Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena said the unparalleled supreme sacrifice made by Jesus Christ to save the human beings who are born in sadness and experience sadness throughout life, will be remembered forever.

He said Jesus Christ, who was magnanimously selfless even to sacrifice his own life for the sake of fellow human beings, thus gave an example for humankind to understand that the divine love is eternal.

“He demonstrated the truth that somebody can be destroyed but cannot be defeated”, the President stated in his message issued for Easter.

Following is the message issued by the President for Easter:

“The unparalleled supreme sacrifice made by Jesus Christ to save the human beings who are born in sadness and experience sadness throughout life, will be remembered forever. The Christian devotees who celebrate the Easter with great devotion demonstrate that incomparable supreme sacrifice was made in order to rise above the humans and achieve divinity.

When the Jesus Christ saved the human mind from sin, the entire mankind was blessed forever. Jesus Christ, who was magnanimously selfless even to sacrifice his own life for the sake of fellow human beings, thus gave an example for humankind to understand that the divine love is eternal. He demonstrated the truth that somebody can be destroyed but cannot be defeated.

The supreme sacrifice of Jesus Christ is celebrated by the Christian devotees all over the world to enlighten the hearts of the people about the most prominent selfless act that marked the existence of the world today.

The love which makes the human mind soften with kindness is a gift from the God transferred through the Easter. I wish that Easter will bring divine blessing for all Christian devotees”.

By Desmond Brown

Investing in sport can help reduce spiralling health costs and promote education, social cohesion and gender equality, says a new guidebook published by The Commonwealth.

The recommendations of the guidebook, titled ‘Enhancing the Contribution of Sport to the Sustainable Development Goals’, are important to the Caribbean, where chronic and communicable diseases are devastating to individuals and community, threatening the quality of life and becoming an increasingly negative factor in the region’s development.

Guyana, for example, spends on average 4.6 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on healthcare every year, equivalent to 200 dollars per capita

The guidebook, which recognises the potential contribution of sport to achieving important development objectives, including the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nation’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, was published to coincide with Internal Day of Sport for Development and Peace on April 6, and lists a set of policy prescriptions designed to help countries achieve global targets in health, education, social inclusivity and gender equality by using sport as a tool.

One of the areas identified where sport can make an enormous impact is in improving public health.

In the Western hemisphere, the epidemic of chronic disease has most affected the Caribbean region. The Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) has noted that “the Caribbean has the highest death rates from heart disease and the top five countries for diabetes in the Americas.” Among the countries in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), heart disease ranks as the leading cause of death. Other conditions such as cancer, stroke, diabetes and HIV are major causes of death.

The Commonwealth guidebook notes that physical inactivity causes more than three million deaths per year globally, and accounts for 1-4 percent of all healthcare costs. Despite the benefits of adopting an active lifestyle, one-fifth of men and one-quarter of women do not meet World Health Organisation (WHO) minimum guidelines for physical activity, according to which adults should practise 75 to 150 minutes of exercise a week.

The guidebook’s recommendations include ring-fencing education budgets for school sports and physical education; regulating to preserve green spaces in towns and cities for sports and physical activity; funding new sports facilities through private and civil society partnerships; and creating small ‘pocket parks’ for dance and informal exercise.

It also recommends ensuring that sport facilities are safe and accessible for women and girls; training the sport workforce, including coaches and volunteers, to help people from diverse backgrounds become physically active; developing initiatives to boost sport-based entrepreneurship and enterprise; and implementing measures to safeguard all children participating in sport.

The guidebook carries a stark warning that the benefits of investing in sport will be eroded if corruption and exploitation in sport is allowed to persist, and calls for the obligation of sports organisations to meet international standards on good governance and child safeguarding as a condition for receiving any public funds.

The Commonwealth guidebook was developed with researchers from Durham University in the UK, Dr Iain Lindsey and Professor Tony Chapman, along with sports experts and organisations, and policy-makers from government ministries in Australia, Botswana, Sierra Leone and Zambia.

It follows the historic commitment made by more than 30 governments at the Commonwealth Sports Ministers Meeting in August 2016 to ensure that national sports policies are aligned to deliver the SDGs.

“By increasing access to and participation in quality and inclusive sport we can improve people’s health and education, break down social barriers and ultimately save public money,” said Head of Sport for Development and Peace at the Commonwealth Secretariat, Oliver Dudfield.

“This guidebook presents wide-ranging policy options for governments where there is evidence that sport and physical activity can help to deliver sustainable development. The recommendations we are putting forward aim to deliver on the promise of sport as a potential development tool.”

Meanwhile, at a meeting on April 11 at the Georgetown headquarters of the CARICOM Secretariat, the Secretary-General of CARICOM, Ambassador Irwin LaRocque, and the president of the Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA), Giovanni Infantino, agreed on the importance of sport to youth development and to society as a whole.

Stressing that sport is valuable as a social investment which could assist in channelling youth towards positive endeavours, LaRocque noted that the Caribbean Community was preparing a Human Resource development Strategy in which sport was an important element given the holistic nature of the development process.

The American military services are looking for new ways to bring in more civilians with high-tech skills who can help fight Islamic State militants and prepare for the new range of technological threats the U.S. will face, The Associated Press reports.

That means finding Guard and Reserve members with technical expertise in digital forensics, math crypto-analysis and writing computer code. To meet that challenge, a database is being built to show the best tool developers and analysts.

The Army Reserve is starting a pilot program cataloging soldiers’ talents. Among 190,000 Army reservists might be up to 15,000 with some type of cyber-related skills. But there are legal and privacy hurdles in compiling that information, and any database hinges on reservists voluntarily and accurately providing information on their capabilities.

Lebanese artist Fares Karam has canceled his tour to the US, assuring his fans that he would announce a new date for the tour later.

He said the US tour would have resulted in the cancellation of his other concerts.

“With summer round the corner, tours in the Arab world will be more beneficial. Also, I have committed to the Mawazine festival (in Morocco), which I cannot cancel because I have the tickets,” he said.

He added: “I also did not know who would be present in Vegas, which wasn’t comforting at all. So I decided to cancel the tour.”

Karam is producing a new album for which he collaborated with the late musician Melhem Barakat, Jalal Osama and composer Salim Salameh.

Throughout his career, Karem has participated in a large number of concerts, public celebrations and festivals all over Lebanon. Karam has also toured the Arab world, UK, South America, United States, Europe, Australia and Canada.

By Sergio Duarte, former UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs*

In the current stage of evolution of international law and universally accepted norms of civilised behaviour, the use of any weapon of mass destruction by any actor whatsoever affronts the conscience of mankind and cannot be tolerated.

The responsibility for the recent episode of the use of chemical weapons in Syria has not yet been clearly established. But the posturing of the players in this dramatic episode sometimes obscures the appalling reality that a weapon of mass destruction with such cruel and indiscriminate effects still exists in national arsenals of a handful of countries or in clandestine caches.

In 2013 and 2014 chemical weapons were used in Damascus, Aleppo and other places in Syria. Under international pressure, Syria became a Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, clearing the way for the destruction of its stocks of such weapons. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and other international agencies sent inspectors and experts to the ground to verify declared stocks and oversee their destruction.

The United States government claimed that 100% of the chemical weapons had been destroyed. However, there were reports that a part of the stocks could have been hidden from the inspectors or seized by any of the warring groups in the country. Small quantities of lethal chemicals may even have been manufactured in clandestine laboratories out of the sight of inspectors and spy satellites.

A couple of weeks ago the release of a lethal chemical agent killed over 80 people, among them many children in Khan Sheikhoun in the Idlib province in Syria. At least 100 other persons are suffering their effects. The two major powers, the Syrian government and rebel factions, are exchanging accusations about the responsibility for the attacks. Whatever their origin and ownership, it is hard to keep track of weapons in the current situation on the ground in the six-year war in that country. A thorough, impartial investigation is imperative in order to find out who holds such stocks and exactly why and how they were used.

However, political rivalries and disagreements, as well as the lack of confidence among the major players, make it very difficult to reach a credible, indisputable conclusion. The use of chemical weapons – either by design or accident – is absolutely unacceptable and its perpetrators must be punished. The multilateral structures established under the United Nations and relevant international agencies are the proper channel to deal with allegations and instances of the use of such weapons.

Humanitarian reasons are behind the long and quite successful history of international attempts at limiting the use of chemical weapons dating back to the 17th century when France and Germany agreed to ban poison bullets. In 1874 the Brussels Convention on the Law and Customs of War prohibited poison or poisoned weapons, and the 1899 Hague Conference outlawed projectiles filled with poison gas. Still, chemical weapons caused over 100.000 fatalities during World War I.

Efforts were renewed after a strong reaction from the international community and civil society and in 1925 the Geneva Protocol prohibited the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases as methods of warfare, but not the development, production or possession of such weapons. Many countries kept large stocks that could be used against non-signatories or to respond in kind to a chemical attack. Research continued and some powerful nerve gases were developed and added to those stocks.

Only in 1997 did the international community finally achieve a robust instrument outlawing the use, manufacture and stockpiling of chemical weapons and requiring its parties to destroy their stocks.

The OPCW, headquartered in The Hague, ensures a credible and transparent regime for verifying the destruction of such weapons and preventing their re-emergence while protecting the legitimate national security and proprietary interests. However, the comprehensive prohibition finally achieved with the adoption of the Chemical Weapons Convention is not yet universal and the destruction of stocks proceeds less quickly than anticipated. 192 States are party to the Convention, which reports that 90% of the world stocks had been eliminated by the end of 2016.

There are three recognised categories of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, bacteriological and nuclear. All are weapons of terror having excessively cruel and indiscriminate effects that hit combatants and innocent civilians alike. The first two are already prohibited by international treaties.

The international community has just started a long-awaited multilateral effort to negotiate a treaty to outlaw atomic weapons. Predictably, all nine possessors and their allies have chosen not to participate in the initiative and cling to out-dated military doctrines that contemplate using such arms in the circumstances they deem fit and even against those that do not possess them.

A nuclear confrontation will have devastating effects on the climate and populations alike, regardless of their location. It is high time to complete the task by eliminating the last remaining category of weapons of mass destruction.

* Sergio Duarte was the UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs with the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (2007-2012). He was the President of the 2005 Seventh Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. A career diplomat, he served the Brazilian Foreign Service for 48 years. He was the Ambassador of Brazil in a number of countries, including Austria, Croatia, Slovakia and Slovenia concurrently, China, Canada and Nicaragua. He also served in Switzerland, the United States, Argentina and Rome.

By Mascha Peters*

On 10 March the constitutional court of South Korea upheld a parliamentary motion to impeach president Park Geun-hye, clearing the way for a snap presidential election on 9 May. A clear majority of South Koreans view the first-ever impeachment of a South Korean president as a chance for a fresh start after months of protests, which drew up to one million citizens onto the streets. With at least 61 members of the ruling New Frontier Party (NFP) voting in favour of Park’s impeachment, hopes are now high for a democratic boost for the country. The scale of civic protest is comparable only to the one which triggered the downfall of the last authoritarian regime 30 years ago.

Until recently the front runner to succeed Park Geun-hye was Moon Jae-in, the candidate of the main opposition party, the Together Democratic Party (TDP), notably since Ban Ki-moon dropped out of the presidential race. Moon (64), a human rights lawyer, has been in the political arena for well over a decade. He served as chief of staff to the late president Roh Moo-hyun from 2003-2008 and ran against Park in the last presidential election in 2012, losing by 48% to 52%.

Moon’s victory, however, is far from certain. According to the latest polls, Ahn Cheol-soo, leader of the second opposition party, the People’s Party (PP), is rapidly closing in on Moon. At the beginning of this week polls showed Ahn topping all five candidates for the first time. Ahn (55) was considered a top contender for the 2012 election but withdrew his candidacy at the last-minute. The signal of a split in the opposition became evident when Ahn founded the PP in February 2016, which he labels an “anti-establishment centrist force”. In the 2016 general election his PP won 38 seats. The millionaire software mogul, a medical doctor by training, is known for his scorching criticism of the existing political parties and the Korean business conglomerates, the chaebol. But lately Ahn is increasingly reaching out to conservative voters who favour him over the two official conservative candidates Yoo Seong-min and Hong Joon-pyo.

South Korea has a long history of squabbling political parties. With Park Geun-hye being the only exception there has been no president since the beginning of the democratic transition who ended his term with the same party to which he belonged at inauguration. Furthermore, four of the six presidents elected since 1987 have been forced to leave his governing party while in office. Efforts to overcome this trend were demonstrated lastly at NFP’s and TDP’s party conventions, held in August 2016. The elected party executives, Lee Jung-hyun (NFP) and Choo Mi-ae (TDP) blatantly demonstrated party unity and their support for the respective presidential candidate. If either Moon or Ahn win the election on 9 May it would bring ten years of conservative power in South Korea to an end.

Despite their overall liberal backgrounds, both candidates stand for distinctively different political positions when it comes to questions of national security and foreign relations. In rallying support from conservative voters, Ahn has retracted from his previous opposition to the deployment of the anti-missile defence system, THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defence). Moon on the other hand has faced criticism for his ambiguity over the issue. He has made it clear that he wants to renegotiate the terms of THAAD with the US while not questioning its existence as such. THAAD puts South Korea in a difficult position as it is strongly opposed by China yet long urged by the US. China contends that THAAD compromises its national security and went as far as to shut down some South Korean corporations in China. However, with its recent deployment of the Carl Vinson strike group, which includes an aircraft carrier, the US have created a new situation. Sino-Korean relations have suffered lately due to China’s failure to rein in North Korea’s nuclear test, two of which have been carried out last year. There are signs, however, that Beijing now wants to work more closely with Seoul to address the North Korean issue. Recently China sent coal cargoes back to the North, cutting off the country’s most important export product.

As a pre-emptive strike is not an option for any number of reasons, chances are that the next Korean president will have to team up with the US in pressing China to make life more difficult for the regime in the North. In supporting THAAD Ahn has made it clear that he would favour such a move, whereas Moon would almost certainly be more accommodating towards the North. He has called for a reopening of Kaesong, the jointly operated industrial park which has been closed by Park Geun-hye after North Korea’s fourth nuclear test in 2016, and said that he would visit North Korea before any other country if the nuclear issue would be on the agenda.

Diplomatic relations between South Korea and Japan remain difficult due to the ongoing dispute over the so-called comfort women deal which Shinzo Abe and Park Geun-hye signed in December 2015. Liberal and conservative candidates alike oppose the deal, saying that Park negotiated it without input from the women. Japan has agreed to pay $180,000 for each surviving victim if South Korea refrained from any further claims. Critics say that the offer did not take the form of official reparations but were presented as a humanitarian gesture. It remains to be seen whether relations between Seoul, Beijing and Tokyo will improve in the years to come. After a three-and-a-half year suspension the trilateral summit between the three countries has been resumed in 2015 with the next one coming up on 18 Apri.

Regarding domestic policies Park’s successor inherits a difficult legacy as well. Her “474 vision”, which she pledged to deliver in 2012 – 4% economic growth, 70% employment, $40,000 per capita income – never saw the light of day. Instead economic growth slid back to 2.6% in 2015 and 2.7% in 2016, the average employment rate is below 60% and per capita income was last recorded at $25,000 in 2015. South Korea is facing severe demographic challenges. It is among the OECD countries with the lowest fertility rate, the highest poverty among the elderly and a youth unemployment rate that has climbed to nearly 10%. This contrasts with a lack of safety nets. The country spent just 10% of its GDP on social welfare in 2016, the lowest percentage among members of the OECD. Ahn and Moon have both pledged to increase public welfare spending, which they intend to finance by raising taxes on the highest income brackets and increasing taxes on capital income.

With just a few weeks before the election the race is open. But whoever wins will face some tough choices. It is unlikely that relations with the EU will be affected. There is strong bipartisan support for closer EU-Korean relations.

*Mascha Peters is an Associate Fellow of the EU-Asia Centre

Pakistan’s inherent social contradiction, its deep divisions, its insatiable desire to feed extremism and its strong linkages to terrorism sprang back to surface when Mashaal Khan, a bright student of 23 was hounded and lynched by his fellow students at a university campus in the north-western part of the country.

The crime was committed under the glare of cellphone cameras and in the presence of university staff and a large contingent of police. Khan was rumored to have committed blasphemy by allegedly desecrating the religion of Islam in his Facebook posts. The initial investigation by police shows that there was no record of any blasphemous messages on his cell phone or Facebook posts.

According to one account by a university staff member, the blasphemy was a garb under which the political rivals from a Islamic party settled their score with Khan. The university employee was quoted by a Pakistani media channel that Khan was popular among university students, especially females and that too could have been a motive for his rival students.

This is not the first time that someone is publicly lynched by a mob or complete strangers since the perpetrators are shielded and protected by the country’s law enacted in 1980s by a military dictator that calls for the execution of a person who commits ‘blasphemy’. Although the law calls for the registration of the case under section 295-C of the Criminal Procedure Code against the person who allegedly commits blasphemy, law enforcement agencies including police and intelligence agencies, judiciary and prosecution almost always close their eyes whenever the lynching gets under way. The police and paramilitary stand by and let the incident happen. When the culprits are arrested, no judge, barring an occasional exception, dares to announce a strong verdict — often citing the scarcity of evidence (despite the fact that the incidents happen in the full view of the state and the common public).

A few years back, Punjab Governor Salman Taseer who merely demanded amendments in 295-C law, was publicly assassinated by his own bodyguard at a Islamabad street in broad daylight. The culprit was nabbed and sentenced to death. Although the sentence was carried out and the killer was hanged, his grave today attracts thousands every day who think he was a martyr. Pakistan’s army controlled media and a tiny faction of civil society always tried hard not to ‘provoke’ the sympathizers of the killer.

Ever since the law was enacted, there have been numerous incidents where a mob has lynched Christians on the accusation of blasphemy. In some cases, which have been reported widely the mob torched the entire residential colony, including their church. Last year, right in the middle of Pakistan’s second largest city Lahore a mob threw a Christian couple in the furnace of a brick kiln on the accusations of blasphemy and in this case too, despite the availability of cellphone footage the government dragged its feet and finally registered the case after three weeks of the incident.

The problem, here is much bigger than it seems. The incidents now will not stop even if the law is repealed. To begin with the government doesn’t have the guts to stand up for the victim and to the all-powerful Taliban style gangs that are operating now in the streets of Pakistan.

Even if the law is repealed the environment of hate and extremism that has become the DNA of Pakistan’s society will not change and instead it will keep encouraging the incidents like this.

The perpetrators feel protected. One, they are almost always certain that they will not be prosecuted by the state properly as there is no protection to the prosecutors. Two, there are not enough judges who can award the death sentence to killers and then feel protected. Three, even if the death sentence is awarded and the criminal is actually hanged, he and his countless followers believe that he has earned himself paradise after death.

For too many years — right from the start of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — the state has been planting, nurturing and protecting Jihadis embedded in the social structure of the country. Now, even if the all-powerful military decides to shrug off this baggage, there is little chance of success because these groups now have deep roots in Pakistan’s society and they are not dependent on state protection.

And this is a problem that will continue to haunt the  West and other stakeholders who are interested in keeping finding peace in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

*Mohammed Rizwan is a professional journalist for the last 23 years 1990-2014 covering politics and terrorism from Pakistan and Dubai.

How long our world must witness the ethnic cleansing of vulnerable minorities?

In Myanmar, it’s a routine thing against the minority Rohingyas who mostly live in the northern Arakan state, close to Bangladesh. They are the most persecuted people in our planet. They were persecuted for nearly half a century by the military governments that preceded the current civilian government.

There was much hope in the air that conditions inside the country would improve dramatically once a democratic government comes to power. Well, there is a democratic government now after a general election in which all but Muslims participated [the latter were barred from participating in the election on the grounds of their race/ethnicity and religion]. The Myanmar government is run by Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD party.

Remember her? Suu Kyi was the poster lady of democracy, a figure who was prematurely awarded a Nobel Prize for peace to pressure the repressive military government to pave the path for democracy. She was presumed to make things better for everyone. Even the persecuted Muslims had high aspirations about her despite her criminal silence when the Rohingya and other minority Muslims were slaughtered all over Myanmar by Buddhists in 2012 genocidal campaigns. It did not matter that in the general election that followed her party did not field a single Muslim candidate even in the Rohingya majority territories of the northern Arakan state.

Her hypocrisy shocked everyone. Many pundits tried to find excuses for her saying that her decision not to field a single Muslim candidate was part of a calculated election strategy to position herself as a die-hard, serious Buddhist nationalist who is not sympathetic to the ‘despised’ Rohingya and other Muslim minorities living inside the den of intolerance called Myanmar. As expected, she won big, formed the civilian government and self-appointed herself to be its chief counsellor, a CEO-like figure overlooking the government.

Rather than integrating the minority Muslims and easing their pains and sufferings, in recent months Suu Kyi’s government unleashed one of the worst ethnic cleansing drives in the northern Rakhine state to further marginalize the already marginalized Rohingya community. Scores of Rohingya villages were torched by her security forces leading to forced exodus of tens of thousands to Bangladesh, let alone the internal displacement of even a larger number.

Thousands disappeared, many were killed. Hundreds of Muslim females – even teenage girls – were raped as part of an ethnic cleansing drive that many imagined would never see in Suu Kyi’s Myanmar.

Knowing the enormity of the war crimes committed by her security forces, Suu Kyi would not let any fact-finding mission to investigate. In a BBC interview, she lied and denied such gruesome abuses of human rights.

But can truth be hidden? She ought to know better.

Suu Kyi says that Rohingyas returning to Myanmar are welcome. Reliable sources in Maungdaw say that the government has planned to return only one third of their original lands to the returnees and internally displaced Rohingyas, and that they are kept in a small slum-like quarter as per one ‘Household Registration List’, regardless of the numbers of the families within that ‘household registration list.’

“The Myanmar military burnt down our homes last year and we became displaced. They are returning us only one-third of our original village and building a small IDP Camps-like quarter. None of us wants to accept this. Worse, they are demolishing mosques, cemeteries, roads and other historical evidences in order to destroying evidences of the human habitats/societies in the village”, said an internally displaced person at ‘Wapeik’ village in Maungdaw.

Rohingya youths are targets of intimidation, harassment and persecution by the Myanmar authorities. The Myanmar Border Guard Police (BGP) from the Camp 12 based at the village of ‘YweNyoTaung’ has recently issued the warrants considered as arbitrary by the human rights observers for the following number of youths from the following villages:

1. 105 from the village of ‘Ye Khae Chaung KhwaSone’ locally known as ‘Bor Gozi Bil.’
2. 69 from the village of ‘Ye Dwin Chaung’ locally known as ‘Raimma Bil’, and
3. 59 from the village of ‘Kyar Gaung Taung’ locally known as ‘Rabailla’.

U Aye Myint, a human rights observer based in Maungdaw while speaking to Rohingya Vision, said “this is a list of targeted arbitrary warrants issued aiming to reduce the numbers of the Rohingya youths including underage teenagers in the Arakan state. As a result, many youths in the region have been living in their hideouts for past few days in fear of arbitrary arrests.”

According to the local Rohingyas, since 2012 the Myanmar authorities systematically forced hundreds of Rohingya youths in Maungdaw and Buthidaung to flee from the country by issuing arbitrary arrest warrants against them after accusing them of involving in the June-2012 violence. [Rohingya Vision TV]

Suu Kyi has proven herself to be a devil with a smiling face; an utterly sly lady to whom veracity and morality have lost their worth. It’s a sad commentary on a personality – once much revered and now deservingly maligned – that could have made things better for all those who call Myanmar their home – Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike.

Instead, it is becoming increasingly clear that in Suu Kyi’s Myanmar religious minorities won’t have any rights. Thus, the destruction of Muslim shrines, mosques and cemeteries has become part of a sinister strategy to ethnically cleanse them. And yet like a pathological liar she chose to deny practicing such crimes.

What a joke Buddhism has become in the hands of its extremist zealots inside Myanmar!

In nearby Bangladesh, if any Buddhist temple is attacked by an angry mob that is reacting to unfathomed crimes of the Myanmar government and its extremist Buddhists, the government of Bangladesh takes extra effort to refurbish it better showing its unmolested reverence and respect for other religions and their symbols. Expecting any reciprocity of gesture from Buddhist Myanmar is simply foolish; it’s not even a beautiful dream, only an illusion!

Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all, and as such, governments could not take them away. In the USA, this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in its nation’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence: “[A]ll men are created equal…[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) recognizes the inherent dignity, equality and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, stating such to be the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. The Government of Myanmar is in serious breach of the UDHR and its Article 3, which states: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. As I have noted many times, Myanmar government is guilty of refusing to grant any of the 30 Articles enshrined in the UDHR to the Rohingya people. The latter don’t have any right in Myanmar – neither before nor now in Suu Kyi’s apartheid regime.

I am aware that to the offenders like Suu Kyi ‘apartheid’ is a loaded term, as she has done in the past with the charge of ‘ethnic cleansing’ against her government. But seriously speaking, how can she and her ilk duck such accusations when a comparison with Apartheid South Africa makes a very strong case for Myanmar?

The Rohingyas of Myanmar are the worst victims of a criminal policy of economic, racial, religious, political and economic apartheid whose parallel simply does not exist in our time anywhere.

Unwanted and brutally persecuted in Buddhist Myanmar, Rohingyas have been fleeing their ancestral homes in Arakan state after Burma (now Myanmar) won its independence from the Great Britain. More Rohingyas now live outside Myanmar than inside. Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Gulf statelets, Malaysia and India have sizeable community of Rohingya refugees.

The life of a refugee is terrible. It is unsafe, insecure and dehumanizing.

Nearly 5000 Rohingyas have been putting up in the Jammu city, mainly on its outskirts, in the Indian Occupied state of Jammu and Kashmir, well until recently. Now with a fascist Hindutvadi party (BJP) ruling the country in the center and many other states, Hindu fascists are making it difficult for anyone to live peacefully in this country unless the person is a Hindu, preferably from the upper caste. Of course, when it comes to outsiders like the Rohingya, who are refugees who don’t share Hindu religion, they are easy targets of harassment and persecution these days.

Last week, President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Jammu, Rakesh Gupta had issued a statement calling for identification and killing of Rohingyas. As the latest report shows, seven Jhuggis (shacks) of Rohingya Muslims were torched by Hindu miscreants in Bhagwati Nagar area of Jammu early Friday, just days after a Rohingya family was thrashed and threatened to leave the state.

The Rohingyas putting up in Bhagwati Nagar said some families living in the adjacent plot were forced to move out after some people threatened them. “I don’t know why it happened. I had come here because of the problem in our country (Burma). We will return once things limp back to normal there. It would be good if the Modi government gives us space and time to stay here for some time, till we return,” said Fatima Khatoon.

High Court Bar Association Srinagar has condemned the torching of seven shacks of Rohingya Muslims by certain communal elements in Bhagwati Area of Jammu, on Friday. It described the statement of certain police officials that it was a case of short circuit as false and an attempt on their part to protect those criminals, who had committed the distressing and horrifying crime.

The Bar Association once again requests the international community including Amnesty International, Asia Watch and other human rights organizations of the World to take notice of the gruesome events, which are taking place in Kashmir and intervene effectively, to bring an end to such gross human rights violations in Kashmir.

My heart bleeds to see so much suffering of the vulnerable people in our world! Who knows if the persecuted Rohingya will one day see the end of their long sufferings, much like many other lucky ones in this unfortunate planet of ours!

Do the leaders of our time have the moral courage, urge and tenacity required to change the ugly face of apartheid Myanmar for better so that people of all races, ethnicities and religions can live side by side peacefully, safely and securely?

The existence of a complex security trilemma between China-India-Pakistan poses a serious challenge to the strategic stability of South Asia. These states share the history of military confrontations and therefore conventional and nuclear development in one country is matter of concern for the other. A number of dynamics, such as conventional asymmetries, nuclear offensive and defensive capabilities, arms race, ballistic missile development and the absence of crisis stability mechanism has increased the fragility of the strategic stability in South Asia.

The regional strategic triangle, and especially two strategic dyads — China-Pakistan and India-China — has made the strategic landscape of South Asia complete with additional contours. In South Asia, the arms race is proportional to the India’s conventional and nuclear developments. To pursue its global and regional ambitions — such as to cover the gap with China and superiority over Pakistan — India has increased its nuclear and missile program rapidly.

Consequently, the recent developments in the Indian Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system are a matter of great concern for the competing regional states, especially for Pakistan. Developments in the Indian BMD System and upcoming collaboration of India with US, Russia and Israel has added new dimensions to the regional security equation and pose a serious threat to deterrence stability.

India started the acquisition and development of BMD system in the 1990s to enhance its nuclear capabilities. The Indian missile program is based on Agni and Prithvi series and pursue a exo-atmospheric and endo-atmospheric BMD system. A successful test of the endo-atmosphoric missile, Advance Area Defence (AAD) is a notable step towards the development and acquisition of a two layered BMD system.

On February 11, 2017, India conducted the successful test of high altitude inceptor missile, Prithvi Defence Vehicle (PDV). According to scholars, such developments and India’s pursuit of BMD now has the ability to shake the nuclear calculus of region. Subsequently, it will challenge the very basis of strategic stability and deterrence in the South Asian region.

Developments in the Indian BMD system depict that India is quickly heading towards higher war-fighting capabilities from its minimum deterrence posture.

Although, India claims that it’s enhancing its capabilities to counter China,  according to analysts such capabilities will allow India to adopt an offensive strategy over Pakistan. The Indian BMD system will increase instability and Pakistan’s security dilemma. It will force the Pakistan to improve the quality and quantity of its nuclear arsenal and it will force Pakistan to expand its military expenditure.

Other interconnected issues are regarding the effectiveness of BMD and a false sense of security because the BMD system cannot guarantee the absolute interception and destruction of  targets. As such, the security dilemma and false sense of security will trigger the crisis instability. However, in the South Asian strategic landscape where a tri-angular relation exists the phenomena of nuclear deterrence will become more complex and result in a major catastrophe.

The Indian pursuit of a BMD system has complicated the security calculations of regional states. It will have spillover effect on its neighboring states thus triggering and consolidating a new arms race in the region. It is imperative for Pakistan to take effective measures to counter the volatility instigated by the Indian BMD. Acquiring or manufacturing their own BMD system is least available option due to economic restraints, so viable options in this regard is qualitative improvements to target the vulnerabilities of the Indian BMD.

In this regard, Pakistan’s surface-to-surface ballistic missile, Ababeel has significant contributions in the defence arrangements of Pakistan. Ababeel is capable of delivering multiple warheads using Multiple Independently target Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) technology. It is a constructive addition in the Pakistan’s defence. It will facilitate Pakistan to sustain the credibility of its deterrence strategy against the Indian BMD system due to its ability to deliver multiple warheads.

India has increased the vulnerabilities of regional states, thus instigating instability and arms race. Policy options for Pakistan to counter the instability against the Indian BMD system is to quantitative and quantitative improvements in its nuclear and missile capabilities in a way that won’t have an effect on the credible strategic symmetry and avoid an arms race in the region.

*Asma Khalid, Research Associate at Strategic Vision Institute (SVI) Islamabad. Asmaakhalid_90@hotmail.com

Srinagar went to the polls to elect a parliamentarian and National Conference leader and former CM of Jammu & Kashmir was declared elected to parliament.

Eight people were shot dead by paramilitary troopers and police and over 150 were injured in clashes between people and forces on polling day (9 April), which saw a mere 7.14% voter turnout. A re-polling was held for 38 booths which recorded only 2.02% polling.

The winner Farooq said recent developments in JK had made it “amply clear” that the PDP-BJP government in the state had “failed in delivering on its promises and had created a very alarming political situation in the state”. “I would leave no stone unturned to strive for justice and peace and be the voice against injustice and oppression as an elected representative in the parliament,” he said. Asked about the lowest-ever poll percentage in Srinagar by polls, Abdullah said, “How does it matter? We have seen polls before also where hardly any percentage was there. And what do you say to people who have voted even if it may be 7 per cent with all the pressures on them.”

Crack in PDP-BJP idea in Kashmir

National Conference President Farooq Abdullah who won the by-poll to the Srinagar-Budgam parliamentary seat on anti-incumbency campaign that was marred by large-scale violence and very poor turnout on balloting day, called for imposition of central rule in the state.

Abdullah defeated the ruling People’s Democratic Party’s Nazir Ahmad Khan by a margin of 10,776 votes. Of the 89,865 votes cast, Farooq polled 48,555 while Khan polled 37,779. A total of 963 people voted for NOTA (none of the above), election officials said. There were nine candidates in the fray, but the main battle was between PDP’s Khan and Abdullah. Abdullah, 79, a two-time Chief Minister, will be Lok Sabha member for the third time. He had lost the Srinagar constituency to PDP’s Tariq Hameed Karra in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. Karra’s resignation from the party led to the seat getting vacant. Octogenarian Abdullah had lost 2014 parliament elections to the then PDP candidate Tariq Karra (now with Congress). He took plunge into the election to make a comeback and take “avenge” of the defeat.

Soon after defeating ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) candidate Nazir Khan, Abdullah appealed President Pranab Mukherjee to dismiss the state government as it has “failed to deliver and hold peaceful election.” “Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti should step down immediately and the situation in the state merits the imposition of Governor’s rule. There is absolutely no doubt about this,” he added. “I appeal to the President of India to dismiss this government and impose Governor’s rule in the state. They have killed youth and put the lives of the people in danger,“ he told reporters at NC headquarters here after his poll victory.

Farooq said recent developments had made it “amply clear” that the PDP-BJP government in the state had “failed in delivering on its promises and had created a very alarming political situation in the state…I would leave no stone unturned to strive for justice and peace and be the voice against injustice and oppression as an elected representative in the parliament,” he said.

The former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister and a former key Federal minister urged the central government to impose Governor’s rule in the state, terming the election as the “bloodiest ever”. He also called for resumption of the dialogue for resolution of Kashmir at internal and external levels.

The NC supremo said it would not celebrate the victory because of the violence on polling day on April 9 in which eight civilians died in firing by security forces. Addressing reporters after his win, Abdullah urged the BJP-led central government to dismiss the ruling BJP-PDP alliance. “I request the Government of India and the President to dismiss the present government right away.
Governor’s rule should be imposed and elections conducted under Governor’s rule,” Farooq told the media. Thanking the people who supported him, he said: “This was the bloodiest election ever. I am not happy with the win. But results show that people are in favor of NC.”

In a statement issued by the NC party, spokesperson Junaid Azim Mattu said, “We won’t celebrate the victory in the by-poll in view of the deaths that occurred on balloting day.” Voting for the parliamentary seat saw a record low turnout of 7 per cent on April 9. Re-polling was held on April 13 for 38 polling stations in Budgam district that saw a mere 2 per cent balloting.

Anantnag

Abdullah also demanded that by poll for the upcoming Anantnag parliamentary seat should be held under Governor’s rule. “Otherwise people would not get justice,” he said.

Anantnag by poll has been deferred by the Election Commission of India till May 25 in the wake of the deteriorating situation in Kashmir. On the day of election to Srinagar Lok Sabha seat, eight civilians were killed and over 200 injured by government forces. Reacting to a video showing a man tied to an army vehicle as “human shield” against stone throwers, Abdullah said it “was shameful and bad act against democracy”. He called the eight people killed on poll day as “martyrs”.

“Many others are in hospitals or jails. I have never seen such an election,” he said and thanked “the people who risked their lives to vote in such a difficult situation”. “Such things add to the fire. I request them not to do these things,” said Abdullah. He trashed the ‘rumors’ suggesting he would resign from Lok Sabha after today’s win. “I will follow what my party high command decides,” he said.

Reacting to a video showing a man tied to an army vehicle as “human shield” against stone throwers, Abdullah said it “was shameful and bad act against democracy”. He called the eight people killed on poll day as “martyrs”. “Many others are in hospitals or jails. I have never seen such an election,” he said and thanked “the people who risked their lives to vote in such a difficult situation”.

“Such things add to the fire. I request them not to do these things,” said Abdullah.

He trashed the ‘rumors’ suggesting he would resign from Lok Sabha after today’s win. “I will follow what my party high command decides,” he said.

Indo-Pak dialogue

Abdullah demanded resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue and talks with all stakeholders including the resistance leadership, saying “war wasn’t a solution”.

“New Delhi and Islamabad have to talk and try to honesty resolve the Kashmir Issue. The people of Kashmir cannot be expected to suffer endlessly. There is no alternative to talk. You have to talk in an effort to find a solution,” Abdullah said.

Talking to reporters after he was announced as winner of the Srinagar parliamentary seat, Abdullah said, “I appeal to the Governor and President of India to dismiss this government and impose Governor’s rule in the state. This is the only way to give some respite to people. The government even failed to hold peaceful elections,” said Abdullah.

Saying that dialogue is the only way forward between the nuclear states of South Asia, Abdullah called for resumption of Indo-Pak talks and dialogue with all stakeholders including separatist Hurriyat Conference. “War is not a solution to anything,” he said. Reacting to the video of a youth tied up to an army vehicle, Abdullah said it is very shameful and a very bad act against democracy. “I request them not to do such things which will add to the fire and render it uncontrollable,” Abdullah said.

“New Delhi and Islamabad have to talk and try to honesty resolve the Kashmir Issue. The people of Kashmir cannot be expected to suffer endlessly. There is no alternative to talk. You have to talk in an effort to find a solution,” Abdullah said. Asked about the lowest-ever poll percentage in Srinagar by polls, Abdullah said, “How does it matter? We have seen polls before also where hardly any percentage was there. And what do you say to people who have voted even if it may be 7 per cent with all the pressures on them.”

Dispelling rumours of his resignation, he said that he was not going to resign. “I have neither said such a thing nor will I resign,” Abdullah said. Rumours were flying thick and fast in Kashmir on Thursday that Abdullah will resign if he wins the by-poll. On the other hand, Khan who had joined PDP after parting ways with the Congress was fighting his maiden Lok Sabha election. In the wake of unprecedented poll boycott and clashes during voting for the Srinagar segment, the Election Commission deferred by-election for Anantnag parliamentary segment—which was scheduled on April 12—till May 25.

Observation

The victory of octogenarian Abdullah is seen as a major boost for the NC, who used every card from separatism to a soft pro-Pakistan line ahead of elections.
Defeat of the ruling PDP candidate reveals the anger of Kashmiris towards the PDP-BJP joint government, targeting Muslims.

Kashmir has for too long been searching for a genuine government to serve the cause of a sovereign Jammu Kashmir where the people could live in peace and without fearing the military boots of occupation forces from neighboring countries. Both PDP and NC play tricks with Kashmiris by joining hands with BJP or Congress to form the government to advance their own interests. Even the so-called freedmen fighters try to betray the Kashmiris by working for foreign nations.

What’s the “Trump Doctrine” of foreign policy? At first glance, foreign policy under Trump seems inconsistent, arbitrary, and devoid of principle.

A few weeks ago, even before the airstrike on Syria, Trump communications director Mike Dubke told Trump’s assembled aides that international affairs presented a messaging challenge because the Trump administration lacks a coherent foreign policy. “There is no Trump doctrine,” Dubke declared. 

I think Dubke is being grossly unfair. Of course there’s a Trump Doctrine. You just have to know where to look for it.

The Trump Doctrine began to emerge when Trump issued his travel bans (both the first and second) on predominantly Muslim countries.

But he notably excluded predominately Muslim countries where Trump has business interests.

So under what might be called the First Principle of the Trump Doctrine, people living in a predominantly Muslim country have a chance of entering the United States only if their country contains an edifice with Trump’s name on it.

The Second Principle follows logically from the first. Countries that are potential markets for Trump’s business – nominally run by his two sons, but still filling his pockets – may be eligible for special favors if they allow Trump to make money there.

For example, Trump’s business currently has 157 trademark applications pending in 36 nations, according to the New York Times.

Registered trademarks are giant financial assets for a business like Trump’s, which in recent years has made big money by selling his name rather than by building or making anything.

Soon after he was sworn into office – but only after Trump backed off of his brief flirtation with a “two China” policy – the Chinese government granted Trump preliminary approval of 38 trademarks of his name.

“It was a gift,” said Peter J. Riebling, a trademark lawyer in Washington, of China’s decision. “Getting the exclusive right to use that brand in China against everyone else in the world? It’s like waving a magic wand.”

One potential obstacle for the Second Principle is the Constitution’s “emoluments” clause, which bars U.S. government officials from receiving gifts from foreign powers.

No matter. Apparently the Trump Doctrine, well, trumps the Constitution.

A group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) joined by several prominent law professors, is suing Trump over this.

But the United States – through the U.S. Department of Justice – argues in a legal brief, expected to be filed this month, that the framers of the Constitution meant only to rule out gifts that compensate presidents or other office holders for services they might do for a foreign power, not for public policies they advance that benefit a foreign power.

Interpretations of the U.S. Constitution by the Department of Justice aren’t like the musings of any random defense attorney. They carry special weight. They represent the views and interests of the United States.

Which makes this one official U.S. government policy – and thereby, confirms it as the Second Principle of the Trump Doctrine.

The Third Principle comes down hard on countries that kill their own children with poison gas. They will be bombed.

You may recall Trump had long been opposed to bombing Syria. But, as he recently explained, Syrian dictator Basha al-Assad’s “attack on children … had a big impact on me,“ adding that “my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.” The bombing ensued.

This doesn’t mean endangered children will be given refuge in the United States, though. Recall the First Principle: Nobody gains entrance to the United States from a predominantly Muslim nations unless their country contains a Trump hotel, spa, or golf course.

Which brings us to the Fourth Principle.

Not long after the Syrian bombing, Trump authorized the Pentagon to drop a 22,000-pound GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) on people described as “Islamic State forces” in eastern Afghanistan near the Pakistani border.

It was the first time the bomb – nicknamed the “mother of all bombs,” and one of the largest air-dropped munitions in the U.S. military’s inventory – had ever been used in a combat.

Trump’s rationale? The group was allegedly connected to ISIS.

So under the Fourth Principle of the Trump Doctrine, the United States reserves the right to drop a mother of a bomb on any group seemingly connected with ISIS.

This applies even if the group is not fighting to gain or hold territory claimed by the Islamic State. The group could be thousands of miles away from the Islamic State, anywhere around the world.

Could a mother of a bomb be dropped on such a group if it’s located in a country containing a Trump hotel, or considering a Trump trademark application?

Frankly, I don’t know. That pesky detail hasn’t been worked out yet.

But this one uncertainty doesn’t undermine the overall consistency or clarity of the Trump Doctrine of foreign policy. It’s four major principles are firmly rooted either in making money for Trump, or stopping bad people from doing bad things.

If Mike Dubke had a clearer grasp of Donald Trump’s worldview, he’d surely see this – as would everyone else.

This was not a trip of orient driven romance, but one of dull, bottom line economics. Less curry than cabbage; more brown nosing than elevation. Australia’s increasingly wooden Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, did not exude colour or charisma as he was embracing the idea of India as a super modern trade market for Australian business.

Instead of a cultural and effusive glow, the PM was obsessed by India as beacon, with emergent dollar signs for Australian businesses.  A nagging feeling could not be dispelled: that he was the concubine at a sultan’s penultimate inspection wishing to be picked for the night. No writhing bliss, just plain venal power.

High on the list were discussions that would have made any crony government of dubious repute proud, notably on the issue of coal.  Here was Turnbull, essentially begging for the oil to be rubbed on him, the goons to do their worst. Australia was not just open for Indian business, but singularly parted for the foul smelling Adani coal deal worth $21 billion which refuses to go away. Big, bully boy Adani, characterized by a pleading billionaire who sees more on the horizons for his unscrupulous company.

A tone deaf government indifferent to climate change and environmental degradation still sees the vast continent of Australia as a rich body to despoil, to be rented and punctured, raised and polluted, so that a discredited industry can savour its moment in a dying sun.

Turnbull has been relentless in his climate change transformation, making his trip to India a truly skin shedding experience. With a degree of painful acts, an Australian leader, armed with Australian tax payer dollars to fund a railway line for the company, has reassured the spoiled Gautam Adani that his monster mine project in Australia is going to have no impediments.  Opponents will be blown off; regulations will be amended by pen or discretion.

While other industries in Australia suffer in their terminal, unassisted decline, checking out at the office of the Grim Reaper of Manufacture and Economics, Gautama’s plump and eager hands are out waiting for subsidies to grease them. He knows he is on to something good, even if every entity from potential financial backers to Greenpeace think otherwise.

The scene would not have been inappropriate in a Cold War discussion in reverse. Instead of seeing a developed, Western power forcing its hand over a client African state, by way of example, it was a Western country keen to offer up its environment, its local resources, to be plundered with merciless enthusiasm.

Even more troubling in this crude dance of power was its corollary: Adani, in the tradition of such corporate bullies in the past (think democracy defying United Fruit in Central and South America) was insisting that local laws be altered to fit its sensitive needs. Among the demands being made by the mining company was the need to immunise it from the threat native title interests might pose.  The message there was simple: bugger the Aboriginals; we have it made in dollars and cents.

The idea that Adani is somehow going to be a heavenly boon for India’s energy consumption is tantamount to praising the virtues of cyanide in illness.  In modest doses, it won’t kill, though it will leave an impression; given a kick along, and its will have the predictable, devastating result.

This is a company with appalling employment practices, an entity known for underpaying (when it bothers to) employees, including child labourers in some of its projects, and economical with the nature of what coal it will use.

Activists familiar with the predatory nature of such companies have kept the airwaves, blogs and papers busy with warnings that continued dealings with Adani are not only dangerous for the environment, but the general welfare of the people of India.  Both Australians and Indians stand to loose.

One such voice is Vaishali Patil, who keeps reminding Australian politicians that they are dancing with a demon – and a mendacious one at that.  In India itself, Adani has ravaged dozens of hectares of protected mangroves essential to water purification. As if that was enough, coal pollution “is killing our people and will continue to rise if we continue on the current trajectory” (The Saturday Paper, Apr 8-14).

All signs, it seems, point to a poisonous white elephant of monumental proportions. Even energy minister, Piyush Goyal, made the point in 2016 that the Indian government had no intention past the next three years to import more coal.  Adani’s rapacity is scheduled to continue for at least six decades, by which time it will slide into inefficient obsolescence.

The fabled oxymoron of clean coal does not even apply. The entire arrangement has little to do with getting a higher quality of coal.  Things are being kept dirty of the high ash type, with Australia and India intending to do it on the cheap so that a few will be enriched. This very fact, unfolding as the environment awaits a terrible blow, should end the argument. But for that to happen, it would have to end Turnbull first.

By Cheryl Pellerin

US Vice President Mike Pence spoke to U.S. and South Korean troops today and answered their questions at the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea, where he reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to its long-standing alliance with South Korea.

Pence is in the Asia-Pacific region to visit top officials in Seoul, South Korea; Tokyo; Jakarta, Indonesia; and Sydney for discussions on economic engagement and evolving security challenges.

“It’s my great honor to represent the president of the United States here in the Demilitarized Zone. And I’m very grateful for the leadership of General Brooks and General Lee and the ironclad and immutable alliance that is represented here by these two strong military leaders,” Pence said in his remarks to the troops.

Army Gen. Vincent K. Brooks is the commander of U.S. Forces Korea, Combined Forces Command and United Nations Command. Army Gen. Lee Sun-jin is South Korea’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

U.S. Resolve

The vice president brought greetings from President Donald J. Trump and commended the troops for their vigilance “here along this historic frontier of freedom.”

“We express the resolve of the people of the United States of America to stand together in the months and years ahead with the people of South Korea to both preserve their freedom and ensure the objective of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula,” the vice president added. Pence said he and the president are heartened by the support of allies across the Asia-Pacific region, including China, adding that all will continue to advance that objective.

“I’m here to express the resolve of the people of the United States and the president of the United States to achieve that objective through peaceable means, through negotiations, but all options are on the table as we continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of South Korea,” the vice president said.

Initial Steps

After his remarks, Pence took questions from the troops.

In response to a question about whether Chinese officials would help convince North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to end his ballistic missile and nuclear testing, the vice president said Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping had a frank discussion about a broad range of international issues, including the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula when Xi visited Trump earlier this month in Florida.

“I know the president is hopeful that China will use its influence here on the Korean Peninsula with North Korea to achieve that objective,” he said. “And we are heartened by some initial steps that China has taken in this regard, but we look for them to do more.”

The U.S. hope is to achieve the denuclearization of North Korea by working with China, Japan and other allies in the region through peaceable means, the vice president added.

Audit the Fed recently took a step closer to becoming law, when it was favorably reported by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. This means the House could vote on the bill at any time. The bill passed by voice vote without any objections, although Fed defenders did launch hysterical attacks on the bill during the debate as well as at a hearing on the bill the previous week.

One representative claimed that auditing the Fed would result in rising interest rates, a stock market crash, a decline in the dollar’s value, and a complete loss of confidence in the US economy. Those who understand economics know that all of this is actually what awaits America unless we change our monetary policy. Passing the audit bill is the vital first step in that process, since an audit can provide Congress a road map to changing the fiat currency system.

Another charge leveled by the Fed’s defenders is that subjecting the Fed to an audit would make the Fed subject to political pressure. There are two problems with this argument. First, nothing in the audit bill gives Congress or the president any new authority to interfere in the Federal Reserve’s operations. Second, and most importantly, the Federal Reserve has a long history of giving in to presidential pressure for an “accommodative” monetary policy.

The most notorious example of Fed chairmen tailoring monetary policy to fit the demands of a president is Nixon-era Federal Reserve Chair Arthur Burns. Burns and Nixon may be an extreme example — after all no other president was caught on tape joking with the Fed chair about Fed independence, but every president has tried to influence the Fed with varying degrees of success. For instance, Lyndon Johnson summoned the Fed chair to the White House to berate him for not tailoring monetary policy to support Johnson’s guns and butter policies.

Federal Reserve chairmen have also used their power to shape presidential economic policy. According to Maestro, Bob Woodward’s biography of Alan Greenspan, Bill Clinton once told Al Gore that Greenspan was a “man we can deal with,” while Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen claimed the Clinton administration and Greenspan’s Fed had a “gentleman’s agreement” regarding the Fed’s support for the administration’s economic policies.

The Federal Reserve has also worked to influence the legislative branch. In the 1970s, the Fed organized a campaign by major banks and financial institutions to defeat a prior audit bill. The banks and other institutions who worked to keep the Fed’s operations a secret are not only under the Fed’s regulatory jurisdiction, but are some of the major beneficiaries of the current monetary system.

There can be no doubt that, as the audit bill advances through the legislative process, the Fed and its allies will ramp up both public and behind-the-scenes efforts to kill the bill. Can anyone dismiss the possibility that Janet Yellen will attempt to “persuade” Donald Trump to drop his support for Audit the Fed in exchange for an “accommodative” monetary policy that supports the administration’s proposed spending on overseas militarism and domestic infrastructure?

While auditing the Fed is supported by the vast majority of Americans, it is opposed by powerful members of the financial elite and the deep state. Therefore, those of us seeking to change our national monetary policy must redouble our efforts to force Congress to put America on a path to liberty, peace, and prosperity by auditing, then ending, the Fed.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

By S. Binodkumar Singh*

On April 13, 2017, a 21,600-pound Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), also commonly known as the Mother of All Bombs, dropped by U.S Forces killed at least 94 terrorists affiliated with the Islamic State (IS, formerly, Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham, also Daesh) in a Daesh base in the Achin District of Nangarhar Province. Three tunnels used by Daesh fighters and as reservoirs of weapons and other equipment were destroyed in the attack. Later, the Nangahar Provincial Government disclosed that at least four key leaders of the group identified as Hamza Abu Bakar, Mohammad Ibrani, Hamid Kunari, and Walkin, were among those killed.

On April 12, 2017, the Nangahar Provincial Government stated that at least 49 Daesh terrorists, including three ‘commanders’, were killed during the preceding 24 hours in the vicinity of Achin District. Several weapons and other military equipment, including explosives, were also destroyed during the operations.

On April 10, 2017, at least 13 terrorists affiliated with Daesh were killed during the ongoing “Operation Hamza” in the vicinity of the Pekha area of Achin District in Nangarhar Province.

The 10-day “Operation Hamza” was launched on April 10, 2017, by Afghan Special Forces, in cooperation with foreign troops, to fully eliminate the insurgency led by Daesh terrorists and other insurgent groups, including Taliban, in Kot and Achin Districts of Nangarhar Province. Earlier, in another operation codenamed “Operation Shaheen-25” launched on February 10, 2017, to suppress the growing Daesh dominance in the Nangarhar Province, at least 150 loyalists of the group were killed or wounded over ten days.

According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), 884 IS terrorists, including 768 in Nangarhar, 94 in Zabul, 15 in Uruzgan, five in Kandahar and two in the Herat Province, have been killed since the beginning of 2017 (data till April 16, 2017).

Reports of Daesh making inroads into Afghanistan had started soon after the June 2014 release of the terrorist formation’s ‘world domination map’, which included Afghanistan in the projected ‘Islamic region’ of Khorasan’. In his address to the United States (US) Congress on March 25, 2015, Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani had warned, “From the west, Daesh is already sending advance guards to southern and western Afghanistan to test for vulnerabilities.” Daesh reportedly carried out its first terror attack inside Afghanistan on April 18, 2015. At least 33 people were killed and another 105 were injured in a suicide bomb blast outside a bank, where Government staff and military personnel were collecting their salaries, in the city of Jalalabad, the Provincial capital of Nangarhar Province. An April 14, 2017, media report put the number of Daesh fighters in Afghanistan at 600 to 800, most of them embedded in Nangarhar Province. US and Afghan militaries have overwhelmingly targeted Daesh Forces since their early emergence and consolidation in the region.

Within days of the declaration of the ‘Caliphate’ by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi on June 29, 2014, a splinter of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) announced itself as the Tehrik-e-Khilafat and declared allegiance to Daesh. In January 2015, Hafiz Saeed Khan Orakzai, a former TTP ‘commander’ and member of its Majlis-e-Shura (governing council), after a protracted leadership struggle within the organization, claimed to have been appointed as the head of Daesh’s Khorasan chapter in Pakistan and Afghanistan. [Hafiz Saeed Khan was killed along with 30 other fighters in an airstrike in Afghanistan’s Jalalabad province in July 2015]. Quickly, with no pattern or apparent material support, Daesh supporters in Pakistan announced themselves in Peshawar, Bannu, the Northwest, and Quetta, the provincial capital of Balochistan. Jundullah, another TTP fragment, also broke away and announced its support for Daesh on November 17, 2014. On July 31, 2015, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), with a powerful presence in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, declared fealty to Daesh. In Afghanistan, various splinters of the Taliban broke away transferring allegiance to Daesh, including the Heroes of Islam Brigade on September 30, 2014 and al Tawheed Brigade on September 23, 2014.

IS-K found initial and substantial support among disaffected Taliban and TTP cadres, establishing dominance in the Nangarhar Province, as well as a significant presence in Kunduz and Helmand, in Afghanistan. Wilting under the heat of operations by the Taliban, the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), private tribal militias and US Air support, IS-K was squeezed out of four of the Province’s seven Districts, retaining a weakened presence in Achin, Nazyan and Deh Bala, and pushing into the neighbouring Kunar District under pressure. Daesh fighters were seen fleeing to the Kunar and Nuristan provinces along Afghanistan’s western border with Pakistan, where they were just “trying to survive” at that stage.

After gaining early momentum in the eastern parts of Afghanistan, Daesh’s capabilities and territorial dominance began quickly to wane, both as a result of disproportionate focus by the Afghan and Coalition militaries, and because the group, unlike the Taliban, is not seen as an indigenous entity, and has consequently failed to consolidate local support. Moreover, Daesh’s practice of accusing fellow Muslims of apostasy for deviating from its own violent interpretation of Islam does has found few takers in Afghanistan’s tribal cultures. Further, the Daesh leadership – whether its core in Iraq and Syria or its offshoot for Afghanistan and Pakistan – are not Afghans. Daesh was formed by breakaway members of the TTP, an alliance of extremist groups fighting to overthrow the Pakistani Government, and other foreign fighters. Daesh is consequently viewed as an outside force, and this perception has been compounded by its demonstrative brutality, as well as its ill-treatment of the local people and the lack of respect for their culture and history.

Some of Daesh’s recent and major attacks include:

On April 12, 2017: A suicide attacker detonated explosives near the Administrative Office of the President and the Ministries of Defense and Finance in the Afghan capital, Kabul, killing at least five civilians and injuring 10. Daesh claimed responsibility via a statement released by the group’s media wing, Amaq News Agency.

On March 8, 2017: Gunmen dressed in white lab coats stormed the Sardar Daud Khan Hospital in the centre of Kabul, firing shots, detonating explosives and then battling Security Forces for hours, resulting in the deaths of more than 40 people. Daesh claimed the attack.

On February 8, 2017, six employees of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) were shot dead by Daesh terrorists in the Qoshtapa District of Jawzjan Province. After the killing, ICRC suspended its operations in Afghanistan on February 9, 2017.

On February 7, 2017, at least 22 people were killed while more than 41 were injured in a suicide attack outside Afghanistan’s Supreme Court complex in Kabul. Later, in a post on Twitter, Daesh claimed responsibility for the attack.

On November 21, 2016: IS carried out a suicide bomb attack inside a mosque in the sixth Police District of Kabul, which killed at least 30 people and left more than 70 injured. Children and women were among the victims.

On March 17, 2017, Esa Khan Zawak, the District Governor of Achin District, observed “Daesh was still firmly entrenched in the area where they had military bases, training centers, prisons and even a court. We are in offensive status and do not feel serious threats, but almost 80 percent of the fighters are foreigners.” Earlier, on February 14, 2017, Nazifullah Salarzai, Deputy Permanent Representative of Afghanistan at the United Nations, speaking during a meeting of the United Nations Security Council noted, “The ongoing cycle of violence in Afghanistan is not, by any means, a homegrown phenomenon. Its roots lie elsewhere, outside Afghanistan,” and added that the roots of violence emanated from a strategic design crafted “from within our region to advance an ill-fated political agenda, which serves no one, defies international law and constitutes a blatant violation of the very spirit and tenets of the UN Charter, including relevant counterterrorism resolutions of the General Assembly and Security Council.”

Significantly, on May 30, 2016, the Afghanistan National Security Council (NSC) chaired by President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani approved, in principle, the strategy to fight Daesh, as loyalists of the terror group were attempting to expand their foothold in the country. Further, on March 23, 2017, the Foreign Ministers of the Global Coalition against Daesh declared, “We commend the efforts of the Government of Afghanistan, along with its National Defense and Security Forces, in the fight against ISIS and in implementing its National Strategy against ISIS.”

Reaffirming support to the Afghan Government and Security Forces, on March 18, 2017, the UNSC extended until March 17, 2018, the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), a political UN mission established on March 28, 2002, at the request of the Government of Afghanistan to assist it and the people of Afghanistan in laying the foundations for sustainable peace and development. Separately, reaffirming North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)’s continued support until peace and stability is ensured in Afghanistan, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, during a press conference following the NATO Foreign Ministerial meeting in Brussels, declared, on April 1, 2017, “NATO already plays a key role in the fight against terrorism. We have to remember that our biggest military operation ever, our presence in Afghanistan, is about fighting terrorism. It’s about preventing Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for international terrorism.” Similarly, reaffirming the US support to the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, US Secretary of State Rex Tiller also observed, “NATO’s work in Afghanistan remains critical. The United States is committed to the Resolute Support Mission and to our support for Afghan forces.”

The spread of Daesh was an ominous development for Afghanistan, which is going through a phase of increasing turbulence. There are several concerns over Daesh’s presence and impact in Afghanistan. While the Taliban remains the Afghan Government’s most pervasive foe, Daesh’s presence has created another major challenge for the Afghan Forces.

* S. Binodkumar Singh
Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management

By Ajit Kumar Singh*

On April 2, 2017, Security Forces (SFs) killed three militants of the United Kukigram Defence Army (UKDA) in an encounter at Jullian village under the Manza Police Station of Karbi Anglong District in Assam. Another militant was injured during the encounter.

On March 30, 2017, two militants of the I.K. Songbijit faction of the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB-IKS), identified as Lukash Narzary aka Langfa and David Islary, were killed during an encounter with SFs at Simlagri under the Amguri Police Station in the Chirang District of Assam. One INSAS Rifle with 10 rounds of live ammunition, one 7.65 mm revolver with three rounds of ammunition and one Chinese grenade were recovered.

On March 17, 2017, the dead body of a non-local civilian, identified as Ajay Kumar Shahu, was recovered from the Langol Games Village in the Imphal West District of Manipur. Later, on March 23, 2017, the United National Liberation Front (UNLF), in a statement issued to the Press, claimed that Shahu was eliminated, not because he was a non-Manipuri, but for his ‘immoral activities’.

According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), there have been 28 insurgency-related fatalities (10 civilians, three SF personnel, 15 militants) in India’s Northeast in the current year (data till April 14, 2017) as compared to 53 such fatalities (18 civilians, three SF personnel, 32 militants) recorded in the region during the corresponding period of 2016. The dip witnessed in level of violence reaffirms the gains registered in 2016.

Through 2016, India’s Northeast accounted for 160 fatalities (61 civilians, 17 SF personnel, 82 militants) as against 273 such fatalities (62 civilians, 49 SF personnel, 162 militants) recorded in 2015. In terms of overall fatalities, 2016 recorded the lowest ever fatalities in the State since 1992 [SATP data for the region is available only since 1992]. A previous low of 246 fatalities was recorded in 2011. Significantly, at the peak of insurgency the region saw 1,696 fatalities in 2000.

The Northeast comprises eight states: Arunachal Pradesh, Assam , Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura. Barring Sikkim which has had no insurgency in its history, all the others have seen enduring movements of armed violence, though their intensity and dispersal have varied across States and across time. With the exception of Assam, overall fatalities declined in all these States in 2016. In Assam, the death toll increased from 59 in 2015 to 86 in 2016. As in 2015, Tripura did not record a single fatality in 2016.

Year 2016 also recorded the lowest number of civilian fatalities (61) registered in the region since 1992. The previous lowest of 62 was recorded in 2015 and thus the declining trend continued. Fatalities in this category have been rising since 2011, with 79 civilians killed that year, as against 77 in 2010; rising to 90 in 2012 and further to 95 in 2013, to a massive 245 in 2014. At the peak of multiple insurgencies in the region, 946 civilian fatalities were recorded in 2000.

In 2016, civilian fatalities were not recorded in three States – Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Tripura, as against two such States in 2015 – Mizoram and Tripura. Among the States from where civilian fatalities were reported in 2016, with the exception of Assam, which registered a significant increase from 10 to 33, all the other States registered a fall in civilian fatalities.

The number of Districts from where fatalities were reported in 2016 stood at 31, as against 40 in 2015. The seven troubled States of the Northeast (excluding Sikkim) have a total of 108 Districts.

Other parameters of violence also witnessed improvements. As against 16 major incidents (involving three or more fatalities) resulting in 82 deaths in 2015, there were 10 such incidents resulting in 50 deaths in 2016. The number of explosions and resultant fatalities also recorded a decline, from 69 incidents and 14 killed in 2015, to 65 incidents and eight killed in 2016.

The SF:militant kill ratio for 2016 worked out at 1:4.76 against the militants, significantly better than 2015, at 1:2.16. 106 militant fatalities at the hands of SFs were recorded in 2015, out of a total of 162 killed; with the remaining 56 killed in factional clashes. Out of 82 militants killed in 2016, one was killed in a factional clash, while SFs eliminated the remaining 81.

Despite these gains, numerous challenges remain in a region that has seen cyclical surges and recessions in the levels of violence over decades. Never since 1992 have overall fatalities registered a decline, on year on year basis, for more than three consecutive years. This positive trend was achieved twice – between 2004 and 2006; and between 2009 and 2011. Fatalities increased for five consecutive years between 1993 and 1997, the longest span of continuously rising fatalities.

The region remains home to 13 of the 39 terrorist formations banned by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA) as on November 19, 2015. According to the SATP database, apart from these 13 proscribed terror outfits, there are another 139 militant outfits that have operated in the region at one point of time or another. These include 19 militant formations which are still active; 97 that operated in the past but have seized operations; and another 23 which are at various stages of peace talks with the Government.

Reports also indicate that many of the militant groups in the region continue to operate in unison to fight jointly for the ‘sovereignty’ of their respective imagined states. After the November 19, 2016, attack at Pengaree near Digboi, Tinsukia District, Assam, in which three SF personnel were killed, the United Liberation Front of Asom – Independent (ULFA-I) faction claimed that this was a “joint operation” carried out by the its cadres and four members of the Manipur-based Coordination Committee (CorCom) – comprising the Revolutionary People’s Front (RPF, the political wing of the People’s Liberation Army, PLA), UNLF, People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK), and the progressive faction of PREPAK (PREPAK-Pro). The other two members of the CorCom, a conglomerate of six Manipur Valley-based militant outfits formed in July 2011, are the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) and the Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL). The same group also carried out a second attack on the Army in the Chandel District of Manipur on November 26, 2016, and injured five SF personnel. The attacks, codenamed ‘Operation Barak’, were the first instance of Meitei groups carrying out strikes in Assam, and of ULFA-I operating in Manipur. On December 3, 2016, the ‘commander-in-chief’ of ULFA-I, Paresh Baruah, clarified that “Operation Barak, named after the Barak River that flows from Manipur to Assam, is a symbol of friendship between the two States.”

Earlier, on April 17, 2015, the Khaplang faction of NSCN (NSCN-K) joined hands with three of the most active terror outfits in the Northeast: ULFA-I; NDFB-IKS; and Kamtapur Liberation Organisation (KLO), to form the United National Liberation Front of Western South East Asia (UNLFWESEA). The UNLFWESEA, headed by S.S. Khaplang, was formed with the objective of setting up a ‘northeast government-in-exile’, reportedly to be based in Myanmar. Another two outfits, the Tripura-based National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) and the Assam based People’s Democratic Council of Karbi-Longri (PDCK) have also associated with UNLFWESA.

Despite the ‘historic accord, signed between the Government of India (GoI) and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland–Isak Muivah (NSCN-IM) on August 3, 2015, to resolve the ‘mother of all insurgencies’ in the region, the Naga insurgency, the process has, so far, failed to bring the concerned parties to an agreeable settlement. The Naga problem retains the potential to derail the process of deepening peace in the region. Media reports indicate that numerous ambiguities remain in the ‘framework agreement’, making progress difficult. The NSCN-IM leadership is showing increasing signs of desperation, making allegations against the Union Government. In a media interview published on April 23, 2017, for instance, NSCN-IM ‘commander-in-chief’ Phunting Shimrang accused the Union Government of delaying the final settlement of the Naga issue and warned “even if only 30 to 100 people are left, we will start (the movement again)… The Indian Army may be the biggest force in the world, but we are not scared. We will fight them.”

Islamist terror groups backed by Pakistan’s external intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), have been a challenge for peace in the region, though their ‘effectiveness’ has suffered over a period. Nevertheless, the threat exists. On July 24, 2016, Union Minister of State (MoS) for Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju thus observed,

Assam and the entire northeast are sensitive places. The region shares a major portion of the international border and so its vulnerability is high. It is also prone to jihadi activities. Steps have been taken and arrangements made to ensure the region’s safety.

In the meantime, several other issues with a potential to undermine peace in the region remain unaddressed. Prominent among these are the issue of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016 that has created troubles in Assam and Tripura; the decision to carve out new Districts from the existing nine districts in Manipur that had a cascading impact on the lives of people in the State as a result of a 139-day blockade; and the lingering issue repatriation of displaced Bru (Reang) refugees from Tripura. The Manipur blockade that began on November 1, 2016, ended with tripartite talks between the Centre, the Manipur Government and the United Naga Council (UNC) on March 19, 2017.

Crucially, the economic disparity that has existed in the region for long because of decades of neglect on the part of successive regimes, remains a major problem. Though the Government has now initiated some steps to address these disparities, the desired pace of development is far from being achieved. Indeed, of the 761 North Eastern Council (NEC) funded projects, with an approved cost of INR 7484.71 crores [INR 74.84 billion], currently under implementations, only 35 projects costing INR 554.40 crores [5.54 billion], sanctioned at different times, have been completed during the financial year 2016-17.

Peace in the region has also been compromised by its extensive, geographically challenging and troubled international borders, with continuous infiltration across a wide range of points and a multiplicity of relative safe havens still in existence, facilitating militant activities. All seven insurgency affected states share international border with one or more of four countries – Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, and Myanmar – all of which have, at some stage, provided refuge to militants operating in India’s Northeast, including their top leadership. While the problem with Bhutan and Bangladesh is by no measure as severe as it once was, Myanmar and China remain a significant problem. L.R. Bishnoi, Additional Director General of Police, Assam, observed, on January 10, 2017, “Chinese intelligences have been helping, directly or indirectly various insurgent groups of the North-eastern region that have their bases and hideouts inside Myanmar. These groups are under increasing influence of the Chinese agencies, and ULFA [ULFA-I] leader Paresh Barua is among those top leaders who have been in regular touch with the Chinese liaison office in Ruili on the China-Myanmar border.” According to reports, Paresh Barua has set up a base in Ruili, a Chinese town along the China-Myanmar border.

Securing the border is, consequently, of paramount importance. The Government has taken several steps in this direction. Border Outposts (BOPs) along the land border and floating BOPs in riverine segments have been established and strengthened periodically. Border guarding Forces are on round-the-clock surveillance, patrolling and laying nakas (checkposts) all along the land border. In the riverine segments, patrolling is done by water crafts/speed boats. Further, on November 22, 2016, the Government informed Parliament:

The total sanctioned length of fence along Indo-Bangladesh Border is 3326 km [kilometers], out of which 2731 km has been completed. The ongoing fence work along the complete Indo-Bangladesh border is targeted for completion by March 2019. Further, in the stretches in which site is not available, fence work will be completed in three years from the date of availability of site… A total of 9.12 km fencing along Indo-Myanmar Border in Moreh Sector (between Border Pillars 79-81), Manipur, was approved by Ministry and accordingly Phase-I construction of fencing commenced in the year 2010. The construction of the fence was however temporarily halted on 21.12.2013. At the time of stopping of work only around 3.47 km of border fencing work was completed. No progress on the work has been taken place thereafter. Construction of Border fencing of total length of 35.90 km along the Indo Bhutan Border has been approved by the Government. There is no fencing on Indo-China Border.

Clearly, a great deal remains to be done to make the border impenetrable.

At a time when the violence in the region is at its lowest, there are tremendous opportunities for a consolidation of governance, security and peace in India’s Northeast.

* Ajit Kumar Singh
Research Fellow, Institute for Conflict Management

Turkey’s parliament approved a controversial new draft constitution which would expand the powers of the presidency under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, meaning the country will vote on changing the constitution later this year.

While critics say the move is part of a power grab by Erdogan for a one-man rule, supporters say it formalises a de facto situation and is needed for an efficient government.

But what would change under the proposed 18-article draft constitution for the nation of 79 million?

More powers for Erdogan

Under the new constitution, the president would have strengthened executive powers to directly appoint top public officials including ministers.

The president would also be able to assign one or several vice presidents. The office and position of prime minister, currently held by Binali Yildirim, would be scrapped.

The current constitution, adopted in 1982 in the wake of the 1980 military coup, guarantees independence of the courts from an “organ, authority and office”.

But the draft constitution would allow the president to directly intervene in the judiciary, which Erdogan has accused of being influenced by supporters of his ally-turned-foe Fethullah Gulen who is blamed for the July 15 failed coup.

The president and the parliament would together be able to choose four members of the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK), a key judicial council that appoints and removes personnel in the judiciary. The parliament would choose seven members on its own.

Military courts, which have convicted officers and even sentenced former prime minister Adnan Menderes to death following a 1960 coup, would in the future not be allowed.

However the draft said that on issues clearly regulated by laws, the president could not introduce decrees.

State of emergency

Under the draft constitution, a state of emergency would be imposed in the event of an “uprising against the homeland” or “acts of violence which put the nation in… danger of being divided”, the official news agency Anadolu said.

The president would decide whether or not impose a state of emergency and then present it to the parliament.

The parliament, when it deems it to be necessary, can shorten, lengthen or lift the state of emergency, the agency added.

Initially the emergency would last six months, 12 weeks longer than the current emergency can be introduced and then it can be extended by the parliament after a presidential request for four months each time.

More members of parliament

The number of members of the Turkish parliament would rise from 550 to 600. The minimum age limit for MPs would also be lowered from 25 to 18.

Election changes

Legislative elections would take place once every five years – instead of four – and on the same day as the presidential elections.

The parliament would still have power to enact, modify and remove legislation. It would retain supervisory powers to write enquiries with help from an investigative authority.

It would also be able to oversee the president’s performance but the latter would have authority to issue a presidential decree on all matters related to his executive powers.

If the president were accused or suspected of a crime, then parliament could request an investigation.

Partisan president

The president will have to be a Turkish citizen at least 40 years old, and can be a member of a political party. Currently the president must be impartial and without party favour.

Longer Erdogan term?

The draft constitution states that the next presidential and parliamentary elections are to be held simultaneously on November 3, 2019.

The president would have a five-year term with a maximum of two mandates.

Erdogan was elected president in August 2014 after more than a decade as prime minister, in the first ever direct elections for a Turkish head of state.

But there have been suggestions that the clock on his presidency will start from zero from 2019 as the new constitution creates a new presidential role.

If this is so, Erdogan would be able to stay in power until 2029, not 2024. The president has yet to make explicitly clear whether this is the case.

Original source

Washington has never made any effort to conceal its contempt for North Korea. In the 64 years since the war ended, the US has done everything in its power to punish, humiliate and inflict pain on the Communist country. Washington has subjected the DPRK to starvation,  prevented its government from accessing foreign capital and markets, strangled its economy with crippling economic sanctions, and installed lethal missile systems and military bases on their doorstep.

Negotiations aren’t possible because Washington refuses to sit down with a country which it sees as its inferior.  Instead, the US has strong-armed China to do its bidding by using their diplomats as interlocutors who are expected to convey Washington’s ultimatums as threateningly as possible.  The hope, of course, is that Pyongyang will cave in to Uncle Sam’s bullying and do what they are told.

But the North has never succumbed to US intimidation and there’s no sign that it will. Instead, they have developed a small arsenal of nuclear weapons to defend themselves in the event that the US tries to assert its dominance by launching another war.
There’s no country in the world that needs nuclear weapons more than North Korea. Brainwashed Americans, who get their news from FOX or CNN, may differ on this point, but if a hostile nation deployed carrier strike-groups off the coast of California while conducting massive war games on the Mexican border (with the express intention of scaring the shit of people) then they might see things differently. They might see the value of having a few nuclear weapons to deter that hostile nation from doing something really stupid.

And let’s be honest, the only reason Kim Jong Un hasn’t joined Saddam and Gadhafi in the great hereafter, is because (a)– The North does not sit on an ocean of oil, and (b)– The North has the capacity to reduce Seoul, Okinawa and Tokyo into smoldering debris-fields.  Absent Kim’s WMDs,  Pyongyang would have faced a preemptive attack long ago and Kim would have faced a fate similar to Gadhafi’s.  Nuclear weapons are the only known antidote to US adventurism.

The American people –whose grasp of history does not extend beyond the events of 9-11 — have no idea of the way the US fights its wars or the horrific carnage and destruction it unleashed on the North.  Here’s a short  refresher that helps clarify why the North is still wary of the US more than 60 years after the armistice was signed.  The excerpt is from an article titled “Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea”, at Vox World:

“In the early 1950s, during the Korean War, the US dropped more bombs on North Korea than it had dropped in the entire Pacific theater during World War II. This carpet bombing, which included 32,000 tons of napalm, often deliberately targeted civilian as well as military targets, devastating the country far beyond what was necessary to fight the war. Whole cities were destroyed, with many thousands of innocent civilians killed and many more left homeless and hungry….

According to US journalist Blaine Harden:  “Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 percent of the population,” Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, told the Office of Air Force History in 1984. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war and later secretary of state, said the United States bombed “everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.” After running low on urban targets, U.S. bombers destroyed hydroelectric and irrigation dams in the later stages of the war, flooding farmland and destroying crops……

“On January 3 at 10:30 AM an armada of 82 flying fortresses loosed their death-dealing load on the city of Pyongyang …Hundreds of tons of bombs and incendiary compound were simultaneously dropped throughout the city, causing annihilating fires, the transatlantic barbarians bombed the city with delayed-action high-explosive bombs which exploded at intervals for a whole day making it impossible for the people to come out onto the streets. The entire city has now been burning, enveloped in flames, for two days. By the second day, 7,812 civilians houses had been burnt down. The Americans were well aware that there were no military targets left in Pyongyang…

The number of inhabitants of Pyongyang killed by bomb splinters, burnt alive and suffocated by smoke is incalculable…Some 50,000 inhabitants remain in the city which before the war had a population of 500,000.” (“Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea“,  Vox World)

The United States killed over 2 million people in a country that posed no threat to US national security. Like Vietnam, the Korean War was just another  muscle-flexing exercise the US periodically engages in whenever it gets bored or needs some far-flung location to try out its new weapons systems. The US had nothing to gain in its aggression on the Korean peninsula, it was mix of imperial overreach and pure unalloyed viciousness the likes of which we’ve seen many times in the past. According to the Asia-Pacific Journal:

“By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans.10 Only emergency assistance from China, the USSR, and other socialist countries prevented widespread famine.” (“The Destruction and Reconstruction of North Korea, 1950 – 1960”, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Japan Focus)

Repeat: “Reservoirs, irrigation dams, rice crops,  hydroelectric dams, population centers” all napalmed, all carpet bombed,  all razed to the ground. Nothing was spared. If it moved it was shot, if it didn’t move, it was bombed. The US couldn’t win, so they turned the country into an uninhabitable wastelands.   “Let them starve. Let them freeze.. Let them eat weeds and roots and rodents to survive. Let them sleep in the ditches and find shelter in the rubble. What do we care? We’re the greatest country on earth. God bless America.”

This is how Washington does business, and it hasn’t changed since the Seventh Cavalry wiped out 150 men, women and children at Wounded Knee more than century ago. The Lakota Sioux at Pine Ridge got the same basic treatment as the North Koreans, or the Vietnamese, or the Nicaraguans, or the Iraqis and on and on and on and on. Anyone else who gets in Uncle Sam’s way, winds up in a world of hurt. End of story.

The savagery of America’s war against the North left an indelible mark on the psyche of the people.  Whatever the cost, the North cannot allow a similar scenario to take place in the future. Whatever the cost, they must be prepared to defend themselves. If that means nukes, then so be it. Self preservation is the top priority.

Is there a way to end this pointless standoff between Pyongyang and Washington, a way to mend fences and build trust?

Of course there is. The US just needs to start treating the DPRK with respect and follow through on their promises. What promises?

The promise to built the North two light-water reactors to provide heat and light to their people in exchange for an end to its nuclear weapons program. You won’t read about this deal in the media because the media is just the propaganda wing of the Pentagon. They have no interest in promoting peaceful solutions. Their stock-in-trade is war, war and more war.

The North wants the US to honor its obligations under the 1994 Agreed Framework. That’s it. Just keep up your end of the goddamn deal. How hard can that be?   Here’s how Jimmy Carter summed it up in a Washington Post op-ed (November 24, 2010):

“…in September 2005, an agreement … reaffirmed the basic premises of the 1994 accord. (The Agreed Framework) Its text included denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, a pledge of non-aggression by the United States and steps to evolve a permanent peace agreement to replace the U.S.-North Korean-Chinese cease-fire that has been in effect since July 1953. Unfortunately, no substantive progress has been made since 2005…

“This past July I was invited to return to Pyongyang to secure the release of an American, Aijalon Gomes, with the proviso that my visit would last long enough for substantive talks with top North Korean officials. They spelled out in detail their desire to develop a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and a permanent cease-fire, based on the 1994 agreements and the terms adopted by the six powers in September 2005….

“North Korean officials have given the same message to other recent American visitors and have permitted access by nuclear experts to an advanced facility for purifying uranium. The same officials had made it clear to me that this array of centrifuges would be ‘on the table’ for discussions with the United States, although uranium purification – a very slow process – was not covered in the 1994 agreements.

“Pyongyang has sent a consistent message that during direct talks with the United States, it is ready to conclude an agreement to end its nuclear programs, put them all under IAEA inspection and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the ‘temporary’ cease-fire of 1953. We should consider responding to this offer. The unfortunate alternative is for North Koreans to take whatever actions they consider necessary to defend themselves from what they claim to fear most: a military attack supported by the United States, along with efforts to change the political regime.”

(“North Korea’s consistent message to the U.S.”, President Jimmy Carter, Washington Post)

Most people think the problem lies with North Korea, but it doesn’t. The problem lies with the United States; it’s unwillingness to negotiate an end to the war, its unwillingness to provide basic security guarantees to the North, its unwillingness to even sit down with the people who –through Washington’s own stubborn ignorance– are now developing long-range ballistic missiles that will be capable of hitting American cities.

How dumb is that?

The Trump team is sticking with a policy that has failed for 63 years and which clearly undermines US national security by putting American citizens directly at risk. AND FOR WHAT?

To preserve the image of “tough guy”,  to convince people that the US doesn’t negotiate with weaker countries,  to prove to the world that “whatever the US says, goes”?   Is that it?  Is image more important than a potential nuclear disaster?

Relations with the North can be normalized,  economic ties can be strengthened, trust can be restored, and the nuclear threat can be defused. The situation with the North does not have to be a crisis, it can be fixed. It just takes a change in policy, a bit of give-and-take, and leaders that genuinely want peace more than war.

Dr. Hassan Rouhani deserves a second term as Iran’s president and the overall sum of his accomplishments during his first term are, indeed, quite impressive and need to be sustained for another four years.

As the presidential race in Iran gets underway, it is time to reflect objectively on the record of Rouhani administration and draw the necessary balance sheet with respect to both domestic and foreign affairs. This is undoubtedly an important task that requires proper methodology, historical perspective, and a correct assessment of the internal and external sources of areas of weakness or lack of accomplishment, otherwise we are bound to make the mistake of placing blames on the administration rather unfairly.

Without a doubt, the Rouhani administration deserves credit for ending the long-standing nuclear crisis that had crippled Iran’s economy and isolated the country in the global community as a result of robust international sanctions. As a result of the sanctions, particularly on the energy sector, Iran’s OPEC status slipped and the economic consequences were multiplied by the time Dr. Rouhani came to the office in Summer, 2013 on a direct pledge to end the nuclear standoff and deliver good nuclear news within the first one hundred days as president. The President delivered on his promise, initially with the Geneva interim agreement of November 2013, followed by the final agreement in July 2015, which went into effect shortly thereafter.

In historical retrospective, the nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is a crowning achievement of Iran’s diplomacy, masterfully orchestrated by President Rouhani, thanks to his previous role as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator a decade earlier. Steered by Rouhani’s pragmatism and implemented by the brilliant hands of the nuclear team led by the veteran diplomat Dr. Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s new nuclear diplomacy has yet to be fully appreciated in Iran for all its skillful “smart” diplomacy that yielded significant positive results.

The latter included the following: (a) the sanctions wall fell down and the global consensus behind it evaporated; (b) the UN Security Council resolutions under Chapter VII were rendered basically inoperative, a huge diplomatic achievement; (c) overnight Iran turned into a global “emerging market” instead of being a taboo, reflected in literally thousands of foreign trade delegations visiting Iran since the JCPOA’s adoption; (d) the threat of war hovering over Iran’s head constantly throughout the nuclear crisis vanished; (e) Iran’s regional standing experienced a rapid improvement despite the animosity by the Saudi-led bloc; (f) Iran was able to reap other windfalls from the nuclear deal, such as by participating in the international peace process on Syria, which culminated in the Iran-Russia-Turkey initiative of the Astana rounds.

Needless to say, we must adopt a process-oriented approach when discussing the nuclear agreement that has a life-span of 10 years or so, particularly since the JCPOA is fragile and still under verbal assault by the Trump administration, which has nonetheless agreed to stick with it, per a recent G7 statement. The American record on the JCPOA so far leaves a lot to be desired but, on the whole, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has confirmed that the US has complied with the JCPOA obligations. The continuation of non-nuclear, so-called “primary sanctions” definitely pose a problem, just as US’s new post-JCPOA sanctions over Iran’s missile tests also complicate the picture.

Since the JCPOA was narrow-focused on the nuclear issue, the continuation of US hostility toward Iran is not surprising and, from Iran’s vantage, poses a foreign policy problem that pre-dated Rouhani. Hence, with respect to any assessment of the Rouhani accomplishments, we must take into consideration the external pressures and threats that have continued even after the JCPOA, which ought not to be confused with the weaknesses of Rouhani administration.

On the economic front, Iran’s ability to free its oil and gas sector from the web of sanctions, to regain its OPEC status, to attract foreign capital, to sign hundreds of trade agreements with foreign companies and other nations, etc., must be credit to the astute Rouhani administration, rightly boasting of record economic growth last year.

Undoubtedly, there are some valid criticisms in terms of a feeble anti-corruption and high unemployment, and the lack of a coherent industrialization policy, but such criticisms pale in comparison to the glowing achievements mentioned above, some of which have only begun to show themselves as they take time. If given chance for a second term, President Rouhani is apt to double its present efforts to fix the economy and to continue the present pattern of luring foreign economic partners while seeking a calm regional environment conducive to Iran’s economic growth. Modernizing Iran’s tax structure is long overdue and, perhaps, Rouhani can address this important issue in his second term, taking on some mega projects such as new water channels and the like is also an attractive option.

A key advantage of Rouhani’s second term is to assure continuity in Iran’s economic and trade policies, which is highly important in order to bolster Iran’s economy by implementing many memoranda of understanding on economic cooperation which have been signed since the JCPOA and, for one reason or another, remains on the paper.

Improving business confidence is a sine qua non for economic growth and the Rouhani administration is now well-poised to harvest a great deal more from the JCPOA during his second term should he be given the mandate to do so by the voters in Iran. A strong show of support for Rouhani is also a key factor, letting the world know that Iran is determined to continue on the course of history charted by its leadership, which has made Iran into a preeminent Middle East power today.

By Michael Lelyveld

China’s government is hoping to avoid another smog-blackened winter in Beijing by cracking down on emissions in surrounding cities and cutting production during the cold weather months.

The plan announced last month by key agencies and six provincial-level governments would cover 28 northern cities with new pollution curbs on steel, cement and coal-fired power plants, state media said.

The rules may represent the toughest moves yet to ease the air quality crisis in the capital. Beijing claimed a 9.9-percent drop in smog-causing particles known as PM2.5 last year despite frequent pollution alerts.

Conditions were especially dismal in January as average PM2.5 density soared 70.6 percent from a year earlier to 116 micrograms per cubic meter, the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) reported. The concentrations were more than four times the safe levels set by the World Health Organization.

Average readings for the first quarter stood at 84 micrograms, the official Xinhua news agency reported. Beijing has targeted a reduction to 60 micrograms this year from 73 micrograms per cubic meter in 2016.

The spike in smog has been blamed on steel production that surged in the second half of last year to take advantage of price increases, particularly in neighboring Hebei province.

According to the government, the industry met its official target for reducing production overcapacity with 65 million metric tons of cuts last year. But a study by Greenpeace East Asia found that capacity actually increased as mills reopened closed lines.

The new rules would require seasonal suspensions or production cuts during the winter heating season from November 15 to March 15, when emissions are high due to coal-fired heating and power.

Cement and casting plants would cease operations with limited exceptions for the entire period. Coal-burning power plants in the 28 cities would close unless they meet low emission standards by the end of October, the official English-language China Daily said.

Steelmakers will have to cut winter production by half in Hebei’s two largest city centers, while aluminum output in all 28 cities would be reduced by 30 percent.

Other steps include shifting coal transport from road to rail, closer monitoring of vehicle exhaust and replacement of coal for heating with electricity and gas.

The plan was issued jointly by the MEP, the Ministry of Finance, the National Development and Reform Commission, the National Energy Administration and the provincial-level governments, China Daily said.

Temporary benefits at best

Implementation in the provinces including Hebei, Henan, Shanxi and Shandong seems bound to have a beneficial effect on Beijing’s winter smog.

But the seasonal nature of the measures may make the benefits temporary at best.

Given their past performances, steel and cement makers seem likely to compensate for the four months of cuts with increased production in the rest of the year. The result may simply shift the time frame for emissions and smog.

“If you’re going to make up all that production in the same area in the other months of the year in the spring, summer and fall, you’re going to load a lot of extra pollution into those seasons,” said Mikkal Herberg, energy security research director for the Seattle-based National Bureau of Asian Research.

The seasonal suspensions could also play havoc with power plant utilization rates, which are already too low.

Conversely, if the steel and cement industries try to make up for lost time by boosting summer production, supplies of power and fuel could be seasonally squeezed.

The ups and downs in demand are likely to frustrate plans to deal with China’s overcapacity problems in the coal, steel, cement and power industries.

“It sounds like a classic administrative mandate-oriented way of doing things,” said Herberg.

“You try to move a bunch of levers to control one thing, but then you create all kinds of distortions and collateral effects in other things that you’re trying to do,” he said.

Philip Andrews-Speed, a China energy expert and principal fellow at National University of Singapore, called the seasonal smog plan “amazing” and the “ultimate administrative instrument.”

Among the complications, Andrews-Speed sees trouble for industrial profits and employment in one-third of the year.

“Companies will face real financial losses, as will the workers, I guess,” Andrews-Speed said by email.

Plant efficiency depends on operating at or near full capacity all the time, he argued.

“So, if they close and then ramp up, the full advantages of these technologies will be lost,” Andrews-Speed said.

The scheduling disruptions could have ripple effects for suppliers, trade and the entire economy.

“These plants are at the front end of long supply chains, which will also be affected,” Andrews-Speed said. “Do the intermediate manufacturers have to become seasonal, too? Should they build up huge stocks of inputs in the summer, or do they instead import the inputs?”

Fake emissions data

The complications of the smog crisis coincide with reports of widespread noncompliance with the central government’s environmental restrictions, raising questions about whether the winter plan can be carried out at all.

In February and March, the MEP sent 260 inspectors in 18 teams to check on 8,500 emissions sources in the northern region, including factories, mines and heating providers, the South China Morning Post reported.

At least 3,119 of the sources had either “faked emissions data” or resisted the inspections, the paper said, suggesting a noncompliance rate of more than 36 percent.

According to a ministry statement, the inspectors found a litany of violations including entire areas that lacked systems to curb production during declared smog alerts.

In an economic development zone of Hebei province’s Tangshan city, antipollution plans from another region were randomly copied along with incorrect place names, the paper said.

The inspections in nearby regions have become a standard reaction to the outbreaks of smog in Beijing.

On April 4, the MEP sent inspection teams to seven northern cities following an orange alert, the second-highest level, in the capital during that week.

The inspectors again found glaring violations, including falsified pollution data and a Tangshan steel mill that had turned its pollution detector off.

Those responsible were detained by local police, Xinhua said, citing the MEP. But it is unclear whether government regulators are having any effect on compliance rates.

In another case, a furniture plant in Hebei’s Xingtai city simply refused to be inspected, Xinhua reported.

On April 3, the ministry said it had summoned officials from seven districts in Beijing, Tianjin and cities in Hebei and Shanxi to reprimand them for poor environmental enforcement. The officials pledged to submit rectification plans within 20 days, China Daily said.

The prevalence of noncompliance gives little confidence that the winter smog plan will work, although there could be significant consequences if it does.

The issue also raises the question of why central government authority has had such a limited effect on local officials and industry with regard to smog at a time when President Xi Jinping has exercised increasing political power.

“It just demonstrates how complicated this economy is and how difficult it is to keep managing it,” said Herberg.

“There’s tremendous power of the provincial and local governments to ignore edicts from Beijing,” he said.