for the surprise announcement. Speaking at a news conference, Leung said: “If I run my family will suffer an intolerable stress.” Leung has often been accused by pro-democracy campaigners of putting China’s interests above those of the people of Hong Kong. He will step down when his term ends in July 2017.

His successor was elected by a 1,200-member, mostly pro-Beijing, Election Committee, rather than by the wider electorate.

Last year, pro-democracy activists secured 325 seats on the committee – the highest number ever, but not enough seats to determine the next chief executive. On Facebook, an online protest was launched called No Election in Hong Kong Now, which showed a video montage of regular citizens going about their business as the election took place to highlight how they were not entitled to participate. Leung has proved unpopular with large swathes of Hong Kong residents who consider him too tightly aligned to Beijing. At the end of the 2016, he made the unexpected announcement that he would not run again, citing family reasons.

Uphill battle

Lam, a long-time civil servant, is nicknamed the nanny because of her background running numerous government projects. During the 2014 protests, which were spearheaded by young people, she took the unpopular stance of defending Beijing’s concessions for political reform. This allowed Hong Kong people to choose their leader but only from pre-approved candidates.

Hong Kong’s new leader Lam has almost four decades of public service behind her. For five years she served as deputy to the man she is now replacing, the unpopular CY Leung. She has been praised as a strong administrator and pragmatic lawmaker, and is undoubtedly Beijing’s choice for the role. But she is widely disliked by the pro-democracy camp for her stance on political reform.

When mass rallies erupted in 2014, it was Lam who defended Beijing’s unpopular proposal – to allow Hong Kong people to choose their leader but only from pre-approved candidates – to crowds of protesters demanding full democracy. Many have also accused her of being out of touch with voters after gaffes, including a bizarre search for toilet paper and a failure to use a transport swipe card.

Lam comes from a working-class background, and joined the civil service in 1980 after graduating from the University of Hong Kong. After spells dealing with housing and social welfare, she served as the city’s secretary for development before moving into Hong Kong’s number two role, chief secretary, in 2012. She was not the popular candidate to replace Leung – rival John Tsang scored far better in opinion polls – but was favored by those who decide who leads the territory.

There were multiple reports of Beijing lobbying for her and, a few days before the polls, Hong Kong’s richest man, Li Ka-shing, made comments seen by many as endorsing her.

Ahead of the election, Lam talked about bringing more young voices into the government, improving transparency and accelerating development. “I am worried about the discontent that has emerged in our society,” she said in January. “I know our younger generation is concerned about the lack of upward mobility and the cost of housing.”

But addressing young people’s concerns will require more than economic measures, and on restarting Hong Kong’s stalled political reform process she has been noncommittal. “The administration must consider whether the criteria and atmosphere are present,” she said. “Otherwise, we will draw Hong Kong into another series of divisions, and this is not favourable for the city’s development.”

Critics of Lam have nicknamed her “CY 2.0” – another version of the outgoing Leung – and at the chief executive debate on 14 March, there was a telling exchange. Tsang asked her. “We are worried that if you get elected, society will experience ‘Divisiveness 2.0’.” His comments underline the challenge Lam is facing, balancing an intransigent Beijing with home-grown calls for full democracy that have not abated.

Hong Kong is an autonomous territory, and former British colony, in southeastern China. Its vibrant, densely populated urban centre is a major port and global financial hub with a skyscraper-studded skyline. Central (the business district) features architectural landmarks like I.M. Pei’s Bank of China Tower. Hong Kong is also a major shopping destination, famed for bespoke tailors and Temple Street Night Market.

Hong Kong is officially the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, is an autonomous territory on the Pearl River Delta of East Asia. Macau lies across the delta to the west, and the Chinese province of Guangdong borders the territory to the north. With a total land area of 1,106 square kilometres (427 sq mi) and a population of over 7.3 million of various nationalities, it ranks as the world’s fourth most densely populated sovereign state or territory.

After the First Opium War (1839–42), Hong Kong became a British colony with the perpetual cession of Hong Kong Island, followed by the Kowloon Peninsula in 1860 and a 99-year lease of the New Territories from 1898. Hong Kong was later occupied by Japan during World War II until British control resumed in 1945. In the early 1980s, negotiations between the United Kingdom and China resulted in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, which paved way for the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong in 1997, when it became a special administrative region (SAR) with a high degree of autonomy.

Under the principle of “one country, two systems”, Hong Kong maintains a separate political and economic system from China. Except in military defence and foreign affairs, Hong Kong maintains its independent executive, legislative and judiciary powers. In addition, Hong Kong develops relations directly with foreign states and international organisations in a broad range of “appropriate fields”.

By Corina Rebegea*

(FPRI) — Most countries in Southeastern Europe consider the Black Sea a more reliable ally than one another. This attitude speaks to the failure of many cooperation initiatives in the region. But recently, not even the Black Sea serves as a good neighbor, particularly because it is becoming heavily militarized by Russia. Russia’s militarization of the Black Sea points to two major challenges for Romania in the region: (1) a very assertive Russia—both militarily and informationally—and (2) a lack of regional alignment between littoral states. The latter challenge is made increasingly more complicated by Russia’s use of information warfare tactics and the distribution of narratives that are likely to undermine good neighborly relations.

After the illegal annexation of Crimea, the Russian Federation became a direct neighbor of Romania, augmenting the Romanians’ perceived security threat. The proximity of Russia’s military arsenal to Romania’s exclusive economic zone and offshore oil and gas fields creates anxiety in Bucharest. Romania aspires to more than just securing the stability and predictability of its own borders and environment. It also aims to become a provider of security and stability and a role-model for democratic development in the Southeast European region. The government aims to pursue “the transformation of its neighborhood in an area of democracy, security and prosperity” although it is still not clear the extent to which Romania is capable of becoming a regional actor on this scale.

In pursuing its goal, Romania has always pushed for further regional cooperation in the broader Black Sea area. But the various formats—some of which include Russia, such as the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC)—have not produced concrete initiatives and have not aligned the interests of participating states. Most recently, Romania’s initiative to forge a common Black Sea naval presence by joining forces with Bulgaria and Turkey met opposition in Sofia. The initiative’s failure to strengthen defense cooperation is symptomatic of relationships in the area, further creating an environment of distrust that makes littoral countries less secure.

The current situation in the Black Sea is the consequence of the skillful Russian “divide and conquer” strategy whose aggressive use of hard power intimidates the more risk-averse littoral states. The circulation of narratives concocted by the Russian propaganda machine amplifies insecurity. The aim of this program is to hollow out the old consensus about the Euro-Atlantic alliance as the foundation of regional stability, foster animosity, and expand the rifts between partners in the region. Using information networks and tactics, Russia has established itself as the spoiler power par excellence, thriving on disorder and doubt about old certainties, particularly the credibility and trust in the transformative power of EU and NATO that for years embodied the modernization and progress in the region.

From a Romanian perspective, the threat in the information space has deepened since the Euromaidan in Ukraine. If Romania wants to achieve its goal of becoming a provider of security and promoter of democracy in the region, then it must pay attention to the extent to which its endeavors are weakened by Russian propaganda and disinformation techniques.

A Game of Narratives

Russian military doctrine sees disinformation and propaganda as part of the same toolbox as hard power. The Russian military’s Gerasimov Doctrine highlights the centrality of non-kinetic means of waging war in the 21^st century. Eastern Europe has become a testing ground for mind games and the competition over public perceptions and regional constituencies. In the long run, information warfare is likely to alter Black Sea security by affecting business, society, and politics in littoral countries. This strategy will shake stability and weaken neighborly relations in the region. The weaponization of information by Russian authorities has become a very aggressive foreign policy tool in countries like Ukraine and Moldova, but Romania has also been a victim of such tactics.

There are common threads that unite these disinformation techniques. Russia’s main goals are to weaken trust in Euro-Atlantic institutions—both NATO and the EU—and revive or invent historic enmities between neighbors that make collaboration less likely. Because of such efforts, the region and each individual country are weaker and more prone to subversion.

Some of the common tools include:

• Reinterpreting history to challenge existing borders or framing ethnic relations and minorities in a more confrontational way by emphasizing old communal fears and existential security dilemmas (the ancient hatred narrative);
• Fear-mongering and spreading of fake news and conspiracy theories, some of which may refer to a Western agenda to turn these countries into “colonies” and use them to extract resources or as pawns in their geopolitical games;
• Using negative stories from one country to influence perception or emotions in another one;
• Harnessing the anti-establishment grievances, also by directly supporting political parties; encouraging dissent and euro-skeptic sentiments;
• Scapegoating the foreigner, the civilizational “other,” especially inside societies that are becoming more polarized on the issue of immigrants and globalization.

Narratives are then spread through various online platforms and social media in a well-constructed disinformation ecosystem that multiplies rapidly and creates the impression of credibility and legitimacy.

When it comes to the Black Sea itself, the Kremlin’s messaging aims to reframe security challenges. In English-language Russian media, for instance, NATO is portrayed as an aggressor, while Russia is merely protecting its interests in the region. At the same time, stories about military capabilities positioned in Crimea are meant to intimidate neighbors, while seemingly dissident positions within NATO (such as recent statements by Bulgarian and Hungarian officials) are given positive coverage. These tactics sow doubt about the intentions of the Western alliance, which according to pro-Russian media are to create a new Cold War, but also question sovereignty and self-esteem of the countries in the region. For Romania in particular, this narrative creates the challenge of being singled out and portrayed as a puppet of the West.

How does Russian Propaganda affect Romania and Broader Black Sea Security?

Regional security is a function of trust as much as capabilities. A fragmented region with neighbors that distrust each other is less likely to project strength and resist outside threats. The information space is a rich environment to sow mistrust, suspicion, and tension. From a Romanian foreign policy perspective, Russian influence and subversion in the information sphere risks to endanger important goals and relationships. These information tactics are evident in several different spheres:

Romanian Domestic Politics. Within Romania, the aim is to foster distrust in Romania’s democracy and to question its historic choices of joining NATO and EU. The broader aim of the Russian Federation is to weaken the solidarity of the transatlantic bond by appealing to citizen disaffection and stimulating negative public opinion about organizations like NATO and the EU.

Moldova. The historic and emotional tie between Romania and Moldova has always been a source of contention in both countries’ diplomatic exchanges with Russia. In Moldova, the common history is used to create the image of an expansionist Romania that would like to occupy its eastern neighbor. Similarly, Romania is portrayed as a failed example of European integration to dissuade Moldovans from following the same path. In Romania, the tactic is the opposite. Nationalistic impulses are stirred and manipulated so that the affection that Romanians may feel towards Moldova grows strong enough to inform policy and push the Romanian state to actively seek reunification. That would play right into Russia’s hands, which, just as in Ukraine, would have the perfect opportunity to intervene and protect the Russian minority living in Moldova. Such a move would lead to a potential new frozen conflict or even outright military confrontation as in eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine. When it comes to Ukraine, with which Romania shares a 650 km border, relations have traditionally been cold. Poor relations between the two neighbors has been amplified by a territorial dispute in the Black Sea over the continental shelf and the Island of Serpents, lack of agreement on commercial utilization of the Danube Delta, and a latent issue regarding the Romanian-speaking minority in Ukraine. However, the bilateral relationship has become more constructive since the Euromaidan uprisings. The annexation of Crimea was the moment when Romania saw not only a direct threat to its security by a potential spread of instability or even conflict into the Republic of Moldova and closer to its border along the Black Sea shores, but also an opportunity to assert itself as a partner that can export its expertise in democratic construction and rule of law.

In the information space, however, Ukraine features as a counter-example for Romania. Just as it did in the past two years during street protests in the Republic of Moldova, during the recent demonstrations in Romania, the Euromaidan was used as negative comparison. Framed as a threat of destabilization and even dismemberment of the country (the so-called Euromaidanization), the Euromaidan and its aftermath were supposed to instill fear in the minds of Moldovans and Romanians. In the recent anti-government demonstrations in Romania, the Kremlin went so far as to officially call for calm and stability in Romania. Such statements reinforced and brought into the realm of official foreign policy what propaganda had been spreading regarding the risks of a revolution.

Russia. While manipulation of the information space can make cooperation with neighbors more sensitive, the most complicated aspect remains Romania’s relationship with Moscow. Diplomatic relations have been strenuous and unproductive since the fall of the communist regime. They have focused on touchy issues for Romania like Romania’s gold reserves stored in Russia during the First World War that were never recovered. But Russia’s main objective in Romania has not been to influence public opinion to the extent of creating a more favorable attitude towards it. Anti-Russian sentiment is strong among Romanians, and trying to create an opinion shift would be an inefficient use of resources. At most, there are efforts to portray Moscow as a true conservative power and defender of Christian traditions. However, investing in amplifying anti-West sentiment and the fear that deepening NATO and EU ties would put Romania in harm’s way from a regional security perspective is a more realistic goal for Russia. In fact, recent Russian rhetoric regarding the anti-missile shield in Deveselu (making Romania a target), the broader U.S. military presence, as well as NATO land and maritime exercises are perfect examples of the tactics used to create an environment in which appeasing Russia becomes a plausible political choice for Romania’s leaders.

Addressing Disinformation

The main question for Romania, but also for its regional neighbors and for NATO, is how to build an effective Black Sea security architecture. The military component is only one part of the response: the information space matters, too.

The extent to which information warfare can sap regional solidarity is hard to quantify, but it represents a major vulnerability. Governments in the region, especially Romania, must match hard defense with strategies to address information warfare. Regional solidarity and cooperation is also key. Yet, old regional organizations have been used by Russia as vehicles to dominate and divide other Black Sea states. Regional cooperation must not be seen as a substitute for NATO and the EU, but rather as a form of solidarity and engagement that would leverage these actors even more.

What is needed is common ground in defining the challenges posed by disinformation techniques. More difficult still is creating common narratives in response to Russian propaganda that reinforce the benefits of NATO and EU membership and good neighborly relations. The EU and NATO can help in this effort, but the responses will ultimately have to be crafted regionally and nationally.

About the author:
*Corina Rebegea is Director of the U.S.-Romania Initiative and Fellow-in-Residence at the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA)

Source:
This article was published by FPRI

People exposed to entertainment television are more likely to vote for populist politicians according to a new study co-authored by an economist at Queen Mary University of London.

The researchers investigated the political impact of entertainment television in Italy over the last 30 years during the phased introduction of Silvio Berlusconi’s commercial TV network Mediaset.

They compared the voting behaviours of people who lived in regions where Mediaset was broadcast versus those where Berlusconi’s network was unavailable. The researchers found that people who had access to Mediaset prior to 1985 — when the network only featured light entertainment — voted on average 1 percentage point more for Berlusconi’s Forza Italia party, compared to municipalities that were exposed later as the network rolled out.

The researchers found that the effect persisted for almost two decades and five elections. It is especially pronounced among older people and young people, although it affected these groups in very different ways.

Author Dr Andrea Tesei from QMUL’s School of Economics and Finance said: “Our results suggest that individuals exposed to entertainment TV as children are less cognitively sophisticated and less socio-politically engaged as adults, and ultimately more vulnerable to Berlusconi’s populist rhetoric. Older people, on the other hand, appear to have been hooked by the light entertainment Mediaset provided and were later exposed to biased news content on the same channels.”

Less educated people (high-school dropouts in this case) who were exposed to entertainment TV voted three percentage points more for Forza Italia than their non-exposed counterparts (i.e. high-school dropouts in municipalities where Mediaset wasn’t available). People exposed to entertainment TV as children voted almost eight percentage points more for Berlusconi, compared to same-age individuals who were exposed later.

The researchers found that people who are exposed to entertainment TV as children are cognitively disadvantaged in later life. Those who were exposed as children score five per cent worse than their non-exposed peers in cognitive test as adults; they are also 13 per cent less likely to report an interest in politics, and 10 per cent less likely to be involved in a voluntary group.

The researchers found an even stronger effect among people who were already older (55+) when exposed to entertainment TV. This group voted on average by 10 percentage points more for Forza Italia than non-exposed voters of the same age. The study found that older people exposed to entertainment TV during the 1980s are 16 per cent more likely to report to watch news (traditionally slanted in favor of Berlusconi and introduced on Mediaset in 1992) on Mediaset channels which is traditionally slanted in favor of Berlusconi.

The researchers also found that exposure to entertainment TV does not just increase support for Berlusconi but also for other parties with similar populist features. Indeed, early access to Mediaset appears also to be associated with higher support for the Five-Star-Movement – led by former comedian Beppe Grillo – which first fielded candidates in 2013. These results suggest that Mediaset influenced political attitudes and voting behavior beyond its effect on Berlusconi’s party. In particular, the results suggest a relationship between exposure to light-fare TV and preferences for populist parties and leaders.

The researchers used a combination of research methods, including engineer-developed software to simulate TV signal propagation, econometric analysis based on municipal-level election data, and geo-referenced survey data.

Their results were significant and stood up when controlled for geographical and socio-economic characteristics at the municipal level.

Dr Tesei said: “Our results suggest that entertainment content can influence political attitudes, creating a fertile ground for the spread of populist messages. It’s the first major study to investigate the political effect of exposure among voters to a diet of ‘light’ entertainment. The results are timely as the United States adjusts to the Presidency of Donald Trump.”

The co-authors were Ruben Durante (Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Sciences Po) and Paolo Pinotti from Bocconi University. The research is published today in a School of Economics and Finance (Queen Mary University of London) working paper.

Control factors:

The researchers first controlled for local measures of education and economic activity. Second they showed there are no pre-existing trends in voting for any political party before the introduction of Mediaset at the municipal level. Third, their methodology only relies on the signal intensity that is due to exogenous geographical characteristics (mountains, valleys).

The presence or absence of mountains interfering with the line of transmission between the municipality and the antenna is a matter of luck and is unrelated to any characteristic of the municipality. This effectively corresponds to exposing individuals (i.e. municipalities) to a random treatment (i.e. exposure to entertainment TV) and identifies the causal effect of exposure to entertainment TV on voting.

By Scott N. Romaniuk, Emeka T. Njoku, and Emmanuel K. Mpinga*

2017 has been an active year for health authorities in Africa, with the establishment of Africa’s own CDC in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and another regional prevention center opened in Abuja, Nigeria, post-Ebola efforts to prepare for the next major outbreak appear to be gaining momentum. However, these efforts lack the acknowledgment of sufficient conditions to keep pace with the manifold threats in the areas of health and human security in Africa. With the prevalence of infectious diseases across the continent and numerous fragile health systems, government authorities and cross-national agencies throughout Africa are alarmingly unprepared for increasingly important issues in health and human security combined.

International health security is becoming increasingly linked to human security. While there remains no consensus on the definition of health security, the concept has developed over many years and now encompasses a wide array of conceptual and substantive challenges. To date, multilateral organizations like the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), National Institutes of Health (NIH), European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC), the European Union (EU), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), among others, have made great strides in building a common health security language. Identifying areas of common concern has been valuable for recognizing issues of significance shared by multiple communities and states, and building on that shared language.

Recently appointed Scientific Director of the Canadian Institute of Population and Public Health (CIHR), Dr. Steven J. Hoffman, has contributed to a public understanding about the intersection of health security and human security. In doing so, he has drawn attention to the term “global health security,” which he notes, “focus[es] on protecting entire populations, rather than individuals, from threats of global proportion that can spread menacingly irrespective of established natural or political borders.”

Approximately a year ago, the WHO officially terminated the Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) for the 2014 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak. The epidemic affected multiple countries in West Africa and was the most extensive EVD outbreak ever recorded. The WHO’s efforts, in combination with other national and supranational entities, in part, were not orchestrated with the concept of global health security in mind.

The WHO’s senior officials were open about their poor response, together with international partners, immediately after the EVD epidemic. They claimed to have been “ill-prepared” to contain the spread and handle the manifold impacts of the disease that presented global policymakers and respondents with overwhelming implications. Some health experts denied the possibility of Ebola Virus Disease outbreaks and spread on the scale that was seen back in 2014. The EVD outbreak underpinned the reality of the WHO’s relatively limited capacity and operational reach during such a health crisis, and offered some insight into funding implications, and how some diseases and regions can be prioritized over others. Moreover, it signals a need to rethink appropriate strategies in preventing the next wave of outbreaks: Populate the world with new centers, or strengthen the existing system and focus on conditions necessary for healthy and robust communities?

As was the case with the West Nile Virus (WNV) in 1999, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003, H1N1 in 2009, and MERS-CoV in 2012, Ebola put the spotlight directly on highly infectious diseases’ ability to outpace health professionals’ response capacities, including organization, management, and containment. In the aftermath of these experiences, the WHO also received a cornucopia of criticism for not drawing on important lessons that could aid in future outbreaks.

In April 2015, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan, Deputy Director-General Anarfi Asamoa-Baah and the organization’s regional directors admitted, “[w]e can mount a highly effective response to small and medium-sized outbreaks, but when faced with an emergency of this scale, our current systems – national and international – simply have not coped.”

The WHO’s April 2015 situation report depicted the virulence of EVD transmission that led to more than 11,300 deaths and 28,500 infections, highlighting the need for “adequate levels of preparation in tandem with ‘rapid and adequate response.’” While identified as part of the requisite conditions for successful preparedness, they cannot be so easily identified in post-EVD regions or other areas that remain susceptible to infectious diseases and rapid spread.

Since the EVD spread, “highest priority” countries – Ivory Coast, Guinea Bissau, Mali, and Senegal identified as being at highest risk – followed by “high priority” countries – Burkina Faso, Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, South Sudan, and Togo –have received insufficient attention by the WHO as well as international and local partners in preparing for future encounters.

Some standard viral hemorrhagic fever Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) modules were distributed to countries where excessive measures were required the most, but those modules were shown to contain inadequate materials to fulfill protection needs, and to ensure essential and lasting counter-disease functions and operations. Although “priority countries” have received technical support through the presence of some Preparedness-Strengthening Teams (PSTs), and assessment activities have been undertaken in different countries and regions, these and other combined efforts can be characterized as responsive rather than preventative. Can 90-day plans organized in each country protect communities across multiple national border against epidemics that can spread aggressively over a period of several years or more?

The WHO’s 2016 Zika declaration, which called the epidemic a global health emergency, revealed the passivity of the organization – in addition to loosely interconnected health systems and structures – that struggled to mobilize an effective response to a virus that many, even after becoming infected, had never heard of. In the case of Zika, the virus spread to nearly every country in the Western hemisphere, coming dangerously close to continental Africa, and led to the mobilization of leading scientists and health experts at all government levels.

Officials were perplexed by questions about transmission, birth defects, prevention, and future implications during the course of Zika’s assertive spread. Other than having declared a global emergency, the WHO received waves of criticism for its lack of action, delayed action, and its ineffectiveness. The crisis led to panic, and governments turning to forced abortions and sterilization as nefarious human rights violations aimed at suppressing the virus. It was an epic example of how the crisis of pandemic can be distorted and how the issue of health can be (over) securitized. Sexual transmission received relatively little attention by most governments, while the mosquito narrative received excessive coverage. The Zika epidemic also exemplified how governments remain not only predominantly ineffective at mosquito control, but also at managing the transmission of diseases through sexual contact – a necessary component of education programs in every country.

Zika further proved the willingness of governments to test new technologies, and experiment with potentially preventative measures, some of which conflict with individuals’ right to life and sovereignty over their bodies. The virus underscored the question of genetic experimentation, with the introduction of male mosquitos containing altered genes leading to a shorter life span. Female mosquitos carrying bacteria inhibiting their capacity to transmit viruses and disease were also released.

Jeff Bessen at Harvard University noted that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may be a valuable ally in the fight against deadly viruses. “Perhaps the most dramatic example of GMO use in medicine,” he writes, “came during the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. When American doctor Kent Brantly and other Western volunteers contracted Ebola, several were cured by a ‘secret serum’ called Zmapp. Manufactured by genetically modified tobacco plants, it’s a mixture of several proteins that attack the Ebola virus.”

In the aftermath of the Zika crisis, important questions about its origin, transmission, and effects have gone unanswered. The pitch of Zika revealed major fractures in scientific cooperation and possibly a dangerous disconnect between the scientific community and governments willing to enact strict, even if blatantly ineffective, measures to combat the disease. Failures to produce vital data on the Zika spread translates into little knowledge about who, if anyone, is immune to it or how many people would be vulnerable if or when Zika were to return.

If Zika were to reappear, this time in Africa, EVD and experiences with previous infectious diseases there could provide a look into the negative impacts that extensive transmission would have. Sexual transmission has been repeatedly downplayed as a mode of transmission. Previous experience showed that travel alerts, such as those made by the CDC and inspections at border crossings produced little in the way of containment.

Central and South America’s recent experience with Zika should have raised more questions about the level of preparedness for Africa’s imaginable encounter with the disease. The latest Ebola ordeal offers a glimpse into the problems of containing a disease with mysterious characteristics. Coupled with a lack or supplies stockpiled, lack of necessary funds and funding, and lack of health and scientific research institutes, the EVD and Zika cases foretell further health crisis for the continent, particularly given the fragility of existing health systems and the level of attention individuals in the most vulnerable parts of Africa give to their personal health.

Laboratory testing and diagnostics in Africa can be identified as one of the deepest problems in combating future disease. Some experts have noted a dearth of laboratory testing in areas deemed critical. Another problem stems from the absence of localized efforts to test for and maybe treat diseases – anything from Ebola to Zika. The United States’ (US) CDC, the United Kingdom’s (UK) Public Health England’s Rare and Imported Pathogens Laboratory (RIPL), and South Africa’s National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) provide a view to the type of operational capabilities needed in other countries. Having identified “priority countries” in Africa, the WHO is in a position to make recommendations and support similar operations in those areas. The African Center of Excellence for Genomics of Infectious Diseases (ACEGID) at Redeemers University, Nigeria and the Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI) are two cases of how similar initiatives are possible on locales susceptible to viral outbreak and spread, but they suffer from resource and staff shortages just as centers and institutes in the West do.

Part of building the necessary infrastructure that leads to strengthened preparedness entails increasing accessibility to vulnerable regions, yet with increased accessibility and openness comes the potential for increase spread. Effective management after an outbreak also means that government and health officials need to be proactive and ready to act. West Africa’s Ebola scare showed the need for more health experts ready and willing to work with national and international partners. EVD exemplified the willingness of local actor collaboration, with several governments having mobilized and deployed teams to contain EVD outbreak. Thus, the EVD experience demonstrated that essential human resources existed to build vital containment teams. The question is whether an increased number of teams would be equipped with the experts they would need and how long their resources would carry them.

Part of Africa’s vulnerability has stemmed from the absence of a unified body of health experts able to respond if and when needed. In the past several years, calls have been made for a center in Africa that reflects the operational abilities of the CDC in Atlanta. Its presence in Africa is expected to help close the gap between outbreak areas and response and coordination centers. In early 2017, the Africa Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) was officially launched – backed by financing from the African Union (AU) – and includes the presence of every African country. Health authorities in other countries have built on the initiative with the establishment of regional CDCs such as that established in Abuja, Nigeria.

The Africa CDC symbolizes a step forward in building and subsequently developing Africa’s communicable disease response. Although, while Africa CDC’s main objectives include prevention, detection, and response to public health threats, its capabilities in these areas have yet to be truly tested. The Africa CDC aims to have centers across the continent, collaborating with both public and private agencies. Its initial goals have been set exceedingly high with its desire to provide universal vaccines by 2020. Given existing regional centers’ inefficiency in collaborating and coordinating among human and health security agents, the Africa CDC delivering on its goals remains questionable.

Former AU Commission Chair, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, who was succeeded by Chad’s Moussa Faki Mahamat, called it a “historic pledge” and claimed that it was an achievable goal. Currently only about a dozen African countries exceed the 50% mark of their national immunization programs, which has exacerbated Africa’s vaccine deficit – one out of every five children go without basic vaccines necessary for healthy living. Very weak levels of local pharmaceutical production leave health professional and task force under-equipped to contain complex outbreaks

Professor Jeremy Farrar, Director of the Wellcome Trust, recently opined that, “epidemic and pandemic diseases are among the greatest of all threats to human health and security, against which we have for too long done too little to prepare.” Human populations are surrounded by “natural reservoirs” of EVD and Marburg, for example, with fruit bats and insectivorous bats having been identified as the source of human health threats.

Given Africa’s increasing interconnectedness as well as the range of Africa’s delicate health communities, public awareness and local or community endeavors become even more important components in prevention programs. Literacy rates in those parts of Africa hit hardest by EVD between 2014 and 2016 were partly attributed to the “rumor mill” that emerged shortly after the outbreak with home remedies, including hot drinks and some raw vegetables, even Homeopathy being identified as dependable measures that would prevent the acquisition of EVD.

Much of the 2014 Ebola spread was attributed to the slow response of health experts in the field. Georgetown University’s health law professor, Lawrence Gostin, noted that, “Ebola is a very preventable disease,” and despite having over 20 previous EVD outbreaks, he said, “we managed to contain all of them.” The WHO’s slow response was also attributed to staffing and resource shortages, which raises questions about the potential for similar shortcomings to affect mobilization and response times by Africa’s CDC.

The creation and subsequent expansion of laboratories, based on the bio-medical approach of epidemics, is not be sufficient in responding to the prevention and management of future threats to health security. Epidemics are also determined by social, political, economic as well as cultural conditions to which the CDC unable provide total, complete, and effective responses. Existing emergency response centers and other facilities already fail to take the full spectrum of conditions into account when articulating the necessity to respond and prevent outbreaks.

Combating the next round of infectious diseases in Africa, and elsewhere, does not lie in the establishment of new centers and new institutions, but rather in mending the structural deficiencies inherent in the existing system. Building laboratories and specific centers for epidemics is only a partial and limited response to future threats to global health security. The activities of health systems are a small part of the response to future epidemics because the causes of the epidemics lie outside of the health systems (armed conflicts, exploitation of forest or mining resources, poor governance, state failure, and general insecurity).

If and when strengthened, programs within the existing system could be connected with broader and overarching initiatives developed at the Africa CDC. In light of recent experiences with Ebola and Zika, there remains much concern about how Africa’s new CDC and African nations will respond to the next major and unknown epidemic(s).

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

By John Zaw

Catholic social workers in Myanmar have pledged to play a greater role in nation building as the country copes with ethnic conflicts and its transition to democracy.

Representatives from Karuna Myanmar Mission Solidarity (the national branch of Caritas) offices in 16 dioceses attended the Karuna Myanmar general assembly held at Christ the King Cathedral in Loikaw, Kayah State March 22-24.

Cardinal Charles Maung Bo of Yangon opened the assembly and spoke on “Integrated Human Development.”

Bishop Raymond Sumlut Gam of Banmaw, chairman of Karuna, said the role of the Catholic Church was very important in the transition to democracy.

“It is the right time for us [social workers] to play a role in nation building and we need to move forward beyond development work,” Bishop Gam told ucanews.com.

He said Karuna has passed its 15th year of working for the needy and marginalized.

Father Henry Eikhlein, director of Karuna in Pathein Diocese, said they would work for “a prophetic role” in the country’s development towards a federal democratic nation.

“The Catholic Church needs to carry out advocacy and speak out on human rights, justice and peace issues,” Father Eikhlein told ucanews.com.

Karuna Myanmar Mission Solidarity, the Catholic Church’s social arm in the country, was established in 2002 to assist with holistic human development, justice and peace, environmental protection, humanitarian assistance and emergency relief services.

Israel and Palestine are gearing up for a crucial battle in world soccer body FIFA about the status of Israeli-occupied territory that is likely to foreshadow President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to revive long-stalled Middle East peace efforts.

At stake in the battle that will play out during FIFA’s annual congress in May in Bahrain is the status of six West Bank Israeli settlement teams that play in Israeli leagues. The Palestine Football Association (PFA) and human rights groups charge that the Israel Football Association’s (IFA) policy violates FIFA rules as well as international law that sees Israeli settlements as illegal.

Israel has argued that Israeli occupied territory involves disputed lands whose future should be determined in peace negotiations.

Past efforts by the PFA to get Israel’s FIFA membership suspended have stranded, prompting years of failed efforts by the world soccer body to negotiate a solution. FIFA negotiator Tokyo Sexwale, whose mandate ends in May, all but declared failure in a report submitted this week to the world body.

Mr. Sexwale proposed three options in a last-ditch effort, all of which are unlikely to provide relief, sources said. Mr. Sexwale reportedly suggested that FIFA could take the legal risk of throwing in the towel, give Israel six months to rectify the status of the disputed clubs, or continue to attempt to achieve a negotiated solution.

Accepting the status quo would revive efforts by the PFA and human rights groups to lobby for a sufficient majority to suspend Israel’s membership at the forthcoming congress. A suspension would complicate Mr. Trump’s Middle East peace efforts.

It would put Arab states, particularly those in the Gulf, in a bind. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have a vested interest in the Trump administration’s tougher attitude towards Iran. Gulf-backed bi-partisan draft legislation that would tighten US sanctions against Iran is pending in the US Congress.

Gulf states as well as Egypt have backed Mr. Trump’s peace-making efforts. Mr. Trump called during last month’s visit to Washington by Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu for a halt to expansion of West Bank and Jerusalem settlements despite adopting an overall far more pro-Israeli attitude than past administrations. The president has also invited Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to visit Washington in the near future.

Egyptian security last month barred PFA president and Palestinian sports czar Jibril Rajoub entry to Egypt to attend a counter-terrorism conference. Mr. Rajoub, a close associate of Mr. Abbas, is widely seen as a possible future Palestinian president.

The PFA and Human Rights Watch have argued that granting West Bank settlement teams the right to play in Israeli leagues violates United Nations Security Council resolutions, including last’s December’s condemnation of Israeli settlements, as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention that sets rules for administering occupied territory.

They also argue that tolerating the status quo would contradict FIFA’s adoption of United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Finally, the PFA and Human Rights Watch note that FIFA statutes prohibit a member association from holding games on the territory of another member association without permission. FIFA’s European affiliate, UEFA, blocked Russia from incorporating teams from occupied Crimea in its national league competitions on those grounds

Giving Israel six months to rectify the situation could offer a temporary, face-saving compromise. By implication, it would acknowledge that allowing West Bank teams to play in Israeli leagues constitutes a violation.

While Israel is certain to reject the notion, it would buy it time at a moment that countering the growing Boycott, Diversification and Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to penalize Israel for continued occupation of the West Bank has become a priority. Israel recently emulated Mr. Trump’s disputed ban on travel to the United States from six majority Muslim country. It declared a ban on travel to Israel by BDS supporters.

It would also allow Arab and Gulf states to give Mr. Trump’s peace-making efforts a chance. Suspension of Israel by FIFA would constitute a major Palestinian victory in long-standing efforts to isolate Israel in international organizations.

Buying into Mr. Sexwale’s proposal for a six-month period is a risky undertaking for all. Mr. Rajoub was criticized for his dropping last year of a proposal to suspend Israel after he realized that he could not muster a quorum in the FIFA congress. Ultra-nationalists in Mr. Netanyahu’s cabinet who advocate annexation of the West Bank would no doubt reject the compromise.

Extending negotiations essentially kicks the ball down the road at a time that Israel is emboldened by Mr. Trump’s pro-Israeli and anti-Muslim stance while Palestinians are going through the motions with little confidence that peace-making will produce tangible results. There is little reason to assume that negotiations would succeed where they have failed without real progress in overall peace-making.

The world soccer body is, nonetheless, likely to opt for the road of least resistance, extending negotiations, despite growing criticism of Israel among FIFA members. PFA vice chairwoman told the Jerusalem Post that Mr. Sexwale’s FIFA monitoring committee would hold a last-ditch meeting in early May in advance of the FIFA congress.

Mr. Rajoub told Al Jazeera that failure to resolve the issue would leave the PFA with “no other choice: we will go to the congress next May in Bahrain and ask for the imposition of sanctions against the Israeli federation.”

The PFA would be bolstered in its effort by the fact that Bahrain, it’s image already tarnished by human rights violations, may want to avoid the embarrassment of having hosted a group that fails to support Palestinian claims.

FIFA could be vulnerable to legal action that would complicate Israeli efforts to avert suspension if the group opts for maintaining the status quo or fails to extend negotiations.

Irrespective of which way FIFA decides to proceed, Israel will be fighting a backbench battle in FIFA as well as other international organizations as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved.

Counting on US backing could prove to be a slippery slope with the Trump administration losing leverage and credibility as it plans cutbacks in financial support for the United Nations as well as the State Department, the US’s key diplomatic agency.

On the campaign trail, in his speeches as well as on TV debates with other presidential contenders, Donald Trump repeatedly mentioned that he has a ‘secret plan’ for defeating Islamic State without elaborating what the plan is? To the careful observers of the US-led war against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, however, the outlines of Trump’s ‘secret plan’ to defeat Islamic State, particularly in Syria, are now getting obvious.

As far as the fight against Islamic State in Iraq is concerned, the Trump Administration is continuing with the policy of its predecessor. The Trump Administration’s policy in Syria, however, is markedly different from the regime change policy of the Obama Administration.

Unlike Iraq where the US is providing air and logistical support to Iraq’s armed forces and allied militia in their battle to retake Mosul from Islamic State, the conflict in Syria is much more complex that involves the Syrian government, the Sunni Arab militant groups, the Kurds, Turkey and Russia.

Regarding the recapture of Palmyra from Islamic State by the Syrian regime, a March 2 article in the Washington Post carried a rather paradoxical headline: “Hezbollah, Russia and the US help Syria retake Palmyra” [1]. The article by Liz Sly offers clues as to how the Syrian conflict might transform under the new Trump Administration.

Under the previous Obama Administration, the unstated but known policy in Syria was regime change, and any collaboration with the Syrian regime against Islamic State was simply not on the cards. The Trump Administration, however, looks at the crisis in Syria from an entirely different perspective, a fact which is obvious from Donald Trump’s statements on Syria during and after the campaign. Moreover, unlike the Obama Administration which was hostile to Russia’s interference in Syria, the Trump Administration is on friendly terms with Assad’s main backer in Syria, i.e. Russia.

It is stated in the aforementioned article by Liz Sly that the US carried out 45 air strikes in the vicinity of Palmyra against Islamic State’s targets in the month of February alone, which must have indirectly helped the Syrian government troops and Hezbollah militia to recapture Palmyra along with Russia’s air support.

Although expecting a radical departure from the six years-long Obama Administration’s policy of training and arming the Sunni Arab militants against the Syrian regime by the Trump Administration is unlikely. However, the latter regards jihadists as a much bigger threat to America’s security than the former. Therefore some indirect support and a certain level of collaboration with Russia and the Syrian government against radical Islamists cannot be ruled out.

Here, let me emphasize that President Trump has been in the office for only two months, it’s too early to predict his approach to the region once he has been fully briefed and has assumed a position of responsibility. His stance on the Middle East region and Syria in particular will unfold in the coming months and years.

What would be different in the respective Syria policy of the two markedly different US administrations, however, is that while the Obama Administration did avail itself of the opportunity to strike an alliance with Kurds against Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, but it was simply not possible for it to come up with an out of the box solution and use the Shi’a-dominated regime and allied militias against the Sunni Arab militant groups particularly the Islamic State.

The Trump Administration, however, is not hampered by the botched legacy of the Obama Administration in Syria, and therefore it might align itself with the Kurds as well as the Russians and the Syrian government against Islamic State’s militants in Syria.

Two obstacles to such a natural alignment of interests, however, are: firstly, Israel’s objections regarding the threat that Hezbollah poses to its regional security; and secondly, Turkey which is a NATO member and has throughout nurtured several Sunni Arab militant groups during the six years-long conflict would have serious reservations against the new American administration’s partnership not only with the Russians and the Syrian government but also with the PYD/YPG Kurds in Syria, which Turkey regards as an offshoot of separatist PKK Kurds in southeast Turkey.

It would be pertinent to mention here that unlike the pro-US, Iraqi Kurds led by Masoud Barzani, the Syrian PYD/YPG Kurds as well as the Syrian government are ideologically aligned, because both are socialists and have traditionally been in the Russian sphere of influence.

Moreover, it should also be kept in mind that the Syrian civil war is actually a three-way conflict between the Sunni Arab militants, the Shi’a Arab regime and the Syrian Kurds. And the net beneficiaries of this conflict have been the Syrian Kurds who have expanded their area of control by aligning themselves first with the Syrian regime against the Sunni Arab militants since the beginning of the Syrian civil war in August 2011 to August 2014, when the US policy in Syria was regime change and the CIA was indiscriminately training and arming the Sunni Arab militants against the Shi’a-dominated regime in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan with the help of America’s regional allies: Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait, all of which belong to the Sunni denomination.

In August 2014, however, the US declared a war against one faction of the Sunni Arab militants, i.e. the Islamic State, when the latter overran Mosul and Anbar in June 2014, and the Obama Administration made a volte-face on its previous regime change policy and started conducting air strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq from where the occupying US troops had withdrawn only in December 2011.

After that reversal of policy by the Obama Administration, the Syrian Kurds took advantage of the opportunity and struck an alliance with the US against the Islamic State at Masoud Barzani’s bidding, thus further buttressing their position against the Sunni Arab militants as well as the Syrian government.

More to the point, for the first three years of the Syrian civil war, from August 2011 to August 2014, an informal pact existed between the Syrian government and the Syrian Kurds against the onslaught of the Sunni Arab militants, until the Kurds broke off that arrangement to become the centerpiece of the Obama Administration’s policy in the region.

According to the aforementioned pact, the Syrian government informally acknowledged Kurdish autonomy; and in return, the Kurdish militia defended the areas in northeastern Syria, particularly al-Hasakah, alongside the Syrian government troops against the advancing Sunni Arab militant groups, particularly the Islamic State.

Additionally, with Russia’s blessings, a new alliance between the Syrian Kurds and the Syrian government against the Sunni Arab militants has already been forged, and it would be a wise move by the Trump Administration to take advantage of the opportunity and to avail itself of a two-pronged strategy to liberate Raqqa from Islamic State: that is, to use the Syrian government troops to put pressure from the south and the Kurds to lead the charge from the north of Islamic State’s bastion in Syria.

According to a March 22 article [2] by Michael Gordon and Anne Bernard for the New York Times, the US had airlifted hundreds of Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces’ fighters and their American military advisers to take control of the Tabqa dam on the Euphrates River near Lake Assad, in order to cut off the western approaches to Raqqa.

Moreover, the Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are already collaborating in Manbij where the Kurds have handed over several villages to the Syrian government troops in order to create a buffer zone and to avoid confrontation with the Turkish troops and the allied Sunni Arab militant groups, who have recently liberated al-Bab from Islamic State and have now set their sights on Manbij.

Furthermore, Karen De Young and Liz Sly mentioned in a March 4 article [3] for the Washington Post that the Russian and the Syrian government’s convoys had already arrived in Manbij and the US government had been informed about the movement by the Russians.

In the same article, the aforementioned reporters have also made another startling revelation: “Trump has said repeatedly that the US and Russia should cooperate against the Islamic State, and he has indicated that the future of Russia-backed Assad is of less concern to him.” Thus, it appears, that the interests of all the major players in Syria have converged on defeating Islamic State, and the Obama era policy of regime change has been put on the back burner.

Sources and links:

1- Hezbollah, Russia and the US help Syria retake Palmyra: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-army-retakes-the-ancient-city-of-palmyra-from-the-islamic-state/2017/03/02/fe770c78-ff63-11e6-9b78-824ccab94435_story.html

2- The US Airlifts Hundreds of Militia Fighters in Attack to Cut Off Raqqa, Syria https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/world/middleeast/us-airlift-raqqa-syria.html

3- Pentagon plan to seize Raqqa calls for significant increase in U.S. participation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-plan-to-seize-raqqa-calls-for-significant-increase-in-us-participation/2017/03/04/d3205386-00f3-11e7-8f41-ea6ed597e4ca_story.html

By Bhaskar Roy*

Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s forthcoming three-day visit to India (April 07-10), after two postponements, mainly because of the Indian government’s preoccupation with domestic issues, is expected to take the bilateral relations a notch higher. The growing relations between the two countries (more exactly the governments and people) have had a salutary effect on the countries of South Asia. The relationship has been bereft of acrimony, building not only bilateral forward movements, but setting a template to follow, for others, in the interest of their peoples.

It is not surprising that the Bangladeshi prime minister has been invited to stay at the Rashtrapati Bhavan (Presidential palace). Indian President Pranab Mukherjee is an old friend not only of Sk. Hasina and her family, but also of Bangladesh. The Indian High Commissioner to Dhaka, Harsh Vardhan Shringla said in Dhaka, “From the Indian side, we are giving the highest importance to the honourable prime minister’s visit to India”. Encapsulated in one short sentence, High Commissioner Shringla conveyed to the people of Bangladesh India’s sentiments.

Several sticking issues have been resolved between the two countries in recent years. Prime Minister Sk. Hasina led Awami League (AL) government has been instrumental and a powerful driving force.

The Indira-Mujib land boundary agreement initialled in 1974, was finally ratified last year by the Indian Parliament. This inordinate delay could have been avoided if Sk. Mujibur Rahman had not been assassinated on August 15, 1975 by a group of young army officers. The country went into a political tail spin with political assassinations, military rules, and revival of the Jamaat-e-Islami under President Gen. Ziaur Rehman in 1978. Efforts were made to reverse the liberation of Bangladesh from Pakistan in some manner. Such efforts have not ceased.

The sea boundary dispute with India has been resolved by Sk. Hasina. The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) is progressing, albeit a little slowly. This seven-nation regional group is being handled on a shared agenda, and India will be a major contributor.

This initiative will address common challenges being faced by its members, including traditional and non-traditional security challenges aimed at economic development and human issues.

Suffering from acute power shortage, Bangladesh is already purchasing power from India, and India is helping set up power projects in Bangladesh. But some sections are trying to scuttle the Ramphal Project on the grounds that it will harm the environment of the Sundarbans. Equally important, India has agreed to allow its territory for Dhaka’s power procurement from Nepal and Bhutan. All these projects clubbed together will give a significant boost to the country’s industry.

There are several other cooperation projects between India and Bangladesh, which include technical and higher education scholarships for Bangladeshi students and professionals, financial grants and soft aid/ loans at very low interest rates, increasing border trade to name a few. Unaccounted cooperation, not visible but important, include medical treatment in India, especially in Kolkata.

True, India cannot offer huge investments like China can, but the discerning can make out which is easier to accept if the fine prints are read carefully. This does by no means suggest that India is against Bangladesh-China cooperation or for that matter with any other country. The problems is the constant barrage of criticism and fomenting India-Phobia by the BNP and its allies. Putting up roadblocks at every step does not help the people of Bangladesh.

Admittedly, the delay in signing of the Teesta water sharing agreement is regrettable. Everything has been completed- only the signatures remain. It is unlikely to be signed during Sk. Hasina’s upcoming visit, unless there is a miracle of sorts and West Bengal Chief Minister Ms. Mamata Banerjee changes her mind for a fairy tale ending. India understands that Bangladesh is a riverine agricultural country. But by describing the visit as a non-event without the Teesta deal, the BNP is being churlish. India is a federal democracy and there is a problem between the centre and the state in this case. It is internal politics on a hard track. The BNP must understand international relations in this manner. The entire bilateral relations cannot be held hostage to one issue, while relations are flourishing in almost all other areas.

Another possible agreement during the visit that has agitated the BNP is the framework for bilateral security and defence.

Senior BNP Joint Secretary, General Ruhul Kabir Rizvi while briefing the press in Dhaka said any defence or military agreement will be a betrayal of Bangladesh and its people, adding that, “such a deal will threaten the sovereignty of Bangladesh …… and the people will thwart such anti-state deals”. Obviously, the BNP is holding out the threat of street agitation if the deal is signed.

One cannot but ask Mr. Rizvi from which eminent teacher or teachers he and his party learnt international relations and defence relations. During her visit to China in December 2002, BNP Chairperson and them prime minister Regum Khaleda Zia signed the defence cooperation agreement. As it stands today, Bangladesh’s armed forces ae hugely equipped by Chinese hardware in every wing – small arms to tanks, naval frigates and patrol crafts, aircraft and the recent addition includes two Chinese made submarines. This apart, Chinese missiles have also been inducted. Has China usurped Bangladesh’s sovereignty? Or is the BNP hoping for that? India procures advanced weapons from different countries which produce them. Does that mean that India has compromised or mortgaged its sovereignty?

The BNP, if they have any respect for their country’s independence and sovereignty, should recall that in 1971 the Indian armed forces stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Bangladeshi freedom fighters and gave their life and blood. The Indian army did not remain on Bangladesh’s soil for one extra day and withdrew, handing over the newly formed nation to its leaders and people. If may also not be forgotten that US President Richard Nixon also considered using nuclear bombs on India.

The BNP does not have any takers among independent Bangladeshi experts, some of whom are retired army officers. One Bangladeshi political commentator opined that safeguarding the enhanced maritime security along the maritime border in the Bay of Bengal is a collective responsibility of India and Bangladesh. Third party interference or even involvement in these waters on the plea of safeguarding their interests is not acceptable.

Bangladesh is keen to develop a deep sea port in its eastern coast, perhaps in Payra or Kutubdia. The country needs this, a legitimate development project. But it would be prudent to ensure that any one country is given the construction and operation of such a sea port. Review the construction of the Gwadar Port in Pakistan. Over the years it is quietly moving towards a naval base for China. Unstated or even denied publicly, the reality is something different.

Given the warm acceptance of the BNP and its allies of China’s increasing tight fisted capture of Bangladesh’s military equipment, a big question arises why so much heartburn over India-Bangladesh non-combat military accord.

The proposed India-Bangladesh defence cooperation is not an alliance. It is non-binding on this core. If this accord comes through, each side would have its sovereign rights to decide on a cooperative action or not at all. There is no infringement of sovereignty on either side.

Although the Jamaat has maintained a low profile on Prime Minister Sk. Hasina’s visit to India, that does not mean it is inactive. It is “hiding its strength and biding its time”, while strengthening its grass-roots organisations including its students’ wing, the Islamic Chaatra Shibir (ICS) and increasing its activities in Islamist terrorism according to the Bangladeshi media quoting security agencies’ press statements.

Bangladesh is now moving towards the next general elections. The Jamaat is BNP’s street and grass roots power. India is being made Enemy No. 1, Post 1975, politics in Bangladesh has distorted the history of the freedom struggle. BNP and Jamaat joined together to form a narrative where Hindus in the country are projected as anti-Bangladesh and extending the narrative to India. For them, construction and development in the country are very low priority. The focus is on a triangular relationship with Pakistan and China.

To achieve this objective they want to physically eliminate Sk. Hasina first. According to Awami League General Secretary (Dhaka Tribune, January 06) twenty attempts have been made on Sk. Hasina’s life, the last being a technical glitch in a VVIP Bangladesh Biman flight in which she was travelling. The technical fault appears to have been a deliberate attempt at sabotage. She was severely injured in a grenade attack in 2004.

The coming two years could witness tumultuous times in Bangladesh. While India would have to work with whichever government comes to power in Dhaka, it will have to draw deep into its diplomatic and security reservoir to counter these challenges.

*The writer is a New Delhi based strategic analyst. He can be reached at e-mail grouchohart@yahoo.com

By Dr Subhash Kapila*

Tibet’s independence flames burn still bright, in 2017 too, notwithstanding that the fires of unceasing Tibetan self-immolations in China Occupied Tibet escape global notice.

On the 58th Anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising on 10th March 1959 against China’s brutal ethnic and cultural genocide inflicted on Tibet, the global community including the United States and India must bow their heads in remorse that China for reasons of geopolitical expediency has been allowed to perpetuate its military shackles on the spiritual kingdom of Tibet..

The United States and the West have in recent decades gone-in for military interventions on humanitarian grounds in countries ranging from the former Yugoslavia to Iraq and Syria to protect human rights and democracy. They maintained that they resorted to these humanitarian military interventions as their consciences were pricked by the inhuman atrocities inflicted by dictatorial regimes.

Strangely, the collective consciences of the United States and the Western countries have never been pricked in the last seven decades of ethnic and cultural genocide that China has incessantly inflicted on China Occupied Tibet. Why are their consciences stands so benumbed that beyond muted protest utterances, the United States and the West continue to subordinate their moral consciences to China’s strategic sensitivities?

The United States and the West which hold the Tibetan undisputed leader, HH The Dalai Lama in great esteem have never taken public swipes at China for “demonising” the exalted spiritual personality of The Dalai Lama.

In 2017, the picture in Tibet presents two dismally contrasting spectacles. The first is that despite the global amnesia on Tibetan independence, the peace-loving Tibetans residing within China Occupied Tibet true to their Buddhist faith continue to peacefully struggle and protest by ‘self-immolations’ for The Dalai Lama’s return and the independence of Tibet.

The second spectacle is that China fearful that the Tibetan independence movement may with external stimuli burst at the seams into something more violent have resorted to renewed suppression of Tibetans with severe restrictions on their movements including to Tibetan holy places within Tibet.

The Tibetan Prime Minister-in-exile speaking on the 58th commemoration anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising remarked that the new US Secretary of State, Tillerson had assured that the Trump Administration would continue their policies of support. What support? Not just the US President dropping-in in one of the White House offices where the Dalai Lama is visiting. It is hoped that President Trump would be more forthcoming in stronger US responses on the issue of China’s illegal military occupation of Tibet.

India has made a beginning in a more assertive policy on Tibet and not being apologetic about its hosting the Tibetan Government –in-Exile in India. India is also not restricting the movements of The Dalai Lama in response to Chinese dictates. But that is not enough. India has to make-up for decades of Indian policy apathy on Tibet arising from Nehruvian mindsets that China should not be ruffled on the Tibet issue and that the easiest course is China-Appeasement.

Concluding, it needs to be said that all right-thinking people all over the world who value human freedoms say a silent prayer on the 58th Anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising against China, and that Tibet emerges as a “Free Tibet” and that may peace descend on the souls of hundreds of Tibetans in China Occupied Tibet who have laid down their lives for Tibet’s independence.

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

Tamil Nadu province in South India is presently facing severe drought conditions with the failure of the south-west monsoon and the north-east monsoon to the extent of around 60%. It is reported that the distress conditions faced by the agricultural farmers in the province due to the erratic monsoon and lack of water for irrigation are so severe that a number of them have been driven to commit suicide.

Nandini Voice for The Deprived (nandinivoice.com) a not-for-profit organisation invited the views and suggestions of the citizens living in Tamil Nadu to provide short term and long term relief to the farming community.

Large number of people responded and the highlights of their views and suggestions given in this article are revealing.

The extent to which the drought conditions affect the agricultural farmers in India calls for urgent national attention from all concerned.

Drought is not new and Government lacks care

Location of Tamil Nadu in India. Source: Wikipedia Commons.

Drought in Tamil Nadu is not a new affair. Tamil Literature also indicates that famine-like conditions prevailed during the Pandian Kingdom for nearly 12 years.

Once a fertile land, the delta region has encouraged the growth of forests and agriculture. Dense forest cover once helped reduce the likelihood of flash flooding, retaining water on hill slopes to enable slow percolation and recharge of the tributaries. Deforestation across the basin over the years has contributed to reduction in rainfall. Government has failed to prevent deforestation, which has proved costly.

It is estimated that nearly 50% of the districts in the Tamil Nadu are now drought prone.

Irrigation tanks, ponds, canals and other channels have not been de-silted and debris have not been cleared for many years.

For instance, Cuddalore district alone has more than 3,500 irrigation tanks and many of them have dried.

With so much experience in drought conditions in the past, Tamil Nadu government should have been ready to deal with the present conditions. But, unfortunately, we are still searching, discussing and looking for strategies to prevent or mitigate drought impact, even as monsoon keeps fluctuating from year to year.

Reasons for farmer suicides

Many farmers are caught in debt traps with private money lenders. The interest rate are from 25% to as high as 60%.

Most farmer suicides are for the reasons of monsoon failure and consequent high debt burdens, personal issues and family problems. They are forced to approach private money lenders, as the farm income is inadequate to meet their family needs such as education for children, hospitalisation or marriage.

When crop failures happen, the mode of crop loss and damage assessment, compensation arrived at and also the time taken for disbursal are often seen to be arbitrary and do not meet the timely need.

Crop insurance now is considered as a mirage by the farmers.

Excessive dependence on bore wells

Water scarcity affect productivity.During drought conditions, ground water depletion causes huge problems in irrigation.

Tamil Nadu is located in rain shadow area where the mean annual rainfall is 1100 to 1200 mm, while mean annual evaporation is 2190 to 2930 mm in different seasons depending on sunlight/radiation hours.

Even when there is high annual rainfall in the delta region, only 30% occurs during the months in which the major crops are produced, making irrigation often necessary to meet crop water needs and to avoid risk of low yield and profitability loss. Approximately, 65% of the farmland in this region is only irrigated.

In such scenario, there is excessive dependence on ground water sources and operation of bore wells.

The state has around 3.1 lakh bore wells and around 15.66 lakh open wells, which are used for extracting ground water. Pumps sets are increasingly being used.

Wherever there are bore wells or pumps, there are good harvest. But small farmers in areas dependent on rain and dams who can not afford to invest in bore wells often suffer.

Instead of digging bore wells, open wells should be encouraged, as the width of the latter is more and hence water percolation will be higher, leading to increase in groundwater levels.

Farmers do not cultivate throughout the year

There is a misconception that the farmers in the delta region reaps three crops in a year and farmers are asking for more. That is definitely not the case.

The predominantly clayey nature of the delta soil allows raising of only paddy during anytime of the year. If assured water for irrigation is available, farmers raise kuruvai and thalady paddy crops with the help of sub surface water in restricted areas.

Once an area of millet cultivation, the delta region has transformed into a location for the cultivation of high yield paddy and sugarcane, both water-intensive crops.

Present cropping pattern mostly denotes mono cropping of rice, which encourages rapid nutrient loss and increases the possibility of pest attack and disease and cause decline in soil fertility.

It is necessary to initiate effective policy to keep the farmers occupied throughout the year by encouraging cultivation of alternate crop such as millet, which mean much less water need than paddy or sugarcane.

Millets are climate resilient, drought tolerant and are somewhat resistant to pest and diseases. They are short to medium duration crop and requires minimum input.

Possibility of returning to millet forming (which is more nutritious as well as water efficient) or to multi cropping of vegetables should be explored.

Need to improve agricultural productivity

Another reason for the agricultural problem in delta region is due to low productivity.

This would be clearly evident when crop yield in delta region is compared to other countries like USA and China.

Lower productivity results in lesser income for farmers. This, in turn, affect the investment in the farms. It creates a vicious cycle. This issue has not been given the attention that it deserves.

Smallhold farming in delta region may not because of poor productivity, since the productivity is higher in China and many developing economies, even though small holder farmers in China constitute over 90% of its farming population.

Need for effective marketing structure

The Indian farmer receives just 10% to 20% of the price the Indian consumer pays, the difference going to transportation cost, middlemen etc.

Farmers in developed economies of Europe and the United State receive 64% to 81% of the price paid by the consumers.

Establishment of effective marketing structures with produce for ready sale to meet the consumer need is a great necessity for the farmers.

Tamil Nadu lacks cold storage, food packaging as well as safe and efficient rural transport system. This causes high food spoilage rates, particularly during monsoons and during adverse weather conditions. Agri-produce travel to the Indian consumer through a slow and inefficient chain of traders.

Consumers buy agricultural produce largely in suburban markets known as ‘sabzi mandi’ or from roadside vendors.

This enables the middleman to mint money at the cost of farmer.

“Dedicated farmers market” where farmers are given facilities for direct sale of the produce, is a good concept and it has not been given a fair trial. Tamil Nadu government should act as a catalyst to promote this farmer friendly marketing mechanism.