The majority of Catholics voted for Donald Trump, and many did so because he identified himself as pro-life and ran against a candidate who justified partial-birth abortion. He also said he would rescind the HHS mandate that makes Catholic non-profits complicit in providing for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception in their healthcare plans. Now his Justice Department is balking on this issue.

Almost a year has passed since the Supreme Court instructed President Obama’s Justice Department to work with the plaintiffs in reaching reconciliation on the mandate. Two days ago, the Justice Department asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for another 60 days to reach a settlement.

Trump officials say the delay is necessary because many staff positions have not yet been filled, and the issues involved are “complex.” But that hasn’t stopped the Justice Department from settling other lawsuits. Moreover, this business about the mandate being “complex” is a dodge: either the mandate is an affront to religious liberty or it is not.

The Obama administration angered Catholics when they learned that it was targeting such groups as the Little Sisters of the Poor. Initially, the Obama team tried to force the Little Sisters to pay for abortion-inducing drugs in their healthcare plan. Under pressure, the lawyers scaled back their demands, but they still sought to compromise the nuns by making them complicit in approving the mandate.

The most pernicious aspect of this issue is rarely discussed. Just how did the Obama administration manage to put the arm on the Little Sisters in the first place? By adopting the thinking of the ACLU.

It was the ACLU’s lawyers in California who first broached the idea that a Catholic institution is not legitimately Catholic if it staffs and serves a large body of people who are not Catholic. The Obama administration, under the tutelage of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius—a rabid defender of partial-birth abortion—tailored the language of the mandate to meet that test. Therefore, because the Little Sisters do not discriminate against non-Catholics in tending to their needs, they are not considered Catholic!

In sharp contrast to his predecessor, Trump has shown himself to be religion-friendly. He needs to recognize, however, that the HHS mandate is a non-negotiable issue: If he wants to keep the support of Catholics, the HHS mandate must go.

Contact: Secretary@HHS.gov

By Terri Moon Cronk

North Korea remains the most immediate threat to the security of the United States and its allies in the Indo-Asia-Pacific, Navy Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednsdday.

Addressing security challenges in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, the commander noted how North Korea threatened Australia in the past week with a nuclear strike.

“[It’s] a powerful reminder to the entire international community that North Korea’s missiles point in every direction,” Harris said. “The only nation to have tested nuclear devices in this century, North Korea has vigorously pursued an aggressive weapons test schedule with more than 60 listed missile events in recent years.”

Sense of Urgency

With every test, Kim Jong Un moves closer to his stated goal of a pre-emptive nuclear strike capability against American cities, and he’s not afraid to fail in public, the admiral said.

“Defending our homeland is my top priority, so I must assume that Kim Jong Un’s nuclear claims are true; I know his aspirations certainly are. And that should provide all of us a sense of urgency to ensure Pacom and U.S. Forces Korea are prepared to fight tonight with the best technology on the planet,” he said.

Threats from North Korea are why the United States has deployed its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system to South Korea, put the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group back on patrol in Northeast Asia and introduced the newest and best military platforms in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, the admiral said.

And they are also why the U.S. is emphasizing trilateral cooperation between Japan, South Korea and calling on China to exert its “considerable economic influence to stop Pyongyang’s unprecedented weapons testing,” Harris said.

“As [President Donald J. Trump] and [Defense Secretary Jim Mattis] have made clear, all options are on the table. We want to bring Kim Jong Un to his senses, not to his knees,” the commander said.

Advancing Partnerships

The admiral named Russia, China and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria as the other global and regional threats, but emphasized U.S. regional partnerships.

“We’ve strengthened America’s network of alliances and partnerships, working with like-minded partners on shared security threats like North Korea and ISIS. It’s a key component to our regional strategy,” he said.

Harris said he continues to rely on Australia for its advanced military capabilities and global operations leadership, and noted that last week’s trips by Vice President Mike Pence and Mattis to Northeast Asia emphasized U.S. alliances with South Korea and Japan.

The United States has also advanced its partnerships with regional powers such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Vietnam, Harris said. Such partnerships, he said, reinforce “the rules-based security order that has helped underwrite peace and prosperity throughout the region for decades.”

Confronting Challenges

But more work remains to be done, he cautioned.

“We must be ready to confront all challenges from a position of strength and with credible combat power,” Harris told legislators.

He added, “So I ask this committee to support continued investment to improve our military capabilities. I need weapons systems of increased lethality, precision, speed and range that are networked and cost-effective [without] restricting ourselves with funding uncertainties [that] reduce our warfighting readiness. So I urge the congress to repeal sequestration and improve the proposed Defense Department budget.”

By Aisha Fareed

Indonesian reciter Sheikh Ja’afar Abdulrahman died while reciting verses of the Qur’an during a live broadcast Tuesday during a national ceremony in the presence of the Indonesian Social Affairs Minister.

The four-minute video clip that caught the moment of the Sheikh’s death has been widely circulated on social media.

The late reciter appeared to have been struck by a sudden collapse while reading verses from the Al-Mulk chapter, where he kept on reciting until he was rescued by a medical team and removed on a stretcher.

A number of social media users who circulated the footage praised the reciter’s death saying “what an honorable way to die” and wishing the same fate for them and their loved ones.

Vassal visiting time, and the next slot in the US imperium tourism schedule was one of America’s more cosy allies, Australia. The US Vice President Mike Pence popped in to keep an eye on matters just to make sure that all was in order.

There had been that issue of the notable phone call, when Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had been verbally slapped by The Donald over the “dumb” refugee resettlement deal made with the previous Obama administration.

Not to fear. Turnbull and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop came across as caddies willing to do their best for Pence (a US vice president deserves two such officials for this sort of visit). Chuckling, everything seemed to be going accordingly.

That said, Pence did not hide his irritation at a few matters on the meeting agenda, including the refugee agreement made by the Obama administration with Turnbull. “President Trump has made it clear that we’ll honour the agreement, but it doesn’t mean we admire the agreement.” As watchers of the refugee news items know, Australia responds to asylum seekers and refugees like an insecure spouse feeling that his assets might be pinched.

The result is usually a practiced irrationalism, in this instance involving the transfer of up to 1,250 refugees in offshore detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island to the United States, in exchange for refugees from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

Pence did, however, promise Australia a range of treats, one of them being direct benefits arising from President Trump’s new tax plan. In true Trump fashion, Pence met with various corporate groups, Westfield, Macquarie Group, Lendlease, and Austral, to promise pie-in-the-sky benefits amounting to $1.5 trillion. (Another figure, another speculation.)

The shower of meaningless rhetoric was heavy. “The truth is that a stronger American economy also means a stronger economy for all our trading partners, including Australia.”[1] The tax reform on the table “will make the strongest economy in the world stronger still, and it will benefit the American people, American workers, and it will benefit the economy of Australia.”

Such words ring hollow given that the Australian-US Free Trade Agreement has done much to benefit US economic interests disproportionately to Australia’s. Despite projections of an economic nirvana by policy wonks in Canberra, the deal has actually deprived and distorted Australian gains.

The economic promises were merely one feature of the utopian cake being dished up by Pence.

Australia remains a convenient base to watch over matters in the Pacific, be it through military or intelligence operations. That very fact makes Australia both accessory and target in any future conflict in the region.

Never deemed a military occupation, let alone having the vestiges of a military base, Australian officials have opened their doors to the Lean Green Killing Machine on a rotational basis, a policy that began in 2011. Whether this is part of Obama’s pivot, or Trump’s strategic grope, it all amounts to the same thing: this continental military operation is open for business.

Pence’s visit coincides with another rotational round for the US marines in Darwin, located in the tropical north of the continent. The group, comprising 1,250 personnel, have been particularly busy on the public relations blower.

The soldiers have been instructed to make small talk with the local press, and fraternising is to be encouraged – within limits. Like anthropologists, they are to observe the local population and note their “customs,” though experience tells us that these observations tend to go destructively awry.

Even Facebook hosts a Marine Rotational Force Darwin page to provide decent filtered comments about the US role in shielding Australia from foreign wickedness. Residents await the arrival of the heroes; weather, boring, tedious, endlessly warm weather, is noted. Welcome to the Australian autumn!

What, then, of the wickedness these Green Mighty Men are defending Australia against? It might take the form of Kim Jong-un’s vain boast of long range weapons, which goes to show that projecting fear is far better than knowing facts.

Such pop fantasies of nuclear cataclysm doesn’t deter the Lowy Institute’s direct of International Security, Euan Graham, from suggesting that North Korea would probably be able to construct a ballistic missile that would be able to reach the Australian mainland “within the life of the Trump administration.”[2]

Even a threat at shooting blanks by the man child in a boiler suit concerns the Australian ministries in Canberra. As long as they come from “rogues”, that is all that matters. Even more stinging was the North Korean leader’s rather accurate statement that Australia had been “blindly and zealously toeing the US line”.

The Marines in Darwin have been duly briefed, and the officers are insisting that they are ready should Pyongyang misbehave. “Any time a Marine force is forward deployed, we’re always on standby for anything. We stand ready to fight and win the night, always,” claimed Lt. Col. Brian Middleton, commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion of the 4th Marines. How utterly reassuring that must be.

Notes:
[1] http://www.afr.com/news/donald-trumps-massive-tax-plan-to-benefit-australia-says-mike-pence-20170423-gvqjcz

[2] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/grim-warning-on-north-korea-missile-threat-as-julie-bishop-blasts-regime-20170423-gvqo4g.html

By Trey Dimsdale, J.D.*

Prior to 2014, fewer than 300,000 refugees and migrants arrived in the European Union each year.  Due to war and unrest in the Middle East and North Africa, that relatively slow trickle more than quadrupled by the end of the year.  The result was squalid refugee and migrant camps, crowded train stations, and anti-immigrant demonstrations across the continent.  Most refugees and migrants entered Europe via nations least able to absorb and support them, causing internal EU tensions to rise.  By mid-2015 it was clear that Europe was facing a major humanitarian and political crisis not likely to be easily resolved.

In 1990 the EU member states agreed to the Dublin Convention, which entitles an immigrant to the benefits of refugee status, if such status can be attained, in the nation in which he first entered the EU.  On August 24, 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel surprised the world by announcing a waiver of this policy in Germany and extending refugee benefits to any refugee regardless of the nation through which he had first obtained entry to Europe.  A little more than a year later, just prior to the Berlin Christmas Market attack, Merkel’s government abruptly reversed course and called on the EU to begin turning around boats carrying immigrants across the Mediterranean into Southern Europe.  Germany’s “open doors” had encouraged a greater flood of immigrants into Europe, taxed the limits of the continent’s infrastructure beyond its limit, and increased internal tensions and strife.

Few people would not be moved to compassion when faced with images of the war-torn regions that were once home to these immigrants or the poignant photographs of men, women and children who drowned when the unsound boats carrying them to European shores sank.  The humane response to the crisis was, and remains, a need to act to alleviate their suffering.  Each person killed in war, drowned at sea, or fortunate enough to escape those fates is created in God’s image, a possessor of inherit dignity.  This is enough to justify our efforts to seek solutions to the suffering, to provide conditions in which they can flourish.  The call is not to emotionally-driven sentimental gestures, but to actions that produce results.

European policy with regard to the refugee and migrant crisis and the conditions that have caused it have been schizophrenic at best.  Merkel’s initial “open door” policy, for instance, seems on the surface to be the humane response — open the wealthiest society in Europe to those who need it most.  But this policy cannot be evaluated in isolation.  Had Europe’s stated policy goal been to bring one million immigrants to the continent from the Middle East and North Africa, Germany’s national policy would have complemented this well.  As it stood, Merkel was essentially saying, “You’re wanted here, but we hope you don’t drown on the way.”  Those who survived the treacherous path to Germany were welcome to enter a nation with one of the most complex labor markets on earth, and one whose language and culture are entirely foreign.  Who can be expected to flourish under such circumstances?

Irrespective of the political forces at play there is no arguing with the fact that such a large number of displaced immigrants presents a monumental humanitarian crisis in which survival becomes the initial, but not final, concern.  The best social and political responses are ones that look beyond the immediate and toward more than survival.  They will define the most desirable social objectives and design pathways to those objectives.

The most preferable outcomes are a matter of much public discussion and elections across Europe in the last two years have become proxy referenda for defining them.  The one non-negotiable among Brexit voters and supporters is autonomous control of national borders.  An extreme anti-Muslim party gained significant ground in a Dutch election.  And in the first round of voting in the French presidential election, Marine Le Pen, whose platform includes positions that are not favorable to open immigration policy, emerged as one of the two finalists, neither of whom is from a mainstream party.  It is impossible to know how the political landscape in Europe would differ today had the West’s leaders set policies that sought stability, democracy, and liberty in the parts of the world from which these immigrants have fled.  But when the reality of the migrant and refugee crisis became apparent, a thoughtful and coherent policy based on desired outcomes rather than one driven by the emotion of images described by a German cabinet minister as ones “that Europe can’t allow itself to be associated with,” would surely have produced better and more humane results for Europeans and immigrants alike.

Should these families be assimilated into European society with the expectation that they will stay? Or should the aid that they receive be temporary and their communities inwardly focused to maintain their indigenous cultures to ease an eventual return home?  With assimilation comes two realities: first, the war-ravaged societies back home will likely have far fewer capable people who can help with the rebuilding effort. Second, if assimilation occurs in a way that actually facilitates flourishing, they must become more and more European and less and less Middle Eastern or North African.

It is not simply cultural assimilation that is at issue, but the ability to engage in commerce.  Without jobs these families are unable to support themselves and build lives.  This means that they must acquire the language skills and social capital necessary to compete in European markets. If all they do is learn enough German, French, or Italian to complete a transaction in a service station, this is not assimilation, nor is it welcoming.  A set of policies that aims at nothing greater prepares a person to be an object of pity and charity—a second class citizen.  The most humane and moral policies would equip them to flourish either in Europe as their new home or as the architects of new societies built from the rubble of their old ones.

About the author:
Trey Dimsdale came to the Acton Institute from Fort Worth, Texas, where he served as the Associate Director and Research Fellow in Law and Public Policy for the Richard Land Center for Cultural Engagement. At the Land Center, Trey helped to administrate a very active calendar of events that involved students, academics, and pastors from around the broader Christian world.

Source:
This article was published by the Acton Institute.

Last month, the Associated Press picked up on an important anti-torture initiative in North Carolina, which, in turn, was picked up by the New York Times. and, in the UK, the Independent. I didn’t have the opportunity to mention it at the time, so I’m doing so now, as I want to play my part in trying to get it to a wider audience.

The Times ran the article under the headline, “Citizens’ Group Aims to Investigate CIA Rendition Program,” explaining how, on Wednesday March 15 in Raleigh, North Carolina, the North Carolina Commission of Inquiry on Torture — a group of academics, retired military officers and ministers — announced plans “to hold public hearings in North Carolina to highlight a government program they hope won’t be repeated: the secret CIA interrogation sites where suspected terrorists might be tortured.”

As their website describes it, the NCCIT was “set up to investigate and encourage public debate about the role that North Carolina played in facilitating the US torture program carried out between 2001 [and] 2009. This non-governmental inquiry responds to the lack of recognition by North Carolina’s publicly elected officials and the US government of citizens’ need to know how their tax dollars and state assets were used to support unlawful detention, torture, and rendition.”

As the AP described it, the Commission “has no power to compel testimony, but members plan to collect records and talk to witnesses before describing their findings” at an open hearing in Raleigh on November 30 and December 1, at which, as Dr. Christina Cowger, chair of the inquiry’s board, told me, there will be “testimony from local, national, and international witnesses, including experts on the RDI [rendition, detention and interrogation] program, law, ethics, interrogation, torture, and foreign policy; one or more RDI survivors; and local residents affected by the CIA’s use of North Carolina in the RDI program.” The Independent stated that the inquiry “does not have access to classified information, but new documents may be acquired through the Freedom of Information Act,” and also pointed out that the commission’s full report will be completed in 2018.

As the Independent also noted, Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to to Secretary of State Colin Powell and a retired Army colonel, who is one of ten commissioners for the group (and who I interviewed in 2009), said, “This is a very important effort. We might even shame Washington into some action or discourage the present administration from returning to torture and rendition.” On a conference call, he added that he hoped that this local effort would have “national ramifications.”

The Independent also explained that, at a briefing for reporters when the Commission was launched, Jennifer Daskal, another of the commissioners, who teaches law at American University in Washington, D.C. and is a former official in President Obama’s Justice Department, “explained that the inquiry was ‘important’ due to the ‘relative lack of significant accountability’ for CIA wrongdoing so far and ‘particularly important’ in light of President Donald Trump’s willingness to consider reviving CIA torture.” The executive summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report into the CIA’s torture program was published in December 2014, but no one has been held accountable, even though, as the AP described it, the report concluded that the CIA “understated the brutality of the techniques used on detainees and overstated the value of the information they produced.”

The AP also described how Jennifer Daskal said that the CIA torture program and related programs “have long-term consequences and they don’t just disappear from the American consciousness.” She added, “We’re just a small number of commissioners but I think we reflect a much broader, bipartisan group of individuals across America who are quite concerned about what happened and want to make sure that we don’t ever do so again.”

Another member of the Commission, former Arizona Secretary of State Richard Mahoney, who now directs North Carolina State University’s School of Public and International Affairs, made a point of stating that the group rejects the opinions of those “who believe national security controversies should only concern federal government officials,” as the AP put it. Mahoney said, “I think holding the federal government and its instrumentalities accountable at the local and state level is a critical step in the right direction.”

Other Commissioners include David Crane, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law and founding chief prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the co-chair, with Jennifer Daskal, is Frank Goldsmith, who has represented Guantánamo prisoners.

As the AP also noted, the Commission “is an outgrowth of a decade of effort by a Raleigh-area group to draw attention to Aero Contractors Limited, a private air carrier tied to the CIA rendition program that is headquartered at the Johnston County airport about 30 miles south of Raleigh.”

As has been reported since 2005, by the New York Times amongst other outlets, Aero Contractors’ pilots “flew rendition flights to CIA interrogation sites for about five years after 9/11,” although “[a] lawsuit by German citizen Khaled el-Masri,” who “was mistakenly kidnapped and tortured at a CIA site in Afghanistan, against Aero Contractors and other companies he blamed for his rendition, was dismissed by a Virginia federal judge in 2006 on the grounds that the case could disclose US state secrets.” El-Masri was finally awards damages for his ordeal — but not in the US. In December 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ordered Macedonia to pay him 60,000 Euros ($80,000) — not enough for what he went through, but an acknowledgement nonetheless, unlike the US’s persistent stonewalling.

As the Independent noted, the Commission estimates that “at least thirty-four individuals were transported by the CIA front company, Aero Contractors, including a number of Britons.” After Aero Contactors’ involvement in the CIA torture program was first revealed, local activists pressed for an official investigation. However, “despite repeated meetings with state officials, including North Carolina’s Attorney General, no action was taken.” Christina Cowger said “they were ‘taking their cue’ from President Obama, who had decided in 2009 not to prosecute Bush officials,” adding that their “lack of cooperation led to the formation” of the Commission.

As the Independent also noted, Christina Cowger stated that the inquiry “may also help resolve some unanswered questions about the rendition program,” explaining that it is “still unknown which prisoners were on some of the flights, for example, and the commission could provide answers.”

The Independent also noted a UK angle, stating that the Commission might “illuminate the part played by foreign states, such as Britain,” because “[s]ome of the detainees rendered by Aero Contractors were British, including Binyam Mohamed, who was flown to Morocco in 2002 and tortured with UK complicity.” The author of the article, Rupert Stone, added, “There have also been rumours that the CIA detained captives on the British territory of Diego Garcia. Lawrence Wilkerson made headlines in 2015 when he told me that CIA prisoners had been held and grilled on the island. But the UK government has not yet conducted a thorough inquiry into rendition. The Carolina commission may shine some much-needed daylight on the UK’s role.”

David Crane said, “Certainly the UK will be brought into this,” and Stone added that “[o]ther nations which held detainees transported by Aero Contractors, such as Morocco and Poland, will also be examined.” he added that the inquiry “may help lift the lid on how many countries participated in the program. It was believed that 54 were involved, but new research shows that 15 more countries, including France and Japan, cooperated.”

Christina Cowger told Rupert Stone that Aero Contractors still operates in North Carolina and has “only increased in size”. Stone added, “It is unclear if the company continues to work for the CIA, but Cowger won’t rule it out.” As she said, “It’s perfectly possible they’re carrying out covert activities.”

Stone also noted that “President Obama did not end rendition when he took office in 2009, and the inquiry may examine his record, too,” adding that “[t]he Trump administration, which appears to have endorsed the practice, may also come under scrutiny.”

He added that the inquiry “is unlikely to result in any criminal investigations, given the history of impunity for CIA torture so far,” but pointed out that David Crane told him that “disclosures of new information could fuel litigation and serve as a ‘catalyst for further action.” Jonathan Freeman, another commissioner and a fellow at the Truman National Security Project, said that he hoped the inquiry would create a “transparent process” and effect “a change in policy, even on a subtle level,” but he acknowledged, as Stone put it, that “the going might be tough, especially with Trump in the White House.” As Freeman said, “We’ll be fighting an uphill battle. There’s always resistance to these kinds of things.”

Predictably, pro-EU, managerial Emmanuel Macron and far right Marine Le Pen moved on to the second round of French elections. In a historic result, none of the major parties, the Socialists, as well as the Republicans went to the second round, in what could be a historic first since the second world war. The socialist candidate of President Hollande’s party got only 6 percent votes, as his votes were divided between Macron and far left candidate Melenchon, who was another outsider, who won around 19 percent votes, similar to what the center right republican candidate Fillon got. Both Fillon and the Socialist candidate Hammon promptly endorsed Macron, and pointed out that far right is the biggest threat to French unity. The far left candidate, Melenchon, refused to endorse anyone.

Macron’s policies, are as most of the readers already know, fairly centrist and neoliberal. Contrary to what the media is trying to portray him as, he is as establishment as it gets. He is an investment banker by profession, and believes in reforming the market which includes controversial statements like changing French work hours as well as French taxation and French retirement plans. Macron is pro EU, extremely managerial, and pro immigration. The country is fairly divided, with almost half supporting Macron, and the top right half supporting Le Pen.

Le Pen is of course on her traditional right wing nationalist populist rhetoric. She is trying to market herself as an independent resigning from her party, but no one is buying it. She wants to “kill” the EU, cut off immigration, ban the Islamic Burqa and Mosques and forge a more nationalistic path for France. In fact the flurry of support for Macron from the republicans and the socialists only help Le Pen bolster the claim that she’s the only true outsider here in the race. While Macron wants to shape the race as one between centrism and populism; Le Pen is shaping it as one between patriots and globalists. She aims to kill Macron’s reputation as an outside who started his own party barely three months back, instead she wants to paint Macron as an open border globalist stooge in hands of Brussels and Berlin, who is all for globalization and open borders. Infact, if one combines the vote of far right Le Pen, and far left Eurosceptic Melenchon, the total count goes to 46 percent of the vote.

Of course, there’s a sign of palpable relief across Europe. After Brexit and Trump it was thought that the far right will surge across Europe, but Netherlands stopped that with Wilders winning a really small portion of the vote. Then France is also going traditional way. If the republicans as well as the socialists pull together behind Macron, there is a high possibility that Le pen will be soundly defeated. Le Pen’s brand is still toxic, and despite the anti-EU anti-Muslim appeal, she is haunted by her father’s past as well as her own legacy of money laundering and Russian funding. She also recently bizarrely claimed innocence in Vichy France’s role in holocaust, a taboo subject in European politics. C-IoYdUWsAA_W4X

It is also not correct to compare Le Pen with Brexit and Trump. Brexit and Trump are both populist movements, but both with much different causality. Brexit doesn’t mean that UK is slowly looking inward, infact quite the opposite UK is dying for trade deals with India, Australia, US and China. Both Brexit and Trump are also fueled by mostly older generation, while the core group of Le Pen support is youth. And, neither UK or US has faced as much terror attacks as France.

And that’s why I am refusing to give in to the complacence. There is fair chance of Macron winning, but Le Pen is essentially just one major terror attack away, and it is foolish after 2016 to discount how much public opinion can change. With stagnated economy, a completely divided country and battle lines drawn in half and half, and incessant terror attacks, it would be foolish to discount any possibilities. This is one of those times, where I will be happy to be wrong, but much though I try, I am sounding cynical. Nationalism is a powerful drug, and emotions, especially after a terror attack, can change the course of history of Europe as we know it.

By Ken Bredemeier

US President Donald Trump called Wednesday for a dramatic cut in U.S. corporate taxes to boost job growth in the world’s largest economy and massive reforms in the country’s complex tax code that could affect millions of American taxpayers.

Trump proposed cutting the U.S. corporate tax rate, the highest among the world’s industrialized nations, from 35 to 15 percent. He also called for the one-time repatriation of profits earned by American companies from their overseas operations, a measure Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said would bring back “trillions of dollars” to the U.S. that could be invested in business expansion at home.

“Job creation and economic growth is the top priority,” said chief White House economic adviser Gary Cohn, a one-time Wall Street financier. “Our basic premise here is to simplify the tax system, lower rates and make it easy. We don’t want to penalize people. We want to make the system very fair. We are trying to stimulate business investment.”

Mnuchin called the proposal “the biggest tax cut” in U.S. history.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, center, joined by National Economic Director Gary Cohn, center, and White House press secretary Sean Spicer speaks in the briefing room of the White House in Washington, April 26, 2017.

Plan could add to long-term debt

Trump, however, offered no immediate plan to pay for the tax cuts, which some independent economic analysts say that over next decade could add $2 trillion to the nearly $20 trillion in long-term debt the U.S. has already amassed.

Mnuchin said the expectation is that the corporate and individual tax cuts will boost U.S. economic growth to 3 percent annually, up from last year’s tepid 1.6 percent advance. The U.S. economy, however, has not grown by 3 percent since 2005.

“This will pay for itself with growth and with reduction of different deductions and closing loopholes,” Mnuchin said, brushing aside assessments that the tax cuts would add to the cumulative U.S. debt, not reduce it.

Trump’s proposal is likely to set off months of debate in Congress over the labyrinth U.S. tax code, where some of Trump’s Republican colleagues already have voiced concerns about the cost of the plan.

’This isn’t going to be easy’

Cohn said he expects a long fight over the measure.

“This isn’t going to be easy,” Cohn said. “Doing big things never is. We’ll be attacked from the left and we’ll attacked from the right. But one thing is certain. I would never, ever bet against this president. He will get this done for the American people.”

Mnuchin added, “We are determined to move this as fast as possible, to get this done this year.”

But Mark Hamrick, a senior economic analyst for Bankrate.com, voiced skepticism about the plan’s eventual fate in Congress.

“I hesitate to call it a plan,” Hamrick told VOA. “It’s really more of a wish list. It’s very much focused on the traditional notion that if the wealthy and business do well, that will help everyone else in society and I think that’s a suspect notion.”

Only three tax rate levels

Mnuchin said no tax rate has been set yet on the repatriated money earned by U.S. companies overseas, but that he is working with lawmakers to determine what it should be.

“It will be a very competitive rate that would bring back trillions of dollars,” Mnuchin said.

The two Trump advisers said that the top individual tax rate for U.S. taxpayers would be cut from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, with only two other tax rates, 10 percent and 25 percent, down from the current seven rate levels.

They said Trump wants to have a zero tax rate on the first $24,000 that workers earn each year, eliminate an alternative minimum tax rate that sometimes has added hefty sums to tax bills and abolish the country’s inheritance tax on wealthy taxpayers. Many tax deductions that some individuals use to cut their tax bills would be eliminated, leaving only those for charitable giving, retirement savings plans and interest on home purchase loans.

Trump still won’t release tax returns

Opposition Democratic lawmakers in Congress have called on Trump, a billionaire real estate mogul turned Republican politician, to release his federal tax returns so they can determine how much he might benefit from his own tax proposals. But Mnuchin said Trump “has no intention” of disclosing the information, a stance the president has taken for months while campaigning for the White House.

Trump often attacked his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, for massive annual deficit spending that added to the national debt, something his tax plan might do as well. Cohn said Trump is still concerned about the debt but the adviser reiterated his view that the tax cuts would advance the economy.

Ryan offers support

Trump gained one quick ally for the coming legislative fight over U.S. tax policy. The leader of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, Speaker Paul Ryan, voiced support for much of the president’s proposal.

“We like it a lot, it puts us on the same page, we’re in agreement on 80 percent, and on the 20 percent we’re in the same ballpark,” said Ryan.

Tax experts say the 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest among the world’s 35 industrialized nations, although U.S. corporations rarely pay that much because they are permitted to deduct their business expenses from their revenues before. A number of profitable companies pay no U.S. income taxes.

By Cheryl Pellerin

Turkey conducted airstrikes this week in Syria and Iraq that killed partner forces in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, giving little notice and making no effort to coordinate the strikes, a spokesman for Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolvesaid Wednesday.

Air Force Col. John Dorrian briefed Pentagon reporters via teleconference from Baghdad.

“Turkey conducted airstrikes in northern Syria’s Hasakah province the night before last, resulting in the loss of life of our partnered forces in the fight against ISIS,” Dorrian said. Partner forces in Syria include the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Syrian Arab Coalition, he said.

The Turkish air force notified the Combined Air Operations Center less than an hour before conducting the strikes, “and this was notification — certainly not coordination as you would expect from a partner and an ally in the fight against ISIS,” the colonel told reporters.

Dorrian said the coalition let the Turks know that the amount of time provided before the strikes was inadequate to assure the safety of forces on the ground. The coalition had forces within six miles of the strikes, he added, but none were put in harm’s way by the strikes.

“It was an unsafe way to conduct operations,” Dorrian said. “It’s a very complex battlefield here, and we just want to make sure that coordination is done so we can get these things right and prevent the types of incidents that we saw here, which included the killing of peshmerga soldiers in the Sinjar area [of Iraq].”

Partner Deaths in Iraq

The Turkish air force conducted more airstrikes last night near the northern Iraq town of Sinjar, killing five Kurdish peshmerga fighters, Dorrian said, adding that these strikes also were conducted without proper coordination with the coalition or the Iraqi government. “We’re troubled by that,” he said.

No extensive discussions have taken place with Turkey about the strikes, Dorrian said. “But I know that there has been a significant amount of diplomatic activity between the two sides since that occurred,” he told reporters.

Partner forces in both Syria and Iraq have been integral in fighting ISIS, Dorrian said. “They’ve been reliable in making progress against ISIS fighters under very difficult and dangerous conditions,” he said. “They have made many, many sacrifices to help defeat ISIS, and that keeps the whole world safer.”

The coalition calls on all forces to remain focused on the fight to defeat ISIS, he said, which is the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security.

A combined team of Air Force Global Strike Command Airmen launched an unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile equipped with a single test re-entry vehicle on Thursday from the Vandenberg Air Force Base.

The missile used in GT220 launched in the early hours of the morning with a launch command delivered from the Air Launch Control System on a Navy E-6 Mercury jet.

The ICBM’s re-entry vehicle, which contained a telemetry package used for operational testing, traveled to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, approximately 4,200 miles away from the launch site. Test launches verify the accuracy and reliability of the Minuteman III ICBM weapon system, providing valuable data to ensure a continued safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent.

“I can’t say enough great things about the partners I share this mission set with,” said Col. Craig Ramsey, the 576th Flight Test Squadron commander. “The men and women from the task force, the Airmen from my squadron, and our host unit here at Vandenberg made this look easy, but it was anything but that. It’s a testament to the dedication and professionalism of these proud organizations. I’m proud to play a small part in it.”

F.E. Warren AFB is one of three missile bases with crewmembers standing alert 24/7 year-round, overseeing the nation’s ICBM alert forces. The Minuteman III is one of three legs of the nuclear triad, which is also comprised of strategic bombers such as the B-52 Stratofortress and B-2 Spirit, as well as submarine launched ballistic missions, provided by Navy submarines.

“I’m extremely proud of the 16 maintainers and operators from the combined 90th Missile Wing and 341st Missile Wing Task Force who worked hand in hand with the 576th FLTS to make this launch possible,” said Lt. Col. Tony Rhoades, the task force commander. “This mission requires a tremendous amount of discipline, training and attention to detail. Our Airmen demonstrated this with true professionalism and proved that the Minuteman III remains the nation’s premier deterrence and assurance capability.”

The ICBM community, including the Defense Department, the Energy Department, and U.S. Strategic Command uses data collected from test launches for continuing force development evaluation. The ICBM test launch program demonstrates the operational credibility of the Minuteman III and ensures the United States’ ability to maintain a strong, credible nuclear deterrent as a key element of U.S. national security and the security of U.S. allies and partners.

The recent referendum indicates that Europe can no longer expect to use the long-held Turkish bid for membership in the European Union (EU) as a political tool to influence Turkey and its people. This marks a new phase in Turkish-European relations as both sides readjust their priorities.

By Saleena Saleem*

In the April 16, 2017 referendum, the Turkish electorate approved 18 constitutional amendments, the most significant one being new executive powers for the president, which will shift Turkey’s parliamentary political system to a presidential one.

Supporters of the changes proposed by the ruling party, Justice and Development Party (AKP), and backed by the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), argued that Turkey’s dysfunctional domestic parliamentary politics and foreign threats, which have affected the country’s progress and stability in recent years, require the strong leadership that a presidential system would provide. Opponents, on the other hand, cited concerns about authoritarianism and the erosion of Turkish secular democracy. It is this latter argument that featured prominently in Europe in the months before the referendum, and even today after it.

Europe’s Implicit ‘Red-Line’

Europe was decidedly against the proposed constitutional amendments and this message was unambiguously communicated to the Turkish electorate in various ways prior to the referendum. The European Union (EU) warned Ankara that the proposed constitutional amendments “might” be detrimental to Turkey’s long-standing bid for membership to the bloc.

In early March, Germany and the Netherlands banned Turkish ministers from participating in pro-amendment rallies organised by Turkish expatriates. Planned pro-amendment rallies in several German cities were cancelled, with officials citing crowd and fire safety concerns. Rallies were similarly cancelled in Austria and Switzerland. During this period, a pro-Kurdish rally in Frankfurt attended by 30,000 people, and where opposition to the amendments were voiced, went ahead without official interference.

While Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had vested interests in heightening nationalist sentiments to win the Turkish expatriate vote, the collective message from Europe ahead of the referendum that it favoured the “no” camp and seemingly taking a stance in a national referendum on internal matters, may have been a miscalculation that helped tilt the expatriate vote to the “yes” camp.

In contrast to the Turkish diaspora in non-European countries that predominantly voted “no”, more than (or almost) two-thirds voted “yes” in the European countries with the largest number of Turkish voters in Germany, France and the Netherlands.

Within some Turkish cities, Europe’s implicit ‘red-line’ message may have had a different effect – the AKP lost the vote in the two major cities, Istanbul and Ankara, where it held majorities in previous elections. This indicates a level of mistrust amongst some AKP urbanite voters, who stand to lose economically over any potential deterioration in relations with the EU.

Whether won over by nationalist sentiments or buoyed by the economic and religious freedom benefits over the past decade, 51.4% of the Turkish electorate decided to cross Europe’s implicit ‘red-line’, at the risk of ending the EU membership talks.

New Phase in Turkish-European Relations

There is mounting pressure from certain European quarters to end membership negotiations on the basis that Turks have voted in favour of autocracy, which is irreconcilable with EU principles. However, such a move can only be symbolic, given that the EU membership negotiations has been moribund for some time already. President Erdogan’s barbed suggestion to reinstate the death penalty, which Turkey had abolished in 2004 under his leadership as part of pre-conditions to EU membership, is in effect highlighting the hollowness of such rhetoric.

Europe cannot afford to stop working with Turkey for various reasons: First, Turkey has the second largest standing army in NATO. Second Turkey, being situated near major conflict zones in the Middle East, will have to be involved in the diplomatic and military efforts at resolutions. Third, as the Syrian ceasefire agreement brokered in January demonstrates, Turkey is not averse to working with Russia, which increases its strategic importance for a US presidency that is not opposed to Russia and instead appears to favour a partnership approach to tackling international issues.

Europe, which regards Russia warily as its main adversary, loses out if it is bypassed in decisions. Fourth, Turkey’s young middle class population, and its high birth and fertility rates compared to rates in Western Europe, will drive future economic expansion. Fifth, Europe stands to gain economic benefits given Turkey’s geographical location that positions itself as a natural bridge to economies in Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East.

Since the 1960s, Europe has effectively used the membership card to shape the trajectory of Turkey’s development, or at the very least, to edge Turkey closer to Europe in various respects. Although Turkey did not attain membership, the long process has helped it modernise its institutions, economy and laws, and anchored these in a culture that has grown to appreciate and respect the rule of law and democratic practices. This is reflected in the high turnout at the referendum, which shows that Turks want to have a say in how their country is governed. This attitude is unlikely to change, presidential system or not.

Today, the phase where Turkey needed (and gained more from) Europe than vice versa appears to have reached an end; a new phase is developing instead in which Turkey could have the same, if not more leverage than Europe. This means a readjustment of priorities for both countries.

Turkey’s Dualistic Self-Image

While some argue that the referendum results show a divided (and hence unstable) Turkey, the results in fact reaffirm the East-West dualistic nature of Turkey. This dualistic Turkish self-image, with nationalist sentiments in tow, will likely pull Turkey toward the East, but it can also move in parallel with Europe as Turkey ideally wants to maximise the benefits from the role it sees itself playing – as a bridge between Europe and Asia, and Europe and the Middle East. However, this entails Europe recognising that Turkey is interested in deepening its economic ties with Europe and wants to maintain close relations with it.

If the EU does not act on its ‘red line’, it would be indicative of the new phase of Turkish-European engagement settling in. This new phase could likely play out in the migrant agreement, where Turkey continues to press for visa-free travel in Europe. If Turkey does get what it wants, it should not come as a surprise.

*Saleena Saleem is an Associate Research Fellow at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

wo disqualified pro-independence lawmakers in Hong Kong were arrested for unlawful assembly on April 26.

Baggio Leung Chung-hang and Yau Wai-ching from Youngspiration, which advocates Hong Kong independence, were both arrested at their homes, according to Yau’s Facebook account. Three of their former assistants were also reportedly been arrested.

They were arrested over a Nov. 22 incident where they tried to enter a council meeting after being barred from entering the Legco chamber that day.

Civil Human Rights Front have condemned the arrests.

“Even [if] the Youngspiration has controversial political proposition, we have to respect the public support they got and the election result which cannot be denied,” the rights group said in a statement.

The Youngspiration duo are facing a final appeal for their disqualification as lawmakers. They were disqualified for inserting their own words into the official vow used during the swearing-in process.

On March 27, a day after Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor was selected to be the next Chief Executive, the police charged nine key participants of the 2014 Umbrella Movement with conspiracy to commit public nuisance.

A new study suggests that more small-scale fishing boats are operating in the Gulf of California than is economically and ecologically sustainable, suggesting that local fishermen are spending more time and money to catch fewer fish.

Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego used images from satellites and flyovers to count the number of small boats, or pangas, to find that fishing in Gulf of California, which separates Baja California and mainland Mexico, is over capacity. The analysis suggests that future investment in the region’s fisheries may not be economically or ecologically viable.

The study, published on April 12 issue in the journal PLOS ONE, estimated that 34 percent more small-scale boats were operating at any given moment in the gulf during a three-year period (2006-2009). According to the analysis, 17,839 boats were operating in an area that can only sustain 13,277 boats to maximize the benefits of catching more fish per trip.

“The current overcapacity of boats means that fishermen are working harder to catch fewer fish,” said Andrew F. Johnson, a postdoctoral scholar in the Gulf of California Marine Program at Scripps and lead author of the study.

The researchers developed a new method that calculates predicted fishing effort, to predict where and how many small-scale fishing boats operate in the gulf. They compared the results to commercial fishery landings throughout the region to show that there are more small-scale fishing boats operating in the area than the predicted amount required to land the same amount of fish.

This new finding, the researchers say, is taking a heavy toll on a region that supplies nearly 75 percent of Mexico’s fish and is a popular spot for recreational sportfishing, diving, and other ocean activities. Even more so when recent more recent estimates of boat numbers suggest effort in the region could now be at double overcapacity.

“This long-term overfishing reduces the biological capacity of reefs, mangroves and other important fish habitats,” said Octavio Aburto-Oropeza, and senior author of the study. “Ultimately, this means we are reducing the future economic and ecological productivity of the gulf.”

Understanding overcapacity is important because it can help fishing communities and management better gauge their economic status and manage their environmental impact, the researchers noted.

By Matt Hadro

When the leader of the Democratic party pulled an about-face this week, claiming that support for abortion was a non-negotiable part of the platform, pro-life Democrats were utterly dismayed.

“It was just stunning to see,” Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, told CNA.

Day was referring to DNC chair Tom Perez supporting a Democratic mayoral candidate in Nebraska who had in the past embraced pro-life positions – and then the next day saying there was no room in the Democratic party for pro-life politicians.

“Pro-life Democrats are deeply concerned about this extreme position that the Democratic Party has taken and this non-negotiable position,” she said.

Last week, former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and DNC chair Tom Perez publicly supported the Democratic candidate for mayor of Omaha, Neb., Heath Mello.

Mello had supported abortion restrictions in the past as a state senator. According to The Nation, Mello co-sponsored a bill in 2009 that mandated doctors to inform pregnant women of their option to view an ultrasound, and also voted for a 20-week abortion ban, a ban on abortion funding in health plans on the exchanges of the Affordable Care Act, and a law requiring the consent of one parent for minors to have abortions.

Mello was previously endorsed by the group Nebraska Right to Life in 2012, but he had also received a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood Voters of Nebraska in 2015, his campaign manager pointed out to the Huffington Post.

A Catholic, Mello said in a statement to the Huffington Post that “while my faith guides my personal views, as Mayor I would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care.”

Saint John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae states that “laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law.”

The encyclical continues, “abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.”

Yet the abortion rights advocacy group NARAL harshly criticized Perez and Sanders for their “politically stupid” show of support for a candidate who had supported abortion restrictions in the past.

“It’s not possible to have an authentic conversation about economic security for women that does not include our ability to decide when and how we have children,” NARAL said.

On Friday, Perez said that there was no place for pro-life politicians in the party. “Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” he said. “This is not negotiable and should not chance city by city or state by state.”

NARAL then issued a statement praising him for his defense of the “core values” of the Democratic Party.

“It was stunning,” Day said of Perez’s about-face. “He goes out, and the DNC is behind this pro-life candidate, which is necessary to be a big tent party if we’re going to win. So they rally behind this guy (Mello), and then less than 24 hours later he (Perez) puts a statement out saying ‘just kidding. We don’t want you in the party at all.’”

Perez made the abortion issue “non-negotiable” for Democrats, Day continued, and was “strong-arming” party members “to step away from their conscience and not support the pro-life position anymore.”

Democratic political leaders had mixed reactions to Perez’s comments. On NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was asked if she thought there was room in the Democratic Party for pro-life politicians, she answered “of course.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), meanwhile, said on CNN on Sunday that he and the party were committed “to reproductive rights,” and added that “I know within the ranks of the Democratic Party there are those who see that differently on a personal basis, but when it comes to the policy position, I think we need to be clear and unequivocal.”

The 2016 Democratic Party platform featured a strong pro-abortion plank, calling not only for abortion access but also for the overturning of decades-old policies that prohibited direct taxpayer funding of abortions both at home and abroad – the Hyde Amendment and the Helms Amendment.

“We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion – regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured,” the platform stated.

“We will continue to oppose – and seek to overturn – federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.”

Pro-lifers, meanwhile, have countered that NARAL’s pro-abortion strategy alienates millions of Democratic voters.

“Pro-life Democrats have been leaving in droves,” Day said of recent elections. Perez’s total support for abortion rights “may be popular in California or New York,” she said, but “these values don’t play well in the heartland.”

“There is an enormous disconnect between Democrat and Independent rank and file voters and national leaders like DNC Chairman Tom Perez and Senator Dick Durbin on the issue of abortion,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List.

Dannenfelser was one of the pro-life advisors to the Trump campaign in the 2016 election, heading the campaign’s pro-life task coalition.

Perez “drew a line in the sand” with his comments on Friday said Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, adding that he was “decisively alienating the 23 percent of Democrat voters who identify as pro-life and 44 percent of Democrats oppose taxpayer funding of abortion.”

“The March for Life has a 44-year track record of uniting people of all backgrounds in defense of the inherent dignity of all human life,” she said.

“We have welcomed and will continue to welcome pro-life Democrats like Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) to speak at the March, and will continue to support all whom fight for the right to life until the culture of abortion is unthinkable to every person and party alike.”

A diet high in fructose-containing sugars eaten during pregnancy or while breastfeeding can cause offspring to have a fatty liver, increasing their chances of developing obesity or type 2 diabetes. This is according to a new rat study published in The Journal of Physiology.

Many cereals, sugary soft drinks and other processed foods have fructose-containing sugars, including sucrose and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Excess consumption of these sugars is as a major contributor to obesity and type 2 diabetes. Few studies have shown the impact of a diet high in fructose-containing sugars on offspring during and after pregnancy. This research shows that a maternal diet high in fructose-containing sugars during and after pregnancy can cause a fatty liver in offspring. This can negatively impact the metabolic health of the offspring, contributing to the development of obesity or type 2 diabetes in the future.

The researchers gave female rats water supplemented with fructose-containing sugars (sucrose or HFCS) at an amount equivalent to those in standard soft drinks, before, during and after pregnancy. After birth, offspring were weaned by a mother who had access to the same fructose-containing beverage, or by one who had access to water only. Body weight, fat mass and glucose control in the offspring were measured and tissues were analysed to see the amount and type of fat in their livers. Offspring from mothers who had a diet high in fructose-containing sugars had a detrimental fat content and composition in their livers. This was especially true for offspring who were weaned by mothers who drank the fructose-containing beverage. This shows that the timing of exposure to fructose sugars is important, highlighting implications for breastfeeding mothers.

Dr Sheridan Gentili, Senior Lecturer in Biological Sciences at the University of South Australia and lead investigator of the study said, “This study highlights the importance of maternal nutrition during the lactation period. Guidelines for consuming added sugars or sugar-sweetened beverages during pregnancy should consider this.”

She added, “As there are differences in physiology between humans and rodents, we need to be careful when translating this research directly to humans.”

By Nilanjan Ghosh

Lately, there has been quite a bit of hue and cry over the sharing of the Teesta river water between Bangladesh and India. Bangladesh wants 50 percent of the Teesta waters during the dry season — from December to May. Substantially low flow has affected farmers in Bangladesh whose standing paddy crops are withering away and also fishermen who are facing loss of livelihoods. While the Prime Ministers of the Bangladesh and India are inclined to sign a treaty over the sharing of the Teesta waters, the Chief Minister of West Bengal offers an alternate proposal of providing water from three different North Bengal rivers, namely, Torsa, Raidak, and Jaldhaka. The West Bengal CM’s position is based on the premise that there is not adequate water in the Teesta to be shared. This is vindicated by excerpts (published in an article in thethirdpole.net on April 14, 2017) of a recently prepared internal report on the Teesta prepared by an Expert Committee of West Bengal Government.

Wrong measures or hidden facts?

The excerpt goes in this fashion: “Two barrages on Teesta, at about 100 km from each other, in India and Bangladesh were planned to cater [to] irrigation in more than 16 lakh [1.6 million] hectares of land together; around 9.2 lakh [920,000] hectares in [the] state of West Bengal in India and 7.5 lakh [750,000] hectares in Bangladesh. According to a rough calculation, such a scale of irrigation for boro crop (dry season paddy) will require around 1600 cumec (cubic metre per second) of water; while through much of the dry period the river hardly has 100 cumec of water, i.e. one sixteenth of total water requirement in [the] two countries.”

This statement as given in the excerpt does not conform to scientific knowledge of river science and agronomic arithmetic. While considering crop-water requirements and existing cropping patterns, one needs volumetric measures to reach at numerical figures on water requirements. Weird as it may seem, the measurements in the excerpt are given in “cumec” or “cubic metre per second”, which is essentially the unit of flow in the channel, and not volume. As an ecological economist and river analyst, I am yet to come across any literature globally that talk of estimation of the hectares of irrigated land on the basis of flow measures, and without volumetric measures. This brings to the fore quite an extremely important concern: how far is this data reliable? What is the source of such an estimate?

Further, if this figure is to be believed, the obvious question that arises is: where has the remaining 94% of the water gone? In some writings lately, the Teesta Barrage Project (TBP) at Gajoldoba in the Jalpaiguri district of West Bengal has been blamed for the disappearing waters further downstream. Conceived as a multi-purpose project in the aftermath of the massive floods in Jalpaiguri in 1968, the TBP was planned for flood control, hydropower and irrigation in north Bengal. It is proclaimed that though the TBP has contributed to flood control to an extent, there has been much less success towards increasing the areas under irrigation in the lower command area and the flow in the downstream nation of Bangladesh has diminished. It has been hypothesized that water diversion through the Teesta-Mahananda irrigation canal is responsible for the flow reduction.

Unfortunately, all these claims and counter-claims stand as mere hypothetical conjectures in a water governance regime that is marked by lack of analysed data. Neither has any government placed any data in the public domain for independent professionals to take up research and work on them. There is no water accounting, sediment budgeting, or a simple hydrograph of the Teesta in the public forum.

Arithmetic hydrological thinking

When the TBP was thought of as a multipurpose project, what was not thought of was the important role of storage for allocation during the dry season. The concerns of sedimentation were not taken into account. Flood control seems to have been thought of more from the perspective of channelising “surplus” water through alternate link canals. The concerns of downstream ecosystem services, the linkages with livelihoods, and aquatic biodiversity never featured in the scheme of plans. This reductionist thinking with simple average per capita water availability was the core of this “arithmetic hydrology” that conceived of water as a stock of resource to be used for human consumption and use. The 1983 and unsigned 2011 agreements bear ample testimonies of this thinking, given that there are attempts to use up the entire water without any recognition of ecosystem.

The situation has not changed today. The conflict today is still prevalent with pure agricultural use of water, and that too for the production of the boro or dry season rice of the region. It is well-known that paddy is the most water-consuming crop with a crop-water requirement of around 1800-2800 mm. Yet, there has been no attempt on the parts of government machineries to counsel producers to diversify to other less water-consuming crops over the last 30 years, ever since the talks on Teesta emerged between the two nations. Rather, over time in India, the minimum support price of paddy has been increased by leaps and bounds vis-à-vis the less water-consuming staples, which in turn also led to a rise in market price of paddy, thereby incentivising producers to shift more acreage towards paddy, more so during dry seasons. This was further facilitated by development of irrigation facilities through hydrological interventions on the river flow regimes, leading to loss of river health, downstream flows, and ecosystem functions and services.

On the other hand, the West Bengal CM’s recent proposal of providing water through Torsa, Raidak, and Jaldhaka also seem questionable from hydrological, ecological and economic perspectives. Does the dry season hydrograph of the three rivers at least sum up to the dry season hydrograph of Teesta? The three rivers seem to be mere rivulets, as compared to Teesta, and their flows might not apparently match up with Teesta. Of course, we need better data to come up with more concrete inferences. The possibility that I see here is in the form of constructing link canals between the three rivers and a storage mechanism to store water during monsoon and make them flow during dry season. This not only has its capital costs, socio-economic costs, but more clearly ecological costs that may even impede on long-term livelihood issues.

Manas-Sankosh-Teesta interlinking

On the other hand, there is already a proposal of Manas–Sankosh–Teesta interlinking under the national water transfer project and necessary quantity of water may be given to Bangladesh by diverting water from Manas and Sankosh through link canal to Teesta. There is an additional proposal of linking the Teesta to the Farakka under the same water transfer project. The so-called “surplus” water (as is defined in the reductionist engineering paradigm) from Manas and Sankosh can flow to Teesta, and then to Farakka! So, during dry months, Bangladesh can be given water through Teesta, and even the Bangladeshi allegation of low flows in the mainstream of the Ganges through Farakka can also be resolved with this “additional” water! Apparently, this might seem to be a low-hanging fruit to all political entities concerned.

But, the problems will only further compound with this scheme. First, Manas and Sankosh are significant tributaries of the Brahmaputra-Jamuna river system in India and Bangladesh, and diverting the waters from these two rivers will reduce flow in the mainstream of the river, thereby significantly affecting downstream river-bed agriculture, ecosystem, and aquatic biodiversity. Second, as has often been floated around, the Manas-Sankosh link canal may pass through protected areas, which can create significant problems for species movement and terrestrial breeding behaviour. Third, the issue of techno-ecological-economic feasibility of such a scheme is not yet clear. Fourth, the possible reduction in flows through the Jamuna channel in Bangladesh is likely to result in another transboundary water dispute, about which Bangladesh has already expressed apprehension.

Need for independent and objective analyses

There is no doubt that the Bangladesh-India water issue is just getting more and more compounded with the Teesta, which not only has hydro-political implications but also implications for geopolitical relations between two nations, and the internal politics of Bangladesh. More so, because of unanswered questions raised in this article! There is an uncanny suspicion and apprehension on parts of governments about objective and independent analyses about rivers, especially those crossing international boundaries. That is precisely why most data related to flows, sediment, stocks, etc. have been classified. But, objective scientific knowledge could have informed so much as to reach a resolution. The leeway from the present impasse essentially lies in “answering the unanswered”, and then moving towards a right form of institutional mechanisms like the basin-level organisations with authoritative powers.

As the Trump administration replaces multinational trade treaties, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and North America Free Trade Treaty, with bilateral ones, US lawmakers are calling for an India-US bilateral trade treaty. Ed Royce, Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, told a visiting delegation from Vivekananda International Foundation in New Delhi that India and the US agreed on liberalizing trade further, and a bilateral treaty could be the next step.

Soon after his inauguration, Trump began immediately exploring bilateral trade with Britain, Japan and Canada. India already has bilateral free trade agreements with ASEAN (ASEAN–India Free Trade Area). Negotiations with the European Free Trade Association and Canada are stalled over how to resolving commercial disputes, foreign companies demanding more flexibility and less government control.

The foundations for good economic relations with the US have been laid. India’s top exports to the US are manufactured goods, chemicals, textiles and information technology (IT) services. US-India bilateral trade grew rapidly along with India’s economy after 1991, when India joined the West’s neoliberal reform agenda, promoting private over public development and encouraged privatization, in line with US policy. Bilateral trade in goods and services increased from $29 billion in 2004 to $95 billion in 2013, stimulated by Obama’s visit in 2010 to sign trade and investment deals, and promote great civilian nuclear cooperation. Bilateral trade crossed the $100 billion mark in 2014.

Unlike US trade with China, there is more of a balance of imports and exports. Unlike Mexico, there is no problem of illegal immigrants. In the 1990s legal status was granted to to illegals, including many Indians, who brought their families in a ‘third wave’ of migrants. There are 3 million Indian Americans, who are among the top wage earners among ethnic minorities in the US and strong have a strong lobby group on Capitol Hill. They add an extra support for closer economic ties.

India’s biggest plus is innovation. India has a huge base of trained scientific manpower and entrepreneurial skills, “honed in adversity”, and a reputation for “frugal innovation”, ‘Indovation’, which prompted the University of Toronto to establish an India Innovation Centre. USAID chose India’s Mark II hand pump as an important part of its work in Africa. India also has close links with Canada, which will make India-North America relations a three-way undertaking.

Problems looming

In Pax Indica: India and the World of the 21st Century (2012) Shashi Tharoor warned about the spectre of ‘America-first’ism in the US, long before Trump used it to sweep to power in 2016. Tharoor warned that the US was already suspicious of economic policies it traditionally advocated–free markets, trade, immigration. If US turns inwards, India will have to show that it will be an asset to a US aiming to reassert its position of dominance in the world, something that reverses the current drift towards multipolarity and away from a world dominated by one superpower.

Neoliberalism claims to lead to blanket economic growth, but it is growth in the hands of large western corporations, which demand favorable conditions for commercial conflict resolution. US firms want exemption from Nuclear Liability Law, keeping in mind the Bhopal disaster in 1984 where almost 4,000 died, requiring Union Carbide to pay $470 million in restitution. Western companies want Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements which puts state legal powers in the hands of ‘independent’ international arbitration committees, which India is reluctant to accept.

The US is not a reliable supplier of military hardware, liable to change its mind. India wants more reliable joint production arrangements, which US firms and the government don’t like. US has restrictions on high tech items. India’s request for unarmed Guardian drones for maritime surveillance was given a green signal by the Obama White House, but has been stuck in the US bureaucracy. These issues prompted India to cancel a proposed deal on US fight planes worth $10 billion in 2011 (the French firm Rafale won). In contrast, Israel, a close US ally, has now become India’s largest source of military items.

The US is traditionally insensitive to other nations, demanding compliance with US foreign policy interests, which puts India in their sights on Iran sanctions. India already imports and processes Iranian gas, and would like to expand its economic relations with all central Asian states. The proposed Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline would help reduce India-Pakistan tensions, and would benefit all three countries, but is opposed by the US. The US-favoured pipeline through Afghanistan to Turkmenistan would be far riskier and have no such regional benefit, but meets the narrow interests of the US.

The US also has less clout these days. George Bush convinced the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group to give India unofficial membership, but  the NSG refused India’s application last year to become a full-fledged member. Similarly, Obama approved India’s bid to join the UN Security Council as a permanent member, but China effectively vetoed it.

Trump’s mistaken dismissal of global warming, his enthusiasm for coal, reinforces those in India who want to expand electricity production using coal. Trump’s US is by no means a model for India to follow. As Tharoor states, “When it comes to pollution, we are all downstream now.”

Rather than looking to the US on long term economic policy, India can use the experience of Germany, which ended its nuclear energy programme and turned to solar and wind energy, now fulfilling 30% of its energy needs via renewable energy, creating  jobs and generating export markets.

China, Pakistan

China is more important to the US than India, though more as a creditor, given China’s huge holding of US debt in the form of Treasury bills. Though US politicians grumble about China as a geopolitical threat, the first stop of US presidents is Beijing. Before his day in New Delhi in 2010, Obama made a 4-day visit to China in 2009, calling Beijing the key to “peace, stability and development in south Asia”.

Apart from the dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir, India is seen as the most peaceful of nations. But Pakistan has traditionally been a close US ally, in Cold War days, flaunting its anti-communism, and from 1979 on, as the key to US geopolitical strategy in central Asia. With the collapse of communism, this alliance should have lapsed, but the blowback from supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan (and inevitably, Pakistan) has meant war and chaos which has become global, and keeps Pakistan at the centre of US geopolitics. Hence, Pakistan’s claim to Kashmir is given support, and the stand-off there has left otherwise peaceful India in what can best be described as a permanent state of war with Pakistan. The problem continues to hinder better relations with the US.

Perhaps this is an issue that the innovative Trump will tackle. Republican Senator Dan Sullivan called for joint military operations by India and the US “in areas of common interest.” The Senator mentioned this in the context of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The proposal for Indian boots on the ground alongside the US has gained currency since the Trump administration took office.

Trump wants peace and development for the US, presumably for the world, as does India, so this is an incentive for closer ties. Trade is the best ‘soft power’ for a country to project in the world, one that makes war less and less viable. Combined with India’s peaceful foreign policy, this could lead to a new development, a positive influence by peace-loving India on a sabre-rattling US.

Apart from concerns about the need of both countries to mitigate economic growth’s effects on environment, there are other issues of mutual concern: piracy on the high seas, human trafficking, outer space, cyberspace. India can be a good force to moderate Trump. There is no real clash of interests. But in its policies towards the US, India will have hard decisions to make that unavoidably touch on delicate political issues. There is no simple way to make a clear distinction between economics and politics.

While India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world — 7.6% in 2015 — little of this goes to the majority of Indians, who still live in the countryside. The neoliberal economic model calls for lower taxes, an end to subsidies that benefit the poor, and more freedom for business, which favours city over countryside, the rich over the poor. While per capita growth is positive, India has one of the most unequal income distributions in the world. A free trade treaty with the US will no doubt stimulate overall economic growth, but it is not an economic silver bullet, and will require social policy to make sure that more growth helps Indians across the board.

Diplomatist, Volume 5 Issue 4 April 2017

Over the past year, the editors of Nezavisimaya gazeta point out, the price of oil has risen by 60 percent but Russia’s GDP and per capita incomes have continued to fall, a pattern at odds with what most expected and one that points to ever more serious problems for Moscow and Russians in the future.

For many years, Russian officials have said and Russians have generally accepted the proposition that the country’s GDP and per capita incomes are directly related to the price of oil. When it goes up, they do; when it doesn’t; they fall. But over the past year, “the price of oil rose 60 percent” but the others fell (ng.ru/editorial/2017-04-26/2_6982_red.html).

The average price of Urals oil in the first quarter of 2016 was 31.99 US dollars a barrel. By the first quarter of this year, it had risen 1.6 times, the editors of the Moscow paper say in a lead article today. But the Russian economy “practically did not react at all to this growth in prices” or “strictly speaking,” it reacted with “a small decline” compared to the year before.

It cites the conclusion of Andrey Klepach, the chief economist of the Foreign Economy Bank that “in the first quarter of 2017, industry ceased to be the driver of growth. Processing production showed a fall as a result of low investment demand and the gradual slowing of growth of deliveries for export.”

The economist notes that “judging from indirect assessments, investment activity in the start of the year again began to fall. In the first quarter, the extent of construction substantially contracted after what had been a positive dynamic in the second half of last year.” But officials at the Central Bank and the economic development ministry have claimed the opposite.

“Considering this from the side,” the editors say, “one must acknowledge that the Russian Federation is immersed in a world of parallel statistics,” official ones which suggest that everything is going well and unofficial expert ones that do not support that conclusion. As a result, independent experts long ago ceased to have much confidence in official data.

Despite the underlying trends, the paper notes, there has been a growth in consumer confidence in the first months of this year, the result of low inflation and the strengthening ruble, according to officials. “But there is another explanation,” the editors of Nezavisimaya gazeta suggest.

And it is this: the one-time payment to pensioners of a 5000-ruble (60 US dollars) supplement in January could easily explain the small increases the government claims. But if that is the case, then, as Slepach points out, it is “still too early” to be talking about stable growth, even if oil prices are higher.

By Giancarlo Elia Valori*

Why does North Korea want to currently reach such a nuclear threshold as to threaten Japan, South Korea, the Southern Asian seas and, obviously, the US bases in the Pacific, as well as the North American mainland?

Because it fears to be invaded from the South or from the sea, with an integrated action on its coast by South Korea and the United States, with the Japanese support off the coast.

The North Korean Republic fears to be invaded because it is close to countries which are also obliged to support and influence it, not through the Marxist-Leninist ideology but with geography, namely China and Russia.

Hence it fears that the price of support will become too high for the country to be able to pay it without a “socialist” regime change, such as that of Deng Xiaoping’s China, or with Russia’s statist nationalism.

These countries are such as to influence North Korea by helping the Juche (self-reliance) regime at increasingly higher, and ultimately unsustainable, strategic costs for the country.

Furthermore, one of the ideological foundations of the North Korean regime is its very clear autonomy from the rest of the world – hence, as much as possible, also from Russia and China.

Moreover, after Kim-Jong Un’s rise to power, North Korea has turned the primary national and international policy line from Songun (“military first”), which was his father’s and Kim-Il Sung’s policy, into a directive called Byungijin, namely the parallel development of economy and defense.

Since the beginning of Kim-Jong Un’s reign significant reforms have been implemented: the downsizing of common farms, fewer checks on the distribution system and greater availability of money have enabled peasants to retain a larger share of crops so as to give rise to a small-scale free local economy.

It is worth recalling that agriculture was the focus of Deng Xiaoping’s “First Modernization” in China.

At military level, however, the Byungjin policy line envisages that, in strategic planning, preference be given to nuclear weapons: the civilian or military nuclear technology is cheaper than the conventional one, which also depends on a separation between “gun workers” – as Mao Zedong called them – and “plow workers”.

Too much military labour force takes men and women away from the production system and this does not certainly go in the direction desired by Kim-Jong Un.

Furthermore always portraying the leader of an “enemy” country as a madman – as the West has being doing since Hitler’s times – is really an act of madness on our part.

The effects of the timid economic reform are obviously very slow and cyclical and this is the reason why the friendly China did not allow North Korea to be admitted into the new Asian Infrastructure Development Bank in 2016.

It is also worth recalling that Xi Jinping, whose PCC is monitoring the situation in North Korea closely, has not yet paid any official visit to North Korea’s capital town.

While North Korea’s nuclear armed forces are worth only 2-3% of GDP per year, according to the most reliable Western indirect estimates, the development of missile and nuclear weapons is an almost compulsory economic-strategic option for Kim-Jong Un, who wants an internal economic reform following the pathway of China’s “Four Modernizations”, but does not certainly want to lose power or change its nature.

Hence for North Korea it is the globalization of a regional threat: the North Korean regime wants to directly threaten the United States in the Pacific and on its national territory. It wants to force the traditional allies such as Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan to defend it also beyond their national and local interests and it finally wants to oblige Westerners to help its economy and allow its steady expansion, with the unconventional threat.

Missile explosions and the new thermonuclear weapons, such as the one detonated on January 9, 2016 – which North Korea declared to be miniaturized, and hence potentially threatening even for long-range targets – suggest that, once finished the phase of the 5+1 negotiations and international agreements, North Korea now wants to make its status as nuclear power be accepted as a simple fait accompli.

And the new small wealth secured by savings on conventional forces will be used exactly for this purpose, considering that the new North Korean leadership is clearly no longer interested in negotiating a new strategic set-up with countries that are ever less interested in solving the problem.

Or with countries which are particularly interested in the “usual curse” of the State which does not comply with international rules, invented by others alone.

Or with countries which are only interested in “showing their flag”, as is the case with the recent US naval mission in the Korean regional sea, which, however – as the New York Times has recently revealed – had no particular characteristics of deterrence vis-à-vis North Korea.

How could we rationally oppose the new strategic North Korean posture, which is developing its non-conventional technologies along three directions: the dual space technology, submarine nuclear missiles and the ground handling of mobile launching bases?

Either the unstable South Korea is armed with nuclear technologies, which would make North Korea’s weapons increase significantly, or the South is protected with THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) – as has already happened – or, finally, a new agreement is negotiated with North Korea.

How can this be done? The possible courses of action I envisage would be the following: a) a guarantee for developing the Special Economic Zones, the seven areas which attract regional capital into North Korea with great difficulty; b) the political and strategic act of recognizing the North Korean government’s legitimacy, thus putting an end to the old and trite memory of that war in Asia, which – however – was triggered off by two parallel mistakes by General MacArthur and Communist guerrillas in the North; c) North Korea’s entry into a new Regional Security Union that would stabilize Japan’s, the Russian Federation’s, China’s, South Korea’s and the United States’ interests; d) the establishment of an International Fund for the Development of the Korean Peninsula, to which all the local countries that wish so may adhere; and d) a multilateral treaty, with the usual guarantees, putting an end to North Korea’s nuclear escalation and preserving its status reached at the time of signature, as well as envisaging credible sanctions in the event of North Korea infringing the Treaty.

Hence, if we do not follow Bob Gallucci’s line, who – as a typical Italo-American – says that the “North Korean issue is not like good wine” which improves by aging, we will not manage to get out of this situation, getting enmeshed by a theatrical strategy that only serves media and does not solve anything, or by the even worse choice of threatening North Korea militarily.

This gets us away from Russia and China which already have their disputes with North Korea, but are essential to bring peace to the region.

And this also makes North Korea’s policy even more aggressive and its rearmament faster.

Hence, as Bob Gallucci teaches us, we must negotiate with North Korea multilaterally, because the plurality of actors sitting at the same negotiating table does not enable North Korea to threaten us or wring concessions from the United States alone. Furthermore North Korea will feel how important, decisive and definitive are the pressures of friends or opponents in the same round of negotiations.

Paradoxically, in a recent essay, Bob Gallucci says that “the United States and North Korea want the same thing.”

Which one? The regime change. The United States believes that there should be a political and strategic change in North Korea and the same is wished by North Korea for the United States vis-à-vis itself.

Also South Korea, concerned about the possible nuclear war against North Korea, does not like solutions based on a show of strength that would destabilize South Korea as a NATO attack on the Warsaw Pact would have destabilized the Federal Republic of Germany, which was mainly thinking of reunification – exactly what many people still want in South Korea.

Furthermore, in Bob Gallucci’s opinion, doing business with North Korea is better than threatening sanctions, which are often politically useless and easy to circumvent or, sometimes, even harmful.

Therefore, within a multilateral approach, it is currently still necessary to: (a) stop the substantially useless North Korean nuclear program, because the political goals of that operation are reached with negotiations; b) initiate political normalization, which is also a goal of the North Korean regime that has no interest in being regarded as the global rogue State; c) provide some economic assistance, and, in exchange for it, d) be provided strategic reassurances on the security of the region by North Korea.

Furthermore, if North Korea were to win its current “war of nerves” with the United States, the future scenario could be that of Japan’s nuclear rearmament and widespread insecurity of South Korea, which could also turn to China for its strategic projection – hence the nuclear balance will disappear in the geopolitical heart of Asia.

It is not an acceptable perspective, at least for us.

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

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

Saudi Arabia reiterated Wednesday its stand on the Syrian president, saying that there is no place for Bashar Assad in the country’s future.

“We do not believe there is a future for Bashar in Syria,” said Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir during a press conference with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov.

“Assad is responsible for the killing of 300,000 Syrian citizens. He is also to blame for the involvement of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah in carrying out genocide crimes in Syria,” said the minister.

Al-Jubeir highlighted Riyadh-Moscow coordination regarding the Syrian crisis, confirming that the leaders of both countries are eager to enhance historical ties.

He said there are many obstacles that must be overcome via dialogue and mutual coordination. “I am convinced that there are many opportunities to achieve success,” Al-Jubeir added.

Lavrov said Russia and Saudi Arabia are part of the group of countries supporting Syria. He added that the Syrian crisis was a main point of discussion during his talks with Al-Jubeir.

Al-Jubeir also supported the idea of an international probe into a suspected chemical weapons attack in the town of Khan Sheikhun, but said the Kingdom still believes the Assad regime was behind the strike.

Meanwhile, hundreds of tearful mourners attended a mass funeral Wednesday for loved ones killed in a suicide bombing on a convoy of evacuees, in one of the Syrian war’s most gruesome attacks.

At least 150 people, including 72 children, were killed on April 15 in an explosion targeting evacuees from Foua and Kfraya, two Shiite-majority villages under siege in northwestern Syria.

Women, children and men — some of them in military uniform — began gathering at a mosque from the morning to take part in the funeral procession.

“There’s no worse feeling than this, than burying your sister without being able to see her,” said 19-year-old Abdelsalam Remman, his voice breaking.

He was carrying a poster of his 6-year-old sister Tuqa, who was killed in the attack after being evacuated with their mother, who was wounded.

“Our heart melted until we identified her” among those of the dead several days later, said Remman.

The suicide car bombing in Rashidin, west of Syria’s second city Aleppo, was one of the most devastating attacks of the six-year war that has killed at least 320,000.

It hit a convoy of evacuees from Foua and Kfraya, who had been bussed out of their besieged regime-held villages as part of an evacuation deal that also included two opposition-controlled towns surrounded by the regime.

The attacker appeared to lure children to his vehicle with bags of crisps, according to witnesses. Dozens of unidentified bodies remain at Aleppo’s government hospital, and many survivors said they had relatives who were still missing.

A pained expression on her face, Wafaa Homsi looked at the rows of coffins, one of which held her 13-year-old daughter Raghd.

“My daughter is being buried here. My husband and two of my sons are still missing. We’re waiting to hear something, anything, about them,” Homsi said.