US Empire building on a world-scale began during and shortly after WWII. Washington intervened directly in the Chinese civil war (providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek’s army while the Red Army battled the Japanese), backed France’s re-colonization war against the Viet Minh in Indo-China and installed Japanese imperial collaborator-puppet regimes in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

While empire building took place with starts and stops, advances and defeats, the strategic goal remained the same: to prevent the establishment of independent communist or secular-nationalist governments and to impose vassal regimes compliant to US interests.

Bloody wars and coups (’regime changes’) were the weapons of choice. Defeated European colonial regimes were replaced and incorporated as subordinate US allies.

Where possible, Washington relied on armies of mercenaries trained, equipped and directed by US ‘advisors’ to advance imperial conquests. Where necessary, usually if the client regime and vassal troops were unable to defeat an armed people’s army, the US armed forces intervened directly.

Imperial strategists sought to intervene and brutally conquer the target nation. When they failed to achieve their ‘maximum’ goal, they dug in with a policy of encirclement to cut the links between revolutionary centers with adjoining movements. Where countries successfully resisted armed conquests, empire builders imposed economic sanctions and blockades to erode the economic basis of popular governments.

Empires, as the Roman sages long recognized, are not built in a day, or weeks and months. Temporary agreements and accords are signed and conveniently broken because imperial designs remain paramount.

Empires would foment internal cleavages among adversaries and coups in neighboring countries. Above all, they construct a worldwide network of military outposts, clandestine operatives and regional alliances on the borders of independent governments to curtail emerging military powers.

Following successful wars, imperial centers dominate production and markets, resources and labor. However, over time challenges would inevitably emerge from dependent and independent regimes. Rivals and competitors gained markets and increased military competence. While some vassal states sacrificed political-military sovereignty for independent economic development, others moved toward political independence.

Early and Late Contradictions of Expanding Imperialism

The dynamics of imperial states and systems contain contradictions that constantly challenge and change the contours of empire.

The US devoted immense resources to retain its military supremacy among vassals, but experienced a sharp decline in its share of world markets, especially with the rapid rise of new economic producers.

Economic competition forced the imperial centers to realign the focus of their economies – ‘rent’ (finance and speculation) displaced profits from trade and production. Imperial industries relocated abroad in search of cheap labor. Finance, insurance, real estate, communications, military and security industries came to dominate the domestic economy. A vicious cycle was created: with the erosion of its productive base, the Empire further increased its reliance on the military, finance capital and the import of cheap consumer goods.

Just after World War II, Washington tested its military prowess through intervention . Because of the immense popular resistance and the proximity of the USSR, and later PRC, empire building in post-colonial Asia was contained or militarily defeated. US forces temporarily recognized a stalemate in Korea after killing millions. Its defeat in China led to the flight of the ‘Nationalists’ to the provincial island of Taiwan. The sustained popular resistance and material support from socialist superpowers led to its retreat from Indo-China. In response, it resorted to economic sanctions to strangle the revolutionary governments.

The Growth of the Unipolar Ideology

With the growing power of overseas economic competitors and its increasing reliance on direct military intervention, the US Empire took advantage of the internal disintegration of the USSR and China’s embrace of ’state capitalism’ in the early 1990’s and 1980s..The US expanded throughout the Baltic region, Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans – with the forced breakup of Yugoslavia. Imperial strategists envisioned ‘a unipolar empire’ – an imperial state without rivals. The Empire builders were free to invade, occupy and pillage independent states on any continent – even bombing a European capital, Belgrade, with total impunity. Multiple wars were launched against designated ‘adversaries’, who lacked strong global allies.

Countries in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa were targeted for destruction. South America was under the control of neo-liberal regimes. The former USSR was pillaged and disarmed by imperial vassals. Russia was ruled by gangster-kleptocrats allied to US stooges. China was envisioned as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer goods for Americans and generating high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers like Walmart.

Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990’s were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire of long duration. Since the ‘unipolarists’ were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies for its profits. US global power eroded.

The Demise of Unipolarity: The 21st Century

Ten years into the 21st century, the imperial vision of an unchallenged unipolar empire was crumbling. China’s ‘primitive’ accumulation led to advanced domestic accumulation for the Chinese people and state. China’s power expanded overseas through investments, trade and acquisitions. China displaced the US as the leading trading partner in Asia and the largest importer of primary commodities from Latin America and Africa. China became the world’s leading manufacturer and exporter of consumer goods to North America and the EU.

The first decade of the 21st century witnessed the overthrow or defeat of US vassal states throughout Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil) and the emergence of independent agro-mineral regimes poised to form regional trade pacts. This was a period of growing global demand for their natural resources and commodities- precisely when the US was de-industrializing and in the throes of costly disastrous wars in the Middle East.

In contrast to the growing independence of Latin America, the EU deepened its military participation in the brutal US-led overseas wars by expanding the ‘mandate’ of NATO. Brussels followed the unipolarist policy of systematically encircling Russia and weakening its independence via harsh sanctions. The EU’s outward expansion (financed with increasing domestic austerity) heightened internal cleavages, leading to popular discontent .The UK voted in favor of a referendum to secede from the EU.

The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s, pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin’s government embarked on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO.

Unipolarists continued to launch multiple wars of conquest in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, costing trillions of dollars and leading to the loss of global markets and competitiveness. As the armies of the Empire expanded globally, the domestic economy (the ‘Republic’) contracted .The US became mired in recession and growing poverty. Unipolar politics created a growing multi-polar global economy, while rigidly imposing military priorities.

The Empire Strikes Back: The Nuclear Option

The second decade of the 21st century ushered in the demise of unipolarity to the dismay of many ‘experts’ and the blind denial by its political architects. The rise of a multi-polar world economy intensified the desperate imperial drive to restore unipolarity by military means, led by militarists incapable of adjusting or assessing their own policies.

Under the regime of the ‘first black’ US President Obama, elected on promises to ‘rein in’ the military, imperial policymakers intensified their pursuit of seven, new and continuing wars. To the policymakers and the propagandists in the US-EU corporate media, these were successful imperial wars, accompanied by premature declarations of victories in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. This triumphal delusion of success led the new Administration to launch new wars in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Yemen.

As the new wave of wars and coups (’regime change’) to re-impose unipolarity failed, even greater militarist policies displaced economic strategies for global dominance. The unipolarists-militarists, who direct the permanent state apparatus, continued to sacrifice markets and investments with total immunity from the disastrous consequences of their failures on the domestic economy.

A Brief Revival of Unipolarity in Latin America

Coups and power grabs have overturned independent governments in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and threatened progressive governments in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. However, the pro-imperial ‘roll-back’ in Latin America was neither politically nor economically sustainable and threatens to undermine any restoration of US unipolar dominance of the region.

The US has provided no economic aid or expanded access to markets to reward and support their newly acquired client regimes. Argentina’s new vassal, Mauricio Macri, transferred billions of dollars to predatory Wall Street bankers and handed over access to military bases and lucrative resources without receiving any reciprocal inflows of investment capital. Indeed the servile policies of President Macri created greater unemployment and depressed living standards, leading to mass popular discontent. The unipolar empire’s ‘new boy’ in its Buenos Aires fiefdom faces an early demise.

Likewise, widespread corruption, a deep economic depression and unprecedented double digit levels of unemployment in Brazil threaten the illicit vassal regime of Michel Temer with permanent crisis and rising class conflict.

Short-Lived Success in the Middle East

The revanchist unipolarist launch of a new wave of wars in the Middle East and North Africa seemed to succeed briefly with the devastating power of US-NATO aerial and naval bombardment .Then collapsed amidst grotesque destruction and chaos, flooding Europe with millions of refugees.

Powerful surges of resistance to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan hastened the retreat toward a multi-polar world. Islamist insurgents drove the US into fortress garrisons and took control of the countryside and encircled cities in Afghanistan; Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Libya drove US backed regimes and mercenaries into flight.

Unipolarists and the Permanent State: Re-Group and Attack

Faced with its failures, unipolarists regrouped and implemented the most dangerous military strategy yet: the build-up of nuclear ‘First-Strike’ capability targeting China and Russia.

Orchestrated by US State Department political appointees, Ukraine’s government was taken over by US vassals leading to the ongoing break-up of that country. Fearful of neo-fascists and Russophobes, the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. Ethnic Russian majorities in Ukraine’s Donbass region have been at war with Kiev with thousands killed and millions fleeing their homes to take refuge in Russia. The unipolarists in Washington financed and directed the Kiev coup led by kleptocrats, fascists and street mobs, immune as always from the consequences.

Meanwhile the US is increasing its number of combat troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to buttress its unreliable allies and mercenaries.

What is crucial to understanding the rise and demise of imperial power and the euphoric unipolar declarations of the 1990’s (especially during the heyday of President Clinton’s bloody reign), is that at no point have military and political advances been sustained by foundational economic building blocks.

The US defeated and subsequently occupied Iraq, but it also systematically destroyed Iraq’s civil society and its economy, creating fertile ground for massive ethnic cleansing, waves of refugees and the subsequent Islamist uprising that over ran vast territories. Indeed, deliberate US policies in Iraq and elsewhere created the refugee crisis that is overwhelming Europe.

A similar situation is occurring during the first two decades of this century: Military victories have installed ineffective imperial-backed unpopular leaders. Unipolarists increasingly rely on the most retrograde tribal rabble, Islamist extremists, overseas clients and paid mercenaries. The deliberate US-led assault on the very people capable of leading modern multicultural nations like Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, is a caricature of the notorious Pol Pot assaults on Cambodia’s educated classes. Of course, the US honed its special skills in ‘killing the school teachers’ when it trained and financed the mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980’s.

The second weakness, which led to the collapse of the unipolar illusion, has been their inability to rethink their assumptions and re-orient and rebalance their strategic militarist paradigm from the incredible global mess they created

They steadfastly refused to work with and promote the educated economic elites in the conquered countries. To do so would have required maintaining an intact social-economic-security system in the countries they had systematically shredded. It would mean rejecting their paradigm of total war, unconditional surrender and naked, brutal military occupation in order to allow the development of viable economic allies, instead of imposing pliable but grotesquely corrupt vassal regimes.

The deeply entrenched, heavily financed and vast military-intelligence-police apparatus, numbering many millions, has formed a parallel imperial state ruling over the elected and civilian regime within the US.

The so-called ‘deep state’, in reality, is a ruling state run by unipolarists. It is not some ‘faceless entity’: It has a class, ideological and economic identity.

Despite the severe cost of losing a series of catastrophic wars and the multi-billion-dollar thefts by kleptocratic vassal regimes, the unipolarists have remained intact, even increasing their efforts to score a conquest or temporary military victory.

Let us say it, openly and clearly: The unipolarists are now engaged in blaming their terrible military and political failures on Russia and China. This is why they seek, directly and indirectly, to weaken Russia and China’s ‘allies abroad’ and at home. Indeed their savage campaign to ‘blame the Russians’ for President Trump’s election reflects their deep hostility to Russia and contempt for the working and lower middle class voters (the ‘basket of deplorables’) who voted for Trump. This elite’s inability to examine its own failures and the political system’s inability to remove these disastrous policymakers is a serious threat to the future of the world.

Unipolarists: Fabricating Pretexts for World War

While the unipolarist state suffered predictable military defeats and prolonged wars and reliance on unstable civilian regimes, the ideologues continue to deflect blame onto ‘Russia and China as the source of all their military defeats’. The unipolarists’ monomania has been transformed into a provocative large-scale offensive nuclear missile build-up in Europe and Asia, increasing the risk of a nuclear war by engaging in a deadly ‘game of chicken’.

The veteran nuclear physicists in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published an important description of the unipolarists’ war plans. They revealed that the ‘current and ongoing US nuclear program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. These new technologies increase the overall US killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces threefold’. This is exactly what an objective observer would expect of a nuclear-armed US unipolar state planning to launch a war by disarming China and Russia with a ’surprise’ first strike.

The unipolar state has targeted several countries as pretexts for launching a war. The US government installed provocative missile bases in the Baltic countries and Poland. These are regimes chosen for their eagerness to violate Russia’s borders or airspace and insanely willing to invite the inevitable military response and chain reaction onto their own populations. Other sites for huge US military bases and NATO expansion include the Balkans, especially the former Yugoslav provinces of Kosovo and Montenegro. These are bankrupt ethno-fascist mafia states and potential tinderboxes for NATO-provoked conflicts leading to a US first strike. This explains why the most rabid US Senate militarists have been pushing for Kosovo and Montenegro’s integration into NATO.

Syria is where the unipolarists are creating a pretext for nuclear war. The US state has been sending more ‘Special Forces’ into highly conflictive areas to support their mercenery allies. This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally). The US plans to seize ISIS-controlled Raqqa in Northern Syria as its own base of operation with the intention of denying the Syrian government its victory over the jihadi-terrorists. The likelihood of armed ‘incidents’ between the US and Russia in Syria is growing to the rapturous applause of US unipolarists.

The US has financed and promoted Kurdish fighters as they seize Syrian territory from the jihadi-terrorists, especially in territories along the Turkish border. This is leading to an inevitable conflict between Turkey and the US-backed Kurds.

Another likely site for expanded war is Ukraine. After seizing power in Kiev, the klepto-fascists launched a shooting war and economic blockade against the bilingual ethnic Russian-Ukrainians of the Donbass region. Attacks by the Kiev junta, countless massacres of civilians (including the burning of scores of unarmed Russian-speaking protesters in Odessa) and the sabotage of Russian humanitarian aid shipments could provoke retaliation from Russia and invite a US military intervention via the Black Sea against Crimea.

The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.

The unipolarists’ state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North Korean missile program as a ‘threat to the United States’. This has allowed the unipolarist state to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony ‘threat’.

The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. The US has ’suffered’ peaceful, but humiliating, economic defeat at the hands of an emerging Asian power. China’s economy has grown more than three times faster than the US for the last two decades. And China’s infrastructure development bank has attracted scores of regional and European participants after a much promoted US trade agreement in Asia, developed by the Obama Administration, collapsed. Over the past decade, while salaries and wages have stagnated or regressed in the US and EU, they have tripled in China.

China’s economic growth is set to surpass the US into the near and distant future if trends continue. This will inevitably lead to China replacing the US s as the world’s most dynamic economic power…. barring a nuclear attack by the US. It is no wonder China is embarked on a program to modernize its defensive missile systems and border and maritime security.

As the unipolarists prepare for the ‘final decision’ to attack China, they are systematically installing their most advanced nuclear missile strike capacity in South Korea under the preposterous pretext of countering the regime in Pyongyang. To exacerbate tensions, the US High Command has embarked on cyber-attacks against North Korea’s missile program. It has been staging massive military exercises with Seoul, which provoked the North Korean military to ‘test’ four of its medium range ballistic missiles in the Sea of Japan. Washington has ignored the Chinese government’s efforts to calm the situation and persuade the North Koreans to resist US provocations on its borders and even scale down their nuclear weapons program.

The US war propaganda machine claims that Pyongyang’s nervous response to Washington’s provocative military exercises (dubbed “Foal Eagle’) on North Korea’s border are both a ‘threat’ to South Korea and ‘evidence of its leaders’ insanity.’ Ultimately, Washington intends to target China. It installed its (misnamed) Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) in South Korea .An offensive surveillance and attack system designed to target China’s major cities and complement the US maritime encirclement of China and Russia. Using North Korea as a pretext, THAAD was installed in South Korea, with the capacity to reach the Chinese heartland in minutes. Its range covers over 3,000 kilometers of China’s land mass. THAAD directed missiles are specifically designed to identify and destroy China’s defensive missile capacity.

With the THADD installation in South Korea, Russia’s Far East is now encircled by the US offensive missiles to complement the build-up in the West.

The unipolar strategists are joined by the increasingly militaristic Japanese government – a most alarming development for the Koreans and Chinese given the history of Japanese brutality in the region. The Japanese Defense Minister has proposed acquiring the capacity for a ‘pre-emptive strike’, an imperial replay of its invasion and enslavement of Korea and Manchuria. Japan ‘points to’ North Korea but really aims at China.

South Korea’s deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean ‘deep state’ willing to sacrifice its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea’s biggest trading partner. In exchange for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy, the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and investment ties with some of South Korea’s biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face shut down.

In the midst of a major political scandal involving the Korean President (who faces impeachment and imprisonment), the US-Japanese military alliance has brutally sucked the hapless South Korean people into an offensive military build-up against China. In the process Seoul threatens its peaceful economic relations with China. The South Koreans are overwhelmingly ‘pro-peace’, but find themselves on the frontlines of a potential nuclear war.

China’s response to Washington’s threat is a massive buildup of its own defensive missile capacity. The Chinese now claim to have the capacity to rapidly demolish THAAD bases in South Korea if pushed by the US. China is retooling its factories to compensate for the loss of South Korean industrial imports.

Conclusion

The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it continues to pursue its deluded strategies.

On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic decline. They live on their delusions of a ‘Golden Age’ of the 1990’s when George Bush, Sr. could devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia’s cities with impunity.

Gone are the days when the unipolarists could break up the USSR, finance violent breakaway former Soviet regimes in Asia and the Caucuses and run fraudulent elections for its drunken clients in Russia.

The disasters of US policies and its domestic economic decline has given way to rapid and profound changes in power relations over the last two decades, shattering any illusion of a unipolar ‘American Century’.

Unipolarity remains the ideology of the permanent state security apparatus and its elites in Washington. They believe that the marriage of militarism abroad and financial control at home will allow them to regain their lost unipolar ‘Garden of Eden’.

China and Russia are the essential new protagonists of a multipolar world. The dynamics of necessity and their own economic growth has pushed them to successfully nurture alternative, independent states and markets.

This obvious, irreversible reality has driven the unipolarists to the mania of preparing for a global nuclear war! The pretexts are infinite and absurd; the targets are clear and global; the destructive offensive military means are available; but so are the formidable defensive and retaliatory capacities of China and Russia.

The unipolarist state’s delusion of ‘winning a global nuclear war’ presents Americans with the critical challenge to resist or give in to an insanely dangerous empire in decline, which is willing to launch a globally destructive war.

Islamic State killed a senior Afghan Taliban official in the northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar, the Afghan militants said on Saturday, April 29 in a rare clash between the rival Islamist groups inside Pakistan, according to Reuters.

Afghan Taliban sources told Reuters Maulvi Daud was killed on the outskirts of Peshawar with two other men on Thursday. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid confirmed Daud’s death.

The Islamic State on Friday claimed responsibility for “assassination of a Taliban leader” a day earlier, without naming him, through the group’s affiliated news agency AMAQ.

The Islamic State, which at one point controlled huge chunks of territory across Syria and Iraq, has made some inroads into Afghanistan but the group has met tough resistance from the Taliban as well as U.S. and Afghan special forces.

Afghan Taliban sources said Daud was based in Afghanistan’s Logar province but would frequently visit Pakistan.

Islamic State does not control any territory inside Pakistan but the group has claimed responsibility for several large-scale bomb attacks.

Pakistani officials say the Islamic State does not have a presence inside the country.

By Ghazanfar Ali Khan

Saudi Arabia and Germany will sign several agreements during the visit of Chancellor Angela Merkel, who will arrive in Jeddah on Sunday, German Ambassador Dieter W. Haller said on Saturday.

“Merkel will hold wide-ranging talks with high-ranking Saudi officials, including King Salman, on Sunday,” he said, adding that she will also hold consultations with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Naif and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

“The talks… will focus on bilateral relations, fields of cooperation between the two countries, further possibilities of collaboration, and regional and international developments,” Haller added. “The next meeting of the G20 will also feature in the talks, with Germany hosting the G20 Summit on July 7 this year in Hamburg.”
Asked about details of the deals to be signed during Merkel’s visit, Haller said: “It Is a bit early to announce them as the two sides are still finalizing and fine-tuning the agreements.”

A meeting of Saudi and German businessmen will be held at the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry on the sidelines of Merkel’s visit on April 30 and May 1. Merkel will meet Saudi businesswomen to learn more about social and economic developments in the Kingdom.

The German Embassy said she will be accompanied by a high-level economic delegation headed by the secretary of state at the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, and will include CEOs of the largest German companies interested in the economic changes taking place in the Kingdom within the frameworks of Vision 2030 and the National Transformation Program (NTP) 2020.

Merkel will wrap up her visit on Monday and travel to Abu Dhabi.

Saudi Arabia and Germany are close allies, with diplomatic relations established in 1954. Bilateral ties are fostered by regular high-level visits in both directions.

The late King Abdullah visited Germany in November 2007, and Merkel visited Saudi Arabia in 2007 and 2010.

Riyadh and Berlin have forged close commercial ties. Saudi Arabia is Germany’s second-biggest trading partner in the Arab world after the UAE. Germany is the third-largest supplier of Saudi imports. Imports of German products and services rose in 2015 and 2016 despite falling oil prices.

Asia-Pacific policymakers at a high-level United Nations dialogue in Bangkok today concluded that tax policy and public expenditure management will play a central role in effectively pursuing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Finance ministers, central bank chiefs, senior government officials and experts from 37 countries participated in the Fourth High-Level Follow-up Dialogue on Financing for Development in Asia and the Pacific, co-hosted by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and the Government of Sri Lanka from 28 to 29 April.

Opening the two-day meeting, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of ESCAP, Dr. Shamshad Akhtar, highlighted three core priorities that have emerged which include the need for governments to enhance their capacity to mobilize and spend public finance resources effectively and efficiently, deliver financing for sustainable and resilient infrastructure by engaging with the private sector, and enhance financial inclusion.

“The financing needs to support implementation of sustainable development are enormous. Asia will need to invest as much as $26 trillion in infrastructure by 2030 and additional investments are needed to improve health care, education, clean drinking water and sanitation; reduce air pollution; and to support job creation in a more inclusive society. Based on this, we count on member States to stock take the progress our region has made, and to develop a financing action-plan,” said Dr. Akhtar.

In his keynote speech, Mr. Ravi Karunanayake, Finance Minister of Sri Lanka underscored that the scope for financing for development depends heavily on the fiscal space and the degree of private participation within each economy, and within the region as a whole. “If we endeavor to minimize differences and bridge gaps in all dimensions at individual levels, it could allow enormous maneuverability for countries in the region to prosper,” he said.

Mr. Tevita Lavemaau, Minister for Finance and National Planning of Tonga further emphasized the importance of engaging stakeholders in mobilizing sufficient financial resources to implement the SDGs. “Collective effort and strong collaboration must also take place between government and all relevant key stakeholders, including tax payers, civil society organisations, private sector and development partners, in order to successfully implement and achieve our sustainable development agenda going forward,” he added.

“For Pacific countries in particular, climate finance is an integral component of development finance. It is essential that we integrate climate finance and domestic finance with traditional development finance to achieve more significant outcomes on our development priorities. Building both physical and fiscal resilience can only add value to our national assets,” said Cook Islands Finance Minister Mr. Mark Brown.

The participants urged for a strong collective response to address tax challenges of the region in view of the 2030 Agenda. They emphasized the need for a broad-based Asia-Pacific platform for policy makers, tax administrators, and relevant regional and subregional organizations to promote dialogue on tax matters. Delegates highlighted the potential of ESCAP to leverage its intergovernmental mechanisms, in close collaboration with development partners, to provide an overarching umbrella for such a platform.

They also noted that a key bottleneck for the growth of public-private partnerships in the region is a lack of capacity in governments, which runs the risk of unfeasible projects being pursued along with inappropriate risk and reward allocation. Continued work in this area is thus essential and the participants welcomed the valuable support provided by ESCAP.

Delegates attending the meeting concluded that moving forward the key priorities should include: strengthening tax systems and administration; increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of public expenditure; deploying tax policies to mitigate inequalities and promote environmental sustainability; strengthening municipal finance to cope with growing urbanisation challenges, including those related to environment, and tackling harmful tax competition, base erosion, profit shifting and other tax avoidance by building broad international and regional partnerships.

In May, the Sri Lankan government and ESCAP will co-host a high-level side event at the ECOSOC Forum on Financing for Development at the UN Headquarters in New York, to present the Chair summary of this meeting. The outcomes will also be presented at the 73rd Commission session of ESCAP to be held from 15-19 May.

Italian priest Sante Babolin said that Satan is behind several recent attacks in various parts of the world against the Virgin Mary, noting that she is a powerful advocate for him during exorcisms.

“In my experience – so far I have performed 2,300 rites of exorcism – I can say that the invocation of the Most Holy Virgin Mary often provokes significant reactions in the person being exorcized,” he told Mexican weekly Desde la Fe.

Fr. Babolin, who also taught at the Gregorian University in Rome, said that “in face of the failure of the onslaught by non-believers, now, in order to offend and confound the Catholic people, the Virgin Mary, whom the devil hates, is being attacked.”

Desde la Fe noted the recent events of the Spanish drag queen Borja Casillas, who masqueraded as the Virgin Mary and mocked her in a performance, as well as a woman who dressed up as the Virgin Mary and simulated an abortion during a protest in Argentina.

The Italian exorcist said that “as proof of this hatred” of the devil toward the Mother of God, “while I was insistently invoking the Most Holy Virgin Mary, the devil answered me: ‘I can’t stand That One (Mary) any more and neither can I stand you any more.’”

Fr. Babolin also noted that “the Second Vatican Council declares that Mary, daughter of Adam, in accepting the divine message, became the Mother of Jesus, and embracing with her whole heart and without the hindrance of any sin the saving will of God, consecrated herself totally, as the servant of the Lord, to the person and work of her Son.”

The priest pointed out the passage in the book of Genesis – which is evoked in the Rite of Exorcism – where God says to the serpent that “she will crush your head.”

In this ritual, he said, the exorcist says to the devil: “Most cunning serpent, you shall no more dare to deceive the human race, persecute the Church, torment God’s elect and sift them as wheat (…) The sacred Sign of the Cross commands you, as does also the power of the mysteries of the Christian Faith (…) The glorious Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, commands you; she who by her humility and from the first moment of her Immaculate Conception crushed your proud head.”

Fr. Babolin also said that “the strongest reactions” of the devil during the exorcism occur “when references are made to her apparitions.”

Because of this, he frequently pronounces the name of Holy Mary with her titles of Lourdes, Fatima or Guadalupe. In the latter case, he said, “I use this formula: ‘Holy Mary, Our Lady of Guadalupe, Queen of Tepeyac.’”

The exorcist warned that “the instrument the (the devil) normally uses to trap us is money, since it offers the possibility of satisfying the impulses that converge in pleasure and power.”

Satan “subjugates us to himself manipulating the truth and offering us his dazzling light, showing us his version of ‘freedom’ and promising us the instant gratification of our whims.”

“As far as interpersonal communication, the sense of sight overtakes the sense of hearing; and consequently the image over the word; that is to say, desire precedes reflection,” he said.

Fr. Babolin encouraged Catholics to denounce attacks on the faith as well as to organize and participate in prayer events, pray the Rosary, and participate in Masses at places where offenses were committed.

Indonesia should adopt measures to ensure state security forces who physically attack journalists are suspended and appropriately prosecuted, Human Rights Watch has said.

Research shows a disturbing increase in assaults on journalists in the past two years, the rights group said.

Irina Bokova, director-general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which chose Jakarta as global host for its annual World Press Freedom Day commemoration on May 3, should use the occasion to publicly address the increase in assaults on journalists and urge President Joko Widodo to take more decisive action in response, it said.

“World Press Freedom Day should be a time to celebrate the role journalists play in society, but in Indonesia the focus too often is on reporters’ fears,” said Phelim Kine deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

“The Indonesian government should reverse the dangerous deterioration of press freedom in the country and prosecute security force personnel who assault journalists.”

The Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI), a nongovernmental union, reported that there were 78 incidents in 2016 of violent attacks on journalists, including by security forces, compared with 42 in 2015, and 40 in 2014.

AJI found that the attackers have been brought to justice in only a very few of those 78 incidents.

Indonesia’s 1999 Press Law provides explicit protection for journalists, including up to two years in prison and fines of 500 million rupiah (US$44,000) for anyone who physically attacks a journalist.

The abuses included destruction of journalists’ equipment, harassment, intimidation, threats, and assault.

These abuses have occurred in all of Indonesia’s major islands, typically in provincial capitals and smaller cities. They are less common in Jakarta, where journalists are more aware of their rights and are supported by stronger professional organizations.

By Amir Taheri*

For four decades, Tehranis have heard so many weird slogans chanted in their streets that almost nothing comes as a surprise to them. Yet last week many Tehranis were surprised to hear a group of youths, all adorned with suitable beards, shouting: “Russian Embassy is a Nest of Spies!”

“Nest of Spies” was first launched in 1979 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as a label for the US Embassy which had been raided and which diplomats were held hostage by the so-called “Students Following the Lead of Imam.”

The operation that provoked a 444-day stand-off between Tehran and Washington had been quietly encouraged by KGB elements in Tehran working through the Tudeh (Communist) Party and its smaller left-wing affiliates as a means of driving the US out of Iran.

At the time, no one could imagine that one-day it would be the Russian Embassy’s turn to be thus labeled. True, Iran already has a history of raiding the Russian Embassy. In 1829, a mob, led by mullahs, attacked the Tsarist Embassy ostensibly to release two Georgian slave girls who had sought refuge there. Alexander Griboidev, the ambassador was seized, sentenced to death with a fatwa and beheaded. (Griboidev was more than a diplomat and had made a name as a poet and playwright.)

It is, of course, unlikely that the regime would allow anyone today to raid the Russian Embassy and seize its diplomats as hostages. Nevertheless, the anger expressed by the small bunch of demonstrators is real.

But why has the Russian Embassy become a target for militant anger some four decades later?

The question is all the more pertinent as the “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei has launched what he calls a “Looking East” strategy based on an alliance between Tehran and Moscow.

That strategy is in direct violation of Khomeini’s famous: “Neither East nor West” (Na sharqi, na gharbi!) slogan. Khomeini insisted that unless Russia converted to Islam, it should not expect to be treated any differently than other “infidel” powers. (The ayatollah sent a formal letter to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, inviting him to embrace Shiism.)

However, two years ago, in a four-hour long summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Khamenei agreed that his Islamic Republic would take no position on major international issues without “coordinating” with Moscow. That historic accord was quickly put into effect in Syria where Putin provided air cover for an alliance of forces assembled by Iran around the beleaguered President Bashar Assad.

Putin played a key role in exempting Iran from cuts in its oil production under an agreement between OPEC and non-OPEC producers to stabilize prices.

Putin also lifted the ban on sale of advanced surface-to-air missile systems that Iran says it needs to face any US air attack. At the same time, Moscow has done quite a lot to shield the Islamic Republic against further concessions on the thorny issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Putin went even further by tacitly acknowledging Iran’s lead in shaping policy toward Iraq and Afghanistan.

Working in favor of strategic alliance with Moscow are several elements within the Iranian regime. These include the remnants of the Tudeh, the People Fedayeen Militia and assorted groups of anti-West activists. However, the proposed alliance also enjoys support from powerful clerics who believe they need Russian support to face any future clash with the US.

“By courageously defending the Syrian government, Russia has proved it is a true friend,” says Ayatollah Muhammadi Golpayegani, who heads Khamenei’s personal Cabinet.

However, to sweeten the bitter pill of alliance with Russia, a power which has a 200-year long history of enmity and war with Iran, the mullahs also claim they could seize the opportunity to spread their brand of Islam in the Russian Federation where Shiite account for less than three percent of the estimated 30 million Muslims. (The only place where Shiites are in a majority is Darband in Dagestan.)

In his typically sly way, Putin has encouraged such illusions. He has promised to let Qom set up seminaries in both Darband and Moscow to train Russian Shiite mullahs. Putin has also set up something called “Strategic Committee for the Spread of Islam” led by Tatarstan’s President Rustam Minikhanov. (Tatarstan is the largest Muslim majority republic in the Russian federation.)

Having allegedly tried to influence the latest presidential election in the US and the current presidential election in France, Putin is also accused of trying to do the same in Iran.

Last week, he sent a 60-man delegation, led by Minikhanov, to Mash’had, Iran’s largest “holy” city to meet Ayatollah Ibrahim Raisi, the man regarded as one of the two candidates most likely to win the presidency.

Minikhanov was accompanied by Tatarstan’s Grand Mufti Kamil Sami Gulen who told reporters that Putin wants Iran and Russia to work together to “present the true face of Islam to young people” and “counter propaganda by terrorist circles.”

Kremlin-controlled satellite TV channels have played up the meetings, casting Raisi as a statesman of international standing.

However, to hedge his bets, Putin had already received the incumbent President Hassan Rouhani during a hastily arrange visit to Moscow last month. However, some observers claim that Putin regards Rouhani and his faction as “too close to the Americans.”

Some senior members of Rouhani’s administration who are rumored to be US citizens or holders of “Green Cards,” may cast doubt on their sincerity to embrace a strategic alliance with Moscow.

There are signs that not everyone in the regime is happy about tying Iran’s future to that of the Putin regime. The slogan “Russian Embassy is Nest of Spies” is just one small example of that unhappiness.

Other examples include a series of features published by the official media, including IRNA, about Russia historic aggression against Iran.

One curious feature published by IRNA even claimed that US President Harry S. Truman helped Iran recover two of its provinces occupied by Russian despot Stalin in 1946. Another feature, published by a news agency close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard narrates the “shameful” history of pro-Russian factions in Iran from the 19th century onwards.

An old Persian saying claims Russia is a big bear to admire from afar; if he embraces you he will crush you.

*Amir Taheri was executive editor in chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran from 1972 to 1979. He worked at, or wrote for innumerable publications and published 11 books.

The recent arrest of a number of administrators of Telegram social networking Channels continues to fuel tensions between Iran’s administration and the judiciary.

Telegram is a cloud-based instant messaging application popular in Iran in which Channels are used as a group platform where members can receive content from.

A total of 12 administrators that were running pro Rohani and pro reformist Telegram Channels were arrested in March 2017 and their Channels which were to become election advertising platforms were deleted.

Most presidential candidates in Iran are running their advertisements on Telegram and Rohani’s campaign has suffered multiple blows as a result of these arrests.

Among those arrested one person, Heydar Valizadeh was released on bail on 17 April.

The Rohani administration challenges the arrests while the judiciary has gone as far as accusing members of the Rohani cabinet of involvement in the alleged charges brought against the detainees – which include charges of acting against Iran’s national security.

The spokesman for the judiciary hardline cleric Mohammad Hossein Mohseni Ejei told a press conference that the Minister of Intelligence is not in a position to comment on the arrest of the Telegram site organizers implying that the minister himself is under suspicion for certain charges in this regard.

The intelligence minister Mahmoud Alavi responded briefly saying he is certain no offences were committed by the Telegram administrators.

Mohseni Ejei said last week that the government has been opposed to the arrest since the beginning adding that the Minister of Intelligence is not the appropriate source to determine whether an individual has committed an offence or not. “In connection with a specific file there are certain issues facing the minister of intelligence which means he cannot be the one investigating and reporting on the matter.”

The president’s office commented on the top judiciary official’s statements saying he should refrain from attacking the ministry of intelligence and maintain the appearance of unity in the branches of government in the best interests of the Islamic Republic regime.

The Rohani government has spoken out against the arrest of the Telegram administrators for the past weeks but the judiciary insists that the arrests have been carried out according to the law.

Mohseni Ejei claimed: “The detainees are facing security charges as well as charges of offending public morality and publishing obscene content.”

Prosecutor General Mohammad Jafar Montazeri had stated earlier that the arrests arise from “actions against national security”. He confirmed that certain government officials and MPs have demanded their release.

Later a group of progressive MPs called on the Minister of Intelligence to report to parliament on the reasons for the arrest of these individuals.

With the approach of the presidential elections in Iran, reformists and supporters of the Rohani administration are finding it difficult to run their campaign and reach out to the public with hardliners presenting obstacles against them at every turn.

In the last elections, reportedly the Rohani campaign was highly successful in using social networking sites to rally their supporters to get out and vote and the conservative factions are wary of similar trends in social media in the lead up to the coming presidential elections.

By Tristan Kenderdine

China’s bid to expand its economic presence in Eurasia – embodied in its “Belt and Road” initiative – requires a major upgrade of railway capacity, especially in Central Asia. Planning and implementing the upgrade entails significant challenges involving coordination, both domestically among various Chinese state agencies and entities, and internationally between China and Central Asian states.

The railway component of the Belt and Road is ambitious, with an abundance of moving parts. The concept relies on three trunk lines running through Central Asia. West Passage 1 exits from Xinjiang’s Alashankou (Khorgos), runs to Kazakhstan and moves on to a junction with Russia’s Trans-Siberian Railway. From there, the route can extend to the European Union via Belarus.

West Passage 2 exits Xinjiang’s Alashankou (Khorgos) and, via Kazakhstan, connects to Turkmenistan, Iran, Turkey and other countries, again with possible access to Europe; a branch also connects to the Caucasus via Kazakhstan and ferries across the Caspian Sea. Meanwhile, West Passage 3 connects China’s western city of Kashgar to Osh, in the Kyrgyz sector of the Ferghana Valley, via the Irkeshtam Pass. From there, the railway heads to Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Turkey, and beyond.

Another trunk line, not involving Central Asian states, is called East Passage 1. It connects the Inner Mongolian town of Erenhot to the Trans-Siberian railway, and from there to Europe.

(View charts of both existing and planned rail routes and border crossings).

So far, China’s efforts to address the coordination challenges have been hampered by a lack of a nuanced approach that accounts for the social and cultural sensitivities of its Central Asian neighbors.

In their dealings with Central Asian leaders, Chinese authorities have framed the Belt and Road in purely pragmatic, economic terms, calling it a “South-South” development policy that will produce a “win-win” economic situation for all involved. Many independent observers believe this appeal to pragmatism misses the point.

Politically, Central Asian states are not all “mini-Chinas” with centralized political systems. The political complexion of Central Asia involves a wide array of governance structures, varying core-periphery power relations with Moscow, and, in some states, complex relations between central and regional authorities.

Meanwhile in the socio-economic sphere, officials in Beijing do not seem to appreciate concerns among Central Asian leaders, who believe China’s massive economy is capable of overwhelming their own economies, and have a transformational effect on their societies.

Internally, three corridors are being developed within China to funnel trade outward via rail. The West corridor comprises the northwest, southwest, central and southern regions, utilizing the Lanzhou-Urumqi railway network. The North corridor comprises the north, central and southern regions of China and utilizes to south-north Beijing-Guangzhou rail network. The East corridor comprises the northeast, east, central and other regions, utilizing the Beijing-Shanghai and Harbin-Dalian railway clusters.

A major component of China’s approach to address logistical dilemmas is a policy dubbed “international production capacity cooperation.” The idea is to reduce domestic overcapacity and disperse Chinese production, and, in the process, reduce railway choke points that could hamper the efficient distribution of exports produced by Chinese firms.

Under the policy, Chinese firms are being encouraged to “go global” and move plants abroad. State-backed financial institutions are on notice to help whole domestic industry chains move offshore and to provide infrastructure investment in host countries that facilitates both the transit of exports, and the development of industrial capacity in those host countries.

Primary state responsibility for promoting the offshoring initiative will fall on provincial-level officials, backed by central planners. Chinese financial institutions are also creating financing mechanisms that will be available to provincial governments, which have their own Belt and Road policies that are supposed to be tailored to play to geographic, industrial-infrastructure and competitive-advantage strengths.

This strategy carries with it a couple of big risks. The biggest is perhaps a lack of institutional experience at the lower levels of China’s governing structure in dealing with counterparts abroad – something that could easily create a drag on the offshoring effort. If it is not handled deftly, China could end up exporting its problem of industrial overcapacity.

For China to keep the Belt and Road railway component on track, it needs provincial officials to be up to the task of negotiating intricate international deals, and it also needs the domestic financial system to hold steady. Chinese officials additionally should tweak their approach toward Central Asian states, acknowledging the diversity of the region and engaging neighbors in a way that is more culturally tactful.

Billed as a bid to stimulate inter-faith dialogue, Pope Francis, on a visit to Egypt, is tiptoeing through a religious and geopolitical minefield.

Designed to improve the fragile position of Christians and other minorities in the Middle East, North Africa and the larger Muslim world, the pope is walking a tightrope amid Saudi-inspired Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism that fuels intolerance and sectarianism across the region, and a power struggle between Egyptian general-turned-president Abdul Fattah Al-Sisi and Al Azhar, one of the world’s oldest and foremost seats of Islamic learning.

In a boost of Orthodox Christian morale, Pope Francis paid homage to the scores of victims of the bombing earlier this month of two Coptic churches shortly after becoming the first head of the Vatican to set foot in Egypt in 17 years. The bombings were the latest jihadist attacks on religious minorities in the Middle East and North Africa that has persuaded Christians and others to flee their home countries, if not the region.

The jihadist campaign is rooted in an intolerant, supremacist interpretation of Islam that traces its roots to the Arabian Peninsula long before Saudi Arabia was established as a state, offshoots of which have turned their violence as much on the kingdom as on others. It is further fuelled by increased Islamophobia abetted by the rise of anti-Muslim and anti-migration nationalism and populism across the globe.

It also feeds on autocratic leaders like Mr. Al-Sisi whose rule is based on brutal repression designed to mask their failure to deliver public services and goods or manage complex, politically risky transitions towards a post-oil era. These leaders have often abetted massive, decades-long Saudi funding of an ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim worldview that has embedded itself in Muslim communities across the globe, including Al Azhar.

Addressing a peace conference at Al Azhar, the pope urged his audience to “say once more a firm and clear ‘No!’ to every form of violence, vengeance and hatred carried out in the name of religion or in the name of God.” Pope Francis issued his call as Al Azhar was resisting efforts by Mr. Al-Sisi to persuade the institution to cut its ties to ultra-conservatism and reform its teachings.

In doing so, the pope was shining a spotlight on multiple complex battles for the soul of Islam as well as the survival of autocracy in the Middle East and North Africa. These battles include Saudi efforts to distance ultra-conservatism from its more militant, jihadist offshoots; resistance to reform by ultra-conservatives who no longer are wholly dependent on support of the kingdom; and strains in relations between Saudi Arabia and some of its closest Arab allies, including Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, that are fought in part over ultra-conservativism and political Islam.

Resistance to Mr. Al-Sisi’s calls for reform of Al Azhar is rooted not only in Saudi-inspired ultra-conservatism, but also an ingrained animosity towards government interference and the president’s high-handed approach. Mr. Al-Sisi, often prone to hyperbole and self-aggrandisement, threatened the university’s scholars in 2015 that he would complain to God if they failed to act on his demand for reform. “Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.,” Mr. Al-Sisi said.

Speaking months later to a German Egyptian community, Mr. Al-Sisi asserted that “God made me a doctor to diagnose the problem, he made me like this so I could see and understand the true state of affairs. It’s a blessing from God.”

Mr. Al-Sisi’s campaign against Al Azhar highlights the pitfalls of Saudi Arabia’s long-standing use of religious ultra-conservatism backed by its financial muscle as a soft power tool and the kingdom’s more recent efforts to shave off the rough edges of its ideology rooted in both religion and an austere Bedouin culture, and project it as open-minded, tolerant and peace-loving.

Mr. Al-Sisi rose to power in a Saudi-backed military coup in 2013 that toppled Mohammed Morsi, a Muslim Brother and Egypt’s first and only democratically elected president. Mr. Al-Sisi recently travelled to the kingdom to patch up differences over Syria, Yemen, Saudi unhappiness with his inability to whip Egypt’s troubled economy into shape, and his attempted crackdown on ultra-conservatism that led the kingdom to temporarily curtail economic support for his regime.

Among the pope’s interlocutors in Egypt, was former Egyptian grand mufti Al Goma, an advocate of a Saudi-propagated depoliticized form of Islam that pledges absolute obedience to the ruler, an opponent of popular sovereignty, and a symbol of the tension involved in adhering to both Saudi-inspired ultra-conservatism that serves the interests of the Saudi state, and being loyal to the government of his own country.

A prominent backer of Mr. Al-Sisi’s grab for power, Mr. Goma frequently espouses views that reflect Saudi-inspired ultra-conservatism. In an interview with MBC, a Saudi-owned media conglomerate, Mr. Goma recently asserted that women did not have the strength to become heart surgeons, serve in the military, or engage in sports likes soccer, body building, wrestling and weightlifting.

Mr. Goma’s remarks came as Saudi Arabia’s ultra-conservative religious establishment was fighting a backbench battle against efforts by Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman to slightly loosen the kingdom’s austere social and moral codes as part of an effort to upgrade Saudi autocracy and take it into the 21^st century as well as diversify and rationalize the economy.

Prince Mohammed’s plans laid out in his Vision 2030 plan involves a degree of greater inclusion of women in the workforce as well as greater sporting opportunities for women in a country that does not include physical education for girls in the curriculum of public schools, has no public sports facilities for women, and bans women from driving.

Pope Francis’ interlocutors in Cairo also included the imam of the Al-Azhar Grand Mosque, Ahmed El- Tayeb. A prominent Islamic legal scholar, who opposes ultra-conservatism and rejected a nomination for Saudi Arabia’s prestigious King Faisal International Prize, recalls Mr. El-Tayeb effusively thanking the kingdom during panels in recent years for its numerous donations to Al Azhar. Al Azhar scholars, the legal scholar said, compete “frantically” for sabbaticals in the kingdom that could last anywhere from one to 20 years, paid substantially better, and raised a scholar’s status.

“Many of my friends and family praise Abdul Wahab in their writing,” the scholar said referring to Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab, the 18th century religious leader whose puritan interpretation of Islam became the basis for the power sharing agreement between the kingdom’s ruling Al Saud family and its religious establishment. “They shrug their shoulders when I ask them privately if they are serious… When I asked El-Tayeb why Al Azhar was not seeing changes and avoidance of dogma, he said: ‘my hands are tied.’

To illustrate Saudi inroads, the scholar recalled being present when several years ago Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, a former grand mufti and predecessor of Mr. El-Tayeb as imam of the Al Azhar mosque, was interviewed about Saudi funding. “What’s wrong with that?” the scholar recalls Mr. Tantawy as saying. Irritated by the question, he pulled a check for US$100,000 from a drawer and slapped it against his forehead. “Alhamdulillah (Praise be to God), they are our brothers,” the scholar quoted Mr. Tantawy, who was widely seen as a liberal reformer despite misogynist and anti-Semitic remarks attributed to him, as saying.

In an illustration of the sometimes contradictory pressures emanating from ties to ultra-conservatism at a time that the Saudi-inspired worldview is on the defensive, Mr. El-Tayeb together with Mr. Goma last year attended a UAE and Russian-backed conference in the Chechen capital of Grozny that had Mr. Al-Sisi’s tacit support. The conference put Saudi Arabia on the spot with its condemnation of ultra-conservatism as deviant and exclusion from its definition of Sunni Muslim Islam.

The conference and Mr. Al-Sisi’s self-serving kickback at ultra-conservatism illustrates the tightrope the pope walks as he seeks to further inter-faith dialogue in a bid to counter the threat to Christians and other minorities in the Middle East, North Africa and the Muslim world and position the church as a bastion in the fight against Islamophobia.

The pope’s problem in Egypt is manoeuvring between problematic partners: Mr. Al-Sisi with his brutal repression that threatens to enhance rather than limit ultra-conservatism and militancy or Islamic scholars torn between the influence of Saudi Arabia’s ultra-conservative religious establishment and their adherence to Saudi-backed notions of obedience to the ruler that dictates as well as complicates their relationship with an Egyptian leader who positions himself somewhere between them and God.

The first 100 days of the Trump Presidency have come to an end.

By Paul Isbell*

Donald Trump’s first 100 days as President have been full of high drama and controversy. While the President has attempted to push a number of his campaign proposals onto the domestic agenda, so far there has been no major legislation passed. His most high-profile executive orders are currently blocked in the courts. His Administration’s tone on trade policy has dramatically moderated, and while the rhetoric on foreign policy bounces back and forth between ‘Jacksonian’ and ‘neorealist’, actual diplomacy has played the good cop, bringing the US posture back to something very close to the pre-Trump status quo. But North Korea is threatening war and President Trump might have to celebrate his first 100 days on Saturday after his government shuts down on Friday… unless the President, or his men, broker a deal.

Analysis

Introduction

The outline of the first 100 days of the Trump Administration –or the first 6.8% of the Trump Presidency– is now at least vaguely clear to all who have been observing it.

To some conservative and libertarian commentators, Trump’s first months have been characterised by bold yet rational politics, by a coherent logic in conception and by a competent flexibility and a dogged insistence in execution. Most of these colleagues have also apologised for a number of Trumpisms –which previously in the post-Wall period would likely have been considered outrageous enough for disqualification or simply legally unacceptable– by an easy and reasonable appeal to the ‘learning curve’.

Such apologists for Trump, his policies and actions thus far, and the performance of his Administration, clearly live within –or yearn for– the famed ‘heartland’ bubble. This is not to deny that nearly everyone else on the planet –some 7 billion souls or so– also live within their own respective bubble(s). But these others, including over half of all Americans, should be forgiven for perceiving that Donald Trump is simply riding the whirlwind –just as Lawrence of Arabia once did–. But because Trump appears to act more like a Peter Sellers than a Peter O’Toole, everyone should keep in mind that we are all riding the whirlwind with him.

The policy and political terrain

After an unconventional Inaugural Address –clearly the most gnarly, for lack of a better word, in the annals of US history, even considering Andrew Jackson– Trump proceeded to invoke his ‘travel ban’ on those attempting to enter the US from six Muslim countries. The executive order landed immediately in the courts, where his second attempt is now also bogged down as unconstitutional.

The new ‘American Health Care Act’ then died in the Republican-held congress where the party centre no longer seems to hold against the centrifugal forces exerted by its respective diverging wings: the conservative and libertarian Freedom House caucus, on the one side, and a budding moderate centrist grouping, on the other. In any event, the ill-fated, first attempt of House Speaker Paul Ryan to replace the ACA (also known as ‘Obamacare’) with a new Republican plan would have amounted to little more than a transfer of income to the relatively-wealthy from the middle and lower classes.

The new version, which is still being cobbled together, is basically the same as the original, say some of its new-found conservative backers, but it does allow states to opt out of requiring insurance companies to share in ‘cost reductions’ –the Obamacare subsidies and other regulatory protections that the Freedom Caucus wants reduced, if not eliminated altogether, and that the moderate wing is very reluctant to see go–. Although there is talk of rearticulating another bill to quickly replace the clearly misunderstood Obamacare, it is unlikely that anything of significance will happen on this front anytime soon.

However, the Senate did manage to eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, so Trump’s pick to fill the late Judge Scalia’s vacant seat, Neil Gorsuch, has finally been confirmed by the Senate. The dominant line argues that this secures a conservative majority on the court, and that this new equilibrium of forces might free up some of Trump’s legally-challenged executive orders (like those concerning travel and immigration, and perhaps others to come) from the restraint of the judicial branch, as well as help secure the boundaries of a more conservative political space, in general, within the country.

Yet the major campaign issues on the domestic front –immigration, health care and trade protectionism– have essentially stalled, and been sent back to the end of the long line of campaign promises. For such issues to get another chance to bat would inevitably require a long uphill series of political compromises, a ‘dance of legislation’ that would eventually hammer any such bills into an at least recognisably ‘Republican’ shape. In any event, nothing really new can come out of the Congress with its current geopolitical configuration. On the other hand, the Justice Department, under Jeff Sessions, can and is pursuing more aggressive deportation. But that, too, can be stopped and bogged down by the courts.

Even Trump’s protectionist trade policy –his tariff threats to China and Mexico, and other smoke signals of economic warfare, with their dual domestic and international dimensions– has now been pushed farther back in the line of the Administration’s concerns. Very possibly, at Mar-a-Lago, Trump agreed to drop the economic hostility towards China, if China would bring North Korea back from the nuclear brink. Perhaps Xi Jinping even agreed to let Trump take credit for it, so that the latter might be able to distract away, by such sleight-of-hand, any resulting disappointment or bafflement among his staff and advisors and among his electoral base (many of whom have been enthusiastically expecting a new rapprochement with Russia in a combined military fight against ISIS and possibly even a collaborative containment of China and an end to the ‘global liberal-democratic order’). In addition, Trump just conceded to Mexico that NAFTA would not be scrapped but merely renegotiated (as it probably would have been, at some stage, with or without Trump).

Energy policy is the one realm where Trump started out as ‘standard Republican’ –striving for energy independence and favouring domestic fossil fuels–. So far, he has not wavered from such a position and so far he can claim a Pyrrhic victory. Trump’s energy independence executive order began the long haul of overturning most of Obama’s energy and climate policies. But the ‘standard Republican’ energy policy is both rickety and redundant. Such supply side measures –ie, easier fiscal and access conditions for domestic fossil fuel producers, along with significant reduction in energy regulation in general– will offer some business opportunities to those in the right place at the right time within the US fossil heartlands. But the biggest effect of Trump’s new energy policies will be to boost natural gas production, a development that will doom coal as surely as the chainsaw doomed Paul Bunyan.

Indeed, the totality of Trump’s energy policy will ultimately mean very little for domestic oil production, which now more than ever ebbs and flows with world price –which in turn (n)OPEC can influence sometimes, but only in the short run, and at the margin, even when the principal fossil fuel producers of the Great Crescent effectively cooperate to restrict supply–.

We are also told that clarification of Trump’s position on the Paris accord will arrive soon; but it in the end, this too will matter little. The battle for dominance of the global political economy between fossil fuels and renewable energies and low-carbon technologies will be played out on the ground-level of local policy landscapes and on the field of straight-up economic competition. It is a battle between the learning curves of the Trump Administration and the traditional energy sector and the learning curves of the low carbon transition and sustainable agriculture and land-use communities.

Trump’s tax plan continues to swing, like a rhetorical pendulum, between a potentially-middle-class- empowering approach and one which will reward basically, only the rich. Of course, there might be an annual income tax cut of couple of thousand dollars, on average, per family (and no more), which might be scattered like crumbs to the bottom 90%. Vast sums, in comparison, would go to the already rich. The same cloud of mystery – will this policy be conceived of for the large corporations and investors, or for the people? –  hangs over the proposed ‘infrastructure plan,’ still languishing in the long line of Trump campaign promises for the first ‘100 days.’

The Administration’s budget outline suggests standard small-government, even Scrooge-like Republicanism, along with standard Cold War-style patriotism: the major cuts are targeted at the EPA (a 31% cut) to the greater benefit of the Pentagon (a 10% increase, of US$54 billion). Trump seems particularly bent on starving off the State Department. It is not just that the State Department would suffer a 24% budget cut under Trump’s current budget outlines; it is also the department where most of the President’s executive appointments remain vacant.

Perhaps all the President needs is Rex Tillerson. And perhaps Tillerson only needs his personal staff. Perhaps certain kinds of patriotism have now been deemed to be, truly, the last refuge of a scoundrel –like the ‘patriotism’ of those who assume that the benign hegemon of the world (or the closest thing to it) requires an active and engaged professional diplomacy–.

But then, behold: ExxonMobil has just applied for an exemption from US sanctions on Russia which bar the way to an exploratory drilling project in the Black Sea with Rosneft. Sanctions have reportedly cost Exxon hundreds of millions of dollars on this project, negotiated and signed back in 2011. Exxon claims to be motivated by the fact that ENI, the Italian oil company whose government has already granted it an exemption to certain Russian sanctions, could soon take their place in the 33% stake in the reserve, estimated to be as large as 7 billion barrels.

The Treasury Department has the lead role in considering Exxon’s application, and Rex Tillerson has recused himself at State (which also plays a secondary role in the approval process) from any decisions affecting the interests of the company from which he has just stepped down after a decade as its CEO. Would Trump allow for such an exemption? If he thinks it could be used as a bargaining chip in his deal making with Putin, then probably, yes.

To top it all off, now another government shutdown looms. April 29th corresponds not only with the end of the first 100 days as President for Donald Trump; the government will also shut down on that date –as current government appropriations expire then– unless an extension can pass the Republican majority-held House and Senate. Trumps wants enough Democrats to vote for the funds for his ‘border wall’ (enough, that is, to overcome the filibuster requirement in the Senate, plus any recalcitrant Republicans, meaning at least eight). But the Democrats en masse cannot avoid pointing to Trump’s proposed spending cuts at the EPA, the Department of State, etc (see above), and they are standing firm, at least for the moment.

In any event, it is not at all clear that the Republicans themselves can or will unify, even on this issue, even if that means that a Republican-held Congress and White House might actually shut themselves down, along with the other branches of federal government.

Can such a ‘hegemon’ remain ‘benign’? Can such a ‘benign’ nation remain a ‘hegemon’?

Meanwhile, in the foreign policy realm, the executives and the generals have restored relative calm along the frontiers of US global reach, claiming now essentially the opposite of what Trump had been saying about US global policy since the beginning of his campaign. Tillerson, Mattis and Pence have all made the rounds in Europe and Asia to reassure the allies that not much has really changed and that NATO is not obsolete. Commitments to allies in the Middle East, Asia and Europe are, for the moment, secure.

General Flynn was also replaced with Lieutenant-General Herbert McMaster at the head of the NSC. Syria has been lashed for using chemical weapons, Russia has been confronted again for allowing it, and China has been, at least for the moment, embraced. Meanwhile, Trump launches thinly-veiled threats of war at one of the smaller countries of the world. But then, he has also just petitioned the UN Security to place sanctions on North Korea.

How should the Allies interpret all of this? If Trump has been fast and furious on the domestic front, he has essentially inverted all of his initial (if admittedly thin) initial positions on foreign policy, even if in only an unreliably superficial or temporary way. Are these just deal-making feints? Maybe. Such appearances could shift again, as Trump continually searches for his deals, and fitfully chases the ratings.

For now, the would-be new strongman ally, Vladimir Putin, may not be feeling Trump’s love, but he hasn’t batted an eyelid any differently than he normally would have. After all, he still controls the keys to the coveted Eurasian heartland. And while Russia cannot single-handedly undermine the low carbon transition, it has more to gain from climate change, in the first order of things, than any of the other ‘great powers’. However, with enough US collusion, Russia could ensure climate-induced and geopolitically-abetted global instability for as long as the current horizon holds. This alone tells us that Russia must be dealt with –and, yes, engaged, somehow–.

Trump’s approval ratings

Perhaps the sensation of being led by the President from one carnival fun ride to another, only to come full circle, obeys no rhyme or reason except that of following the path of least resistance. Perhaps one of the keys to code-breaking Trump’s likely future directions can be found in his net approval ratings.

From the end of January through February, all through the travel ban and immigration controversies, Trump’s performance ratings steadily deteriorated. On 27 January the net approval rating of the President’s job performance –admittedly only a week into the job– was plus 0.1% (according to the average of polls tabulated by RealClearPolitics, which sums positive and negative appraisals). However, by 1 March, five weeks later, it was a negative 6.8%.

Trump’s ratings moderately improved and steadied during the first half of March (rising to a negative 4%) but they began to plummet again by mid-month and continued to deteriorate until 9 April (as the health care bill failed, and as the controversy over Trump’s links to Russia flared), when his ratings fell to a trough of 13.5% net disapproval.

Just two days before, Trump ordered the surprise strike against the Syrian airbase while meeting with Chinese President Xi in Florida. In the ensuing period to the present, the Trump Administration has confronted Putin, bombed Afghanistan and has met North Korean sabre-rattling with its own version of sabre-rattling: a somewhat amusing failure of North Korea’s ballistic missile test launch was matched by a somewhat perplexing deployment of US naval power (which took one of the longer routes available) and a counter-series of threats from Trump officials, which suggested the US is willing to wage military conflict with North Korea.

And suddenly Trump’s approval ratings improved: from 13.5% net disapproval to only 8% on 17 April.

A week later, however, by 23 April –after the development of a budget showdown between the President and Congressional Democrats over the funding of the ‘border wall’ (which could easily shut the government down), along with a number of mixed messages sent by the Justice Department and the White House concerning whether the so-called ‘Dreamers’ had reason to fear deportation– Trump’s net approval rating had dropped back down to 9.5%.

This was also a week of marches in support of science and of protests demanding the President reveal his tax returns. It also became public that billionaires, corporations and NFL owners contributed to Trump’s inaugural ceremonies in such abundance that twice as much was ultimately spent as on Obama’s inaugurations (previously the record high). Finally, it was also revealed that Trump’s entourage has been spending more than any previous White House and by a fair margin.

It is possible that the President and his ‘men’ will simply improvise and experiment in their chase for the ratings. So far, domestic policy forays tend to hurt Trump in the polls; however, his big early-to-mid April bump seems to have been driven primarily by displays of Jacksonian power from the White House and feints of ‘neo-realism’ from the Pentagon and the NSC. Perhaps this explains the recent focusing of Trump’s ‘Jacksonian’ energies in the direction of North Korea. But it might just all be a ‘two-step’ dance between domestic policy forays (little Gallipolis) which eat into his ratings, on the one hand, and displays of strength and resolve abroad, on the other hand, which in turn tend to salvage them.

Trump’s tax plan was released on Wednesday 26 April. A brief outline short on details, it looks a lot like barbecued steaks for the rich and corporate world, and mere droppings to the masses. So far, he is asking for a reduction in the corporate tax from 35% to 15% (without specifying the elimination of any corporate loopholes), a massive break for companies. For individuals, however, the only concrete break specified would be a doubling of the standard individual deduction; but one of the most important current individual deductions –that for state and local taxes paid– would likely be eliminated, effectively neutralising the cut.

One potentially important middle-class benefit could come from a different treatment of small businesses, many proprietors of which must treat their profits as individual income. Trump’s plan would treat such ‘pass through’ companies as corporations, thereby effectively reducing their top marginal income tax rate from 39.5% to the proposed corporate rate of 15%. However, the vague and incomplete plan, when combined with Trump’s spending proposals, so far revenue neutral, would produce a federal deficit of US$1 to US$2 trillion, depending how much of a boost to growth it would actually generate. All of this must be horse traded and approved by the Congress, and only then will one know where Trump is really heading. The fate of the Exxon petition for its Black Sea exemption from Russian sanctions will be another bell weather of the actual direction in which Trump’s fleets are sailing.

Furthermore, the second try at the American Health Care Act has also recently been announced for this week. All of this comes at the same time the showdown in the Congress over the extension of expiring government appropriations –ie, the immediate funding of the federal state apparatus– is expected to reach a dramatic climax over the remaining days of the week. It could easily be the case that the finale of Trump’s first 100 days –the first fifteenth, more or less, of his ‘first’ term– could end with nothing more tangibly accomplished than… a self-inflicted government shutdown.

Conclusions

A murky foreground to the horizon

Regardless of the battle –or the shell game– over who Trump really is, or what his trade or foreign policy might eventually become, the only agendas that seem to be moving forward are those of (aspiring) authoritarian states and the globally-reaching corporate world. Every wish of Trump’s that he has moved forward on –as well as every wish on which he has not– has turned the tables, or kept them stable, to the convenience of the corporate world, the investor class, and the growing club of nationalist authoritarians –at least so far–.

The increasing confusion and ginned-up enmity within the public square have served to pull a convenient screen in front of the yearnings and ambitions of both the strong men and those with (nearly) all the money. These are the men, it seems, with whom Trump would like to play poker. And he seems to be talking up a new set of informal rules which would allow them –and only them– to seat themselves at his table, to play some hands of G-Trump.

By the end of the game things might not look so pretty anymore. But we will have come full circle. The corporate world stands poised at the brink, yet again, waiting to see the outcome between the ‘great power’ players they have staked before pouncing in the direction of the next spoils. But although we may be stepping back into the same old river, we know the waters are different. Now Donald Trump is President and the North Koreans seem to believe they can launch a nuclear strike on the US.

For those already playing Trump’s new form of ‘dealer’s choice’ poker, they should watch again James Caan in the original ‘Rollerball’. However, those still playing the antiquated game of chess should have another look at Doctor Strangelove. Everyone else should check out the sublime Charlton Heston in The Omega Man.

For the Allies? Patience and determination, unity and cunning, of course. But as a Roman might have put it upon Alaric’s approach, auribus teneo lupum –that is, they must try ‘to hold the wolf by the ears’–. And, as an allied Celt might have reminded him, dulcius ex asperis –all is ‘sweeter after difficulties’–. In other words, the Allies will need to play chess and poker at the same time. But there will be time to learn, as the games are just beginning.

About the author:
*Paul Isbell, Senior Research Fellow, Elcano Royal Institute, and Senior Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relations, JHU SAIS | @SeaChangeIsbell

Source:
This article was published by Elcano Royal Institute

On January 15, 2017, Security Forces (SFs) in Kerala warned that the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) was planning a coordinated movement of its urban and rural forces to strengthen its activities in India’s southern States, mainly in Kerala. SFs made this claim on the basis of the review report of the CPI-Maoist’s ‘South Zonal Committee’ (SZC), retrieved by the Police from the site of the November 24, 2016, Nilambur encounter. The report asserted that the Maoists had been able to defeat ‘enemy’ plans and successfully organize their meeting in the forests of the ‘tri-junction area’ – connecting Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu – under the protection of People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA) Forces, and with the ‘support’ and ‘participation’ of people.

A ‘central committee (CC) member’ of the CPI-Maoist, Kuppuswamy Devarajan aka Shanker, and Ajitha aka Kaveri, a woman leader, were killed in an encounter with the Police inside the Nilambur forests in Malapuram District on November 24, 2016. Giving details, Director General of Police (DGP) Loknath Behera stated on December 3, 2016, that it was the Maoists who fired at the Police Force first. He further disclosed that the Maoists had fired at the Police seven times in the preceding two years and had raided houses of Adivasis on several occasions, though, “Fortunately, there were no casualties.”

On January 2, 2017, Police received evidence that the CPI-Maoist, with the ‘support’ of tribal people, had taken control of some forest land along the Kerala and Tamil Nadu border, cutting down hundreds of trees. A series of video clip, released by the Police, showed armed CPI-Maoist and tribal people removing trees in the forest and installing a CPI-Maoist flag in the area. Police suspect that the area shown in the video is the Agali Forest region of Palakkad District.

Though there has been no Maoist-linked fatality in the State in 2017 thus far, (data till March 5, 2017), developments through 2016 indicate that Maoist activities are on the rise. According to partial data collated by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), Kerala recorded two Maoist-related fatalities (both Maoist cadres) in 2016. Both these fatalities took place in the Nilambur encounter. There was no LWE-linked fatality in 2015. One Maoist was killed in 2014.

Though there was no violent action targeting civilians through 2016, there were several reported incidents of expansion activity, including:

March 29, 2016: An armed group of suspected CPI-Maoist cadres visited a tribal colony at Pattakkarimbu in Malapuram District and convened a meeting of the locals in which the group ‘urged’ the people to boycott the Kerala Assembly elections, which were held on May 16, 2016.

September 26, 2016: A group of seven armed CPI-Maoist cadres, consisting of six men and a woman, conducted a ‘class’ for the tribal people at Mundakkadavu Adivasi (Scheduled Tribe) Colony’s community hall in Mallapuram District. Police said the meeting was convened by the group’s leader Soman. The meeting had not ended when the Police reached the colony and, on seeing the Police, the armed group escaped through the back exit, using the Adivasis as human shields and shouting Maoist slogans.

October 28, 2016: CPI-Maoist cadres operating in the Nilambur area in Mallapuram District issued warnings to those who were acting as ‘informers’ of the Police and other intelligence agencies. This was disclosed in the first issue of Chenkad (Red Forest), the ‘official’ mouthpiece of the Nadukani squad of the CPI-Maoist.

December 8, 2016: A couple of hand-made posters by the CPI-Maoist Bhavani Dalam (armed squad), alleging that the State Government was trying to suppress the Naxals, surfaced at Mele Ommathampatti at Pudur Panchayat (village level local self-Government institution) in Attappady in Palakkad District. The posters demanded the withdrawal of the Kerala Thunderbolts (the Kerala Police elite commando force) from Attappady.

According to Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA) data, at least 12 LWE-linked incidents were recorded in Kerala in 2016, as against no such incident in 2015. The State registered eight such incidents in 2014.

Further, according to SATP data, the Maoists were engaged in three reported exchange of fire incidents in 2016, as against two such incidents in 2015, and two in 2014.

Based on SATP data for 2016, six Districts in the State were Maoist-affected. These include Mallapuram, Idukki, Kasargod, Palakkad, Thrissur and Wayanad. While Mallapuram can be categorized as moderately affected, the other five were marginally affected. In 2015, nine Districts in the State, viz., Alappuzha, Ernakulam, Thrissur, Palakkad, Malappuram, Kozhikode, Wayanad, Kannur and Kasaragod, were categorized as marginally affected. On March 1, 2016, Union Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary, stated in the Lok Sabha (Lower House of the Indian Parliament) that activities and presence of Maoists had been noticed from the Wayanad, Kozhikode, Kannur, Mallapuram, Palakkad and Ernakulam Districts of Kerala since 2013.

Six of these Districts – Wayanad, Kozhikode, Kannur, Malapuram, Palakkad and Ernakulam – in Kerala fall along the Karnataka-Kerala-Tamil Nadu tri-junction area. Significantly, the Maoists had merged with the Communist Party of India-Marxist Leninist – Naxalbari (CPI-ML-Naxalbari), under the CPI-Maoist banner, on May 1, 2014, with the aim of securing a foothold in the Karnataka-Kerala-Tamil Nadu tri-junction area. The CPI-ML-Naxalbari had, for long, an independent presence in Kerala, and the Maoists believed that the merger would provide them the resources and manpower needed to spread their influence in this strategic region.

Further, informing the Lok Sabha on February 24, 2015, Kiren Rijiju, Union Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs, had stated that, in order to spread their area of influence, CPI-Maoist was making efforts to spread its influence in South India, particularly on the tri-junction of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka.

In spite of these intentions, levels of violence in the region have remained low. This is primarily because SFs have played a significant role in containing the ‘Maoist movement’ across the country and also preventing them from expanding their base in other areas. However, the Maoist intent has also played a part in this outcome. Media reports on January 24, 2017, indicated that a letter suspected to be written by a CPI-Maoist Central Committee or politburo member had warned ‘comrades operating the tri-junction area’ in South India against launching attacks on the Police, as the leadership thought such an action would be detrimental to the organisation at the current stage of the movement in the region. Consistent with their broader strategy and tactics, the Maoists seek a far greater and sustainable consolidation before escalating violence.

The State Government has, nevertheless, taken clear cognizance of the emerging threat. On February 27, 2017, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan informed the State Assembly that the Unified Command formed under his leadership to contain the spread of Maoist activities in the State was also mandated to focus on operations against Maoist sympathisers in the State. The Unified Command would also serve as a forum to review developmental activities in the Maoist-affected areas of the State.

The Kerala Government constituted the Unified Command under the Chief Minister on January 17, 2017, as suggested by the Union Government, to contain the spread of Maoist activities in the State.

On December 3, 2016, State DGP Loknath Behera, acknowledged that the Maoist threat was on the rise in Kerala along the tri-junction area.

Though the Kerala Police has been quite effective against the incipient threat of a spreading Maoist presence and activities, it is useful to acknowledge enduring capacity deficits that make its task difficult. According to the latest data provided by the Bureau of Police Research and Development [BPR&D], as on January 1, 2016, the State had 53,881 policemen, as against a sanctioned 60,502 policemen, leaving 6,621 police posts vacant, a deficit of 10.94 per cent. Further, at least 41 Indian Police Service (IPS) posts were vacant in the State, against a sanctioned strength of 163 – a deficit of a 25.15 per cent. Also, the Police/Area Ratio (number of policemen per 100 square kilometers) is 138.64, as against the sanctioned strength of 155.68 – a deficit of 10.94 per cent. However, the all-India ratio stands at 54.69 per 100 square kilometres, as against a sanction of 72.03. Such deficits will eventually impact adversely on the State’s capacity to contain the Maoists and must be urgently addressed.

By Alessandro Bruno

The presidents of Libya’s two parliaments met in Rome as part of an Italian sponsored initiative to resume a reunification process. The Speaker of the Tobruk House of Representatives (HoR) parliament from Tobruk, Aghila Saleh, and Abdulrahman Sewehli, the head of the High Council of State in Tripoli. The latter serves as the Parliament of the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA – as part of the December 2015 Skhirat Accord) headed by Prime Minister Fayaz al-Sarraj). Abdulrahman Sewehli seemed optimistic at the end of his April 21st meeting with Italy’s foreign affairs minister Angelino Alfano. Saleh, has who has been president of the HoR since August 2014, has been subject to US and EU sanctions since 2016 for stalling and blocking political progress

The meeting did not produce any formal agreements, but it appears to have improved the prospect of more constructive discussions to resolve “pending” issues in the Libyan crisis. The two representatives agreed to meet again. The fact that Italy’s ambassador to Libya, one of the few EU diplomats in the North African country, also attended the talks, underlines the extent to which Rome wants the parties to reach a solution, such that the GNA might finally achieve a sufficient degree of sovereignty. Italy’s prime minister recently visited Washington, where he discussed Libya to gauge the extent of President Trump’s interest in taking a more active stance – as Obama had done – in backing the GNA and Prime Minister al-Sarraj’s efforts to extend its reach. However, Trump’s enthusiasm in this regard was less than lukewarm.

That leaves Moscow. The Russians are doubtless interested in reclaiming a role in Libya, perhaps gaining a naval base in Cyrenaica, and extending their influence in the eastern Mediterranean. To that end, Vladimir Putin’s government has kept Marshal Khalifa Haftar and the Tobruk (HoR) close. But, the Russians have also held talks with the HoR’s Tripolitanian rivals to find an acceptable solution to the crisis. For Russia, Libya might serve as a lever for diplomatic leverage. For, the EU and Italy, which endures the largest burden of illegal migration from the Libyan coast, Russia might contribute to a solution.

The Libyan Summit in Rome shows that reconciliation is not impossible

It would be premature – stability is at the ‘toddler’ stage at best – to suggest the Government of National Accord has reached a breakthrough. Libya is still far from even a precarious stability. But, the renewed diplomatic effort to resolve the GNA puzzle may have a chance of achieving a reasonable facsimile. The Tripoli government, led by Al Sarraj, which is the only one that the UN (and the EU) has formally recognized, remains vulnerable. But, Russia seems ready to return to North Africa, having courted but not formally recognized the Tobruk HoR, elected in 2014. Until last March, when Moscow and Washington appeared to have found a common language, General Haftar was counting on a double ‘whammy’ of support from Trump and Putin.

Gen. Haftar fought Islamic State in Cyrenaica, also using his small air force to attack the Islamic militants in Sirte and Misrata. Haftar himself enjoys direct backing from President al-Sisi of Egypt as well as the United Arab Emirates, and does not recognize the authority of the government of national unity established in Tripoli. Yet, as of April 6, when Trump launched Tomahawk missiles against a Syrian air base in response to the al-Assad government’s alleged use of chemical weapons, it seems something got lost in translation between the White House and the Kremlin. As for al-Sarraj’s government, it has never been able to impose its authority on the capital, where at least a dozen militias remain active and alliances and areas of influence shift continuously. Fayez Al Serraj remains a weak prime minister of a government that has not established its rule. From a practical point of view, Serraj’s government, even after the Rome meeting, has yet to secure political legitimacy from the House of Representatives (HoR) in Tobruk.

In this scenario, Aghila Saleh and Haftar might be persuaded to come to terms with the GNA. Both fear that with the legitimation of Serraj, their roles, without American backing, are destined to carry less international weight. Now the UN-sponsored government administers some three quarters of Libya’s territory on paper. That is all of Libya except for Cyrenaica where the ‘unrecognized’ HoR is based. Moreover, Serraj has secured the support of three key institutions: The National Oil Company (NOC), the Central Bank and the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA). These are remnants of the Qadhafi regime and they control the clear majority of Libya’s assets. LIA managed some $70 billion euros, which during the time of Qadhafi, Libya invested virtually all over the world. That money is still being withheld, but would be released once stability is achieved. The funds, oil revenue, and the Central Bank’s coffers, will all be used to pay for reconstruction.

Haftar and Saleh wanted to create an alternative LIA and even another NOC in Cyrenaica, but oil production is too weak to support these projects. Thus, The Tobruk government had little choice but to try to reach a compromise with Tripoli. As much as Haftar can count on Russian and other international support for his efforts to combat Islamic State, Moscow cannot play all its cards on a Libyan bet. Still, Haftar and Saleh might yet secure some lofty roles within the GNA if they play along.

The Libyan summit in Rome is significant because it’s the first ever meeting between the Tripoli and Tobruk rival authorities. The Italian government, meanwhile, appears to have taken a responsibility to fulfill the Libyan political agreement. The two sides agreed on achieving a peaceful and fair solution to issues focused on the country’s interests, national reconciliation, and the repatriation of all Libyan refugees and displaced persons. Tripoli and Tobruk can now begin consultations to amend the GNA agreement to help resolve the Libyan stalemate, including the role that General Haftar will play. The Rome ‘Libyan’ summit could also serve as the platform for a more important meeting as early as this summer between Sarraj and Haftar in Washington, with President Trump. That meeting could settle a reconciliation between the two Libyan leaders. Europe fears the Libyan refugee ‘bomb.’ The country, as it stands now, faces a constant risk of implosion. Collapse would mean an exponential rise in the already dramatic migration phenomenon.

Washington’s absence in Libya is an opportunity for Moscow

While Trump may appreciate the glory of playing intermediary in a Tobruk-Tripoli reconciliation, he doesn’t want to put any effort into attaining it. He will let the EU handle it, and give American assent when everything is ready. Trump does not see a US role in resolving the Libyan crisis. Italy’s PM, Paolo Gentiloni, tried to draw some American attention to the problem of security in the Mediterranean during his visit to Washington. But he came back empty-handed. The White House no longer cares about the Libyan problem, which the U.S. itself helped to trigger with its 2011 NATO intervention. For Trump, Libya is Obama’s and, especially, Hillary’s problem. The possibility that jihadist militias might grow stronger was, incidentally, one of the arguments that Gentiloni discussed with Trump to persuade the president not to ignore the Libya file. Trump confirmed that if the threat were to come back, he would not hesitate to intervene. But, the task of shaping a political solution to the crisis would be left to the EU and Italy. Perhaps at the forthcoming May 2017 G7 Summit in Taormina Italy, Italy’s PM might try to persuade Trump to intervene, noting that Russia is backing Haftar. He might wish, in passing, to mention that it might not be in Washington’s interest to allow Putin to grab more influence in the Mediterranean.

As recently revealed by The Guardian, even a top candidate for the role of US Special Envoy to Libya, Sebastian Gorka, urged the partition of Libya into three, on the basis of the Ottoman-era administrative divisions of Cyrenaica, Fezzan, and Tripolitania. The EU would find that hard to accept, given all the efforts in trying to keep Libya whole such as to better control the migration problem.  Migrant landings in Italy are incessant and continue to rise, marking a 40% increase compared to 2016. But, Haftar seems the only one capable of suppressing the Islamist wave. As for Moscow, Haftar’s ally (the Libyan General even speaks Russian), it might be the better capital for the Italian PM to visit to secure more support in mediating the Libyan crisis. Al-Serraj’s visit to Russia on March 2 certainly suggests the Kremlin is keeping all options open in Libya, especially the idea of a unity government. Putin would work with Italy in that regard and get some concessions on sanctions and Ukraine in return. Italy has this one chance. It should mediate an intra-Libyan agreement with Moscow. It should be noted that Russia has also held bilateral talks with Algeria, which has a strong influence in Libya, on security issues.

This article was published at Geopolitical Monitor.com

By Georgi Gotev

(EurActiv) — At French President François Hollande’s last press conference at a European summit today (29 April), EURACTIV.com asked the last question: The EU will obviously survive Brexit, but could the EU survive if France takes another course after the second round of the presidential election on 7 May?

Hollande said that voters in France must decide their future in Europe in the 7 May presidential vote, which pits Europhile candidate Emmanuel Macron against the anti-EU Marine Le Pen.

“Why is the entire Europe looking at France? This was the case before the first round [of the presidential elections on 23 April], it is the case before the second round,” Hollande said.

“Why such attention, such vigilance, even such worry? If France was to make the choice to not allow my country to stay in the EU, there would still be an EU. But it would no longer have the strength and the nature of what it is now.”

Hollande listed France’s strengths: the country is a founding member of the EU, a member of the Schengen area and the Eurozone, the second largest economy in the EU, the only EU member in the UN Security Council and will be the only EU country with nuclear weapons after the UK leaves.

He also said that France “represents the history of Europe”, as a country which has fought with almost all EU member states during the 20th century.

“France is so strongly attached to peace because it has seen so many wars. Yes, the consequences would be extremely heavy if France would turn away from Europe. And this is why the choice which is going to be made is a choice for France, but it is also a European choice, which will be expressed by the French people.

“I am sure because I know the French people well. They are dissatisfied with the way Europe is organised, managed, the way Europe is functioning, this is for sure. They would like Europe to be more protective – they are right, the French people. But they wouldn’t like to leave Europe. Because leaving Europe is also leaving France.”

“I would like to finish here, with this ode to Europe”, Hollande said as his last words, before thanking journalists who he said have been critical, but also attached to Europe.

Hollande also commented on Le Pen’s decision today to choose defeated first-round candidate Nicolas Dupont-Aignan as her prime minister, a bid to attract his voters and help her to victory over centrist favourite Macron.

Dupont-Aignan is a nationalist whose protectionist economic policies are close to those of the National Front’s Le Pen and who, like her, wants to reduce the powers of European Union institutions. He scored 4.7% of votes in the first round of the election and announced on Friday, as widely expected, that he was backing her for the decisive 7 May run-off.

He said that both Le Pen and Dupont-Aignan have always advocated for France leaving the Eurozone and the EU.

“This is why Europeans worry that the French will make the choice which is in their interest, and also in the interest of Europe”.

Regarding his relations with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he said that he didn’t knew her before becoming president in 2012, and that they didn’t have “the same sensitivity”.

But he added that this did not prevent them from making courageous decisions during the Eurozone crisis, managing the Ukraine crisis, or concluding climate agreements. He stressed that the German move toward a defence union had not been easy, and that Germany had shown “a lot of understanding” for the French economic situation.

“This French-German relation must continue, irrespective of the leaders”, he said, alluding to the Germany general elections that will take place on 24 September.

“Europe at 27, as it was the case at 28, cannot really have confidence in itself if the two main countries are not conscious of the stakes”, he said.

“I am sure that Emmanuel Macron will be a good partner for Germany, because he will defend the interests of France, but he also has the conviction that Europe is at the service of our common interests,” he added.

Donald Trump and his deep love for America has not changed since he became President of the United States, only his knowledge and access to national security intelligence and information has.

With the recent Syrian tomahawk missile attack by the Trump Administration after what appeared to have been dubious evidence of Syrian culpability, President Donald Trump lost a great deal of his loyal supporters and followers.

This is because tens of millions of Americans (as well as hundreds of millions of people overseas) felt that he was playing fast and furious in courting World War 3, which is an unforgivable sin and hazard to “play” with the lives of 8 billion human beings on planet earth.

Furthermore, his recent and seeming “flip flops” on other issues, which contrasted so blatantly his passionate message blasts via Twitter for the past several years, also made Trump appear to be disingenuous, or even worse, dishonest, as well as an opportunist.

Many argued that Donald Trump was in fact always part of the “Deep State,” an “insider” who simply lied to the American people en masse in order to get elected.

However, is this really true?

We already know that Donald Trump is an America-Firster who deeply and passionately cares about the United States, and who wants to see his beloved nation do well – we know this because you simply can not fake it that well for decades since he first began to do his interviews as a young man in his 30s, with some famous interviews with a young Tom Brokaw and even with Allen King, Oprah Winfrey, and Rona Barrett, amongst others.

What is striking in all of these interviews is that in each and every one of them, Donald Trump comes across as a very kind, sweet, compassionate, intelligent, and concerned American citizen who cares deeply about his country, and how well it does in the future.

He also makes it very clear in each and every one of these interviews that he would rather not be President of the United States, or run for office, because it is a very “mean life” and because he would rather see someone else more qualified to actually do the job correctly.

No one can fake that type of consistently sincere love for America and deep personal humility for more than 4 decades in public life starting when he was only 30.

Donald Trump is the real deal, and wants what is best for America, not for himself.

He truly wishes to spend his older years fixing and helping America become great again, like it was when he was a young man, and for this sentiment he should be lionized and commended, not criticized.

So what changed?

Why does it appear that he has flip-flopped on so many of his pre-election platforms and positions, most notably the much vaunted and posted re-tweets of his opposition to intervention in Syria, or other issues?

Well perhaps the best answer is now, President Donald Trump has number one top priority security clearance, and has the information and intelligence at his fingertips which has caused him to make certain decisions that he would not have made before, when he quite frankly did not know much more than the average American citizen, without the benefit of this raw intelligence and information.

The point is, Donald Trump and his deep love for America has not changed, merely his knowledge and awareness of what is ailing America has.

And this new founded knowledge of truths that are not shared with the American people on National Security grounds, has altered and colored his decision-making and judgements.

So we as Americans must take comfort in the fact that we elected this great man to be our President, because he resonated with us and convinced us of who he is, and what he stands for.

And now, we must also trust President Donald Trump that he will continue to do what is best for the United States of America, and its people, even if we as Americans often do not quite understand why he has made some of these decisions in the first place.

By Frank Shostak*

For most economists the key factor that sets the foundation for healthy economic fundamentals is a stable price level as depicted by the consumer price index.

According to this way of thinking, a stable price level doesn’t obscure the visibility of the relative changes in the prices of goods and services, and enables businesses to see clearly market signals that are conveyed by the relative changes in the prices of goods and services. Consequently, it is held, this leads to the efficient use of the economy’s scarce resources and hence results in better economic fundamentals.

The Rationale for Price-Stabilization Policies

For instance, let us say that demand increases for potatoes versus tomatoes. This relative strengthening, it is held, is going to be depicted by a greater increase in the price of potatoes than for tomatoes.

Now in an unhampered market, businesses pay attention to consumer wishes as manifested by changes in the relative prices of goods and services. Failing to abide by consumer wishes will lead to the wrong production mix of goods and services and will lead to losses.

Hence in our example, by paying attention to relative changes in prices, businesses are likely to increase the production of potatoes versus tomatoes.

According to this way of thinking, if the price level is not stable, then the visibility of the relative price changes becomes blurred and consequently, businesses cannot ascertain the relative changes in the demand for goods and services and make correct production decisions.

Thus, it is feared that unstable prices will lead to a misallocation of resources and to the weakening of economic fundamentals. Unstable changes in the price level obscure changes in the relative prices of goods and services. Consequently, businesses will find it difficult to recognize a change in relative prices when the price level is unstable.

Based on this way of thinking it is not surprising that the mandate of the central bank is to pursue policies that will bring price stability, i.e., a stable price level.

By means of various quantitative methods, the Fed’s economists have established that at present, policymakers must aim at keeping price inflation at 2 percent. Any significant deviation from this figure constitutes deviation from the growth path of price stability.

Note that in this way of thinking changes in the price level are not related to changes in relative prices. Unstable changes in the price level only obscure but do not affect the relative changes in the prices of goods and services. So if somehow one could prevent the price level from obscuring market signals obviously this will set the foundation for economic prosperity.

At the root of price stabilization policies is a view that money is neutral. Changes in money only have an effect on the price level while having no effect whatsoever on the real economy. In this way of thinking changes in the relative prices of goods and services are established without the aid of money.

There’s a Problem: Newly Created Money Is Not Neutral

When new money is injected there are always first recipients of the newly injected money who benefit from this injection. The first recipients with more money at their disposal can now acquire a greater amount of goods while the prices of these goods are still unchanged.

As money starts to move around the prices of goods begin to rise. Consequently the late receivers benefit to a lesser extent from monetary injections or may even find that most prices have risen so much that they can now afford fewer goods.

Increases in money supply lead to a redistribution of real wealth from later recipients, or non-recipients of money to the earlier recipients. Obviously this shift in real wealth alters individuals demands for goods and services and in turn alters the relative prices of goods and services.

Changes in money supply sets in motion new dynamics that give rise to changes in demands for goods and to changes in their relative prices. Hence, changes in money supply cannot be neutral as far as relative prices of goods are concerned.

Now, the Fed’s monetary policy that aims at stabilizing the price level by implication affects the rate of growth of money supply.

Since changes in money supply are not neutral, this means that a central bank policy amounts to the tampering with relative prices, which leads to the disruption of the efficient allocation of resources.

Furthermore, while increases in the money supply are likely to be revealed in general price increases, this need not always be the case. Prices are determined by both real and monetary factors.

Consequently, it can occur that if the real factors are pulling things in an opposite direction to monetary factors, no visible change in prices might take place. In other words, while money growth is buoyant, prices might display low increases.

Clearly, if we were to pay attention to the so-called price level, and disregard increases in the money supply, we would reach misleading conclusions regarding the state of the economy.

On this, Rothbard wrote,

The fact that general prices were more or less stable during the 1920s told most economists that there was no inflationary threat, and therefore the events of the great depression caught them completely unaware.

From 1926 to 1929, the alleged stability of the price level caused most economic experts, including the famous American economist Irving Fisher, to conclude that US economic fundamentals were doing fine and that there was no threat of an economic bust.

About the author:
*Frank Shostak’s consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments of financial markets and global economies. Contact: email.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute

Just before the May holidays, Russia’s state statistical agency released figures on births, deaths and marriages that Moscow may hope no one will notice because they are so bad; but Russian economists have sounded the alarm that the population decline they point to may make impossible for the Russian economy to grow in the future.

The number of children born in Russia during the first quarter of 2017 was 412,000, down from 458,000 in the same period a year earlier for a decline of 10 percent. And although mortality fell by one percent, the number of deaths exceeded the number of births by 76,000 or 19 percent (nakanune.ru/news/2017/4/29/22468618/).

This pattern was observed throughout the country. Indeed, in contrast to the past where Muslim regions showed higher numbers of births relative to deaths than elsewhere, in the first quarter just completed, there was only a single federal subject where that was true, Rosstat says, the Chukchi Autonomous District.

Other bad demographic news included an increase in the number of divorces compared to the number of marriages. During the first quarter, there were 84 divorces for every 100 marriages, a pattern that almost guarantees that “in 2017, a loss of population will again be renewed in Russia.”

On Thursday, Maksim Topilin, the labor minister, told Vladimir Putin that the situation reflects declines in the size of the prime child-bearing age cohort among women, a decline that he projects will continue. Now, there are just over 22 million women aged 20 to 39; in 2025, there will be only 15 to 16 million.

But there is even worse news, Topilin continued, Russian women are again deciding to have fewer children. To reproduce the population, they need to have “no fewer than 2.1” per woman. In 2015, the maternal capital program and other incentives succeeded in raising the number to 1.78, but in this year, it has again fallen to 1.65.

That means Russia will have not only fewer children but fewer working age adults to support an aging population. Former finance minister Aleksey Kudrin projects a decline in the number of working-age Russians to be 10 million 15 years from now (nakanune.ru/articles/112806).

The only way to compensate for these demographic trends, experts say, is to boost fertility rates, extend life expectancy, or accept a massive influx of immigrants from Central Asia. The first has proved very difficult to do, the second is undercut by Putin’s health “optimization” cutbacks, and the third is opposed by a majority of Russians.

Either Moscow will have to change course radically, or Russia’s demographic decline, which Putin has claimed to have stopped, will not only return but accelerate as each succeeding generation has fewer potential mothers and each mother chooses to have fewer and fewer children.

Strategic stability in South Asia is complex phenomena due to adversarial relationship between two traditional rivals India and Pakistan. Existence of an Action-Reaction Spiral between both nuclear rivals is increasing the fragility of the South Asian strategic stability.

Though, the both states have successfully achieved the principal requirements of strategic stability by enhancing their nuclear capabilities and maintaining the deterrence. But different postures of military strategies have negatively affected nuclear equation of the region. Balance of power in South Asia revolves around the competition over nuclear and conventional military build-up between India-Pakistan and powers politic among United States, China and Russia.

The territorial dispute over Jammu and Kashmir is an actual bone of contention and previous events of the war of Kargil, the Mumbai attack, and the most recent attacks of Pathankot and Urri, has severely shattered the stability paradigm and these events have brought both countries on the brink of war. Most significantly the Indian claim of surgical attacks in Pakistan held Kashmir has seriously disturbed the existing strategic stability paradigm in South Asia.

Though the introduction of nuclear weapon has brought the fundamental change in regional security calculus but Stability-Instability paradox is operational in south Asia.

The dilemma of the South Asian region is that with the passage of time, strategic stability is becoming more fragile instead of becoming strong. Deterrence stability and Crisis stability in the region is not yet stabilize due to various internal and external factors Historical events, social, economic, political aspects and external powers especially United States (US) has played crucial role in disturbing the strategic force balance and strategic stability in the region. Internal challenges such as territorial disputes (Sir Creek, Kashmir, and Siachen), increased border tension on LOC, defence production gap and Indian military modernization, Indian ballistic missile program, and absence of arms control regime are the main source of tension in the region. In such a strategic landscape three possible threats to regional strategic stability are: crisis instability, arms race, security dilemma and escalatory danger have worsened the situation.

Power politics among super powers has also played a crucial role in disturbing the regional equilibrium as the sub-continent has remained under the influence of great powers. During the cold war period USSR and U.S exercise their power struggle over South Asia; where as in china emerged as third competitor during the Post-Cold war era.

At the end of Cold-War, India-US bilateral ties were strengthened by economic and defence co-operation. In post 9/11 indo-US stronger ties were the biggest threat to regional stability. Growing Indo-US strategic partnership, Indo-US nuclear deal, recent defence co-operation and U.S support to Indian candidacy for NSG has drastically halted the process of stability. Defence bond between U.S and India is biggest threat to regional stability as well as to the global non-proliferation efforts.

At the broader aspect the Indo-U.S strategic partnership has put the question mark on the aspiration of both states and it may force the other regional states to take the measure to ensure their safety and security.

In response to Indo-U.S strategic co-operation, China and Pakistan are making a strong partnership in economic, military and nuclear fields. China can play the crucial role to maintain the balance of power in the region by providing assistance to Pakistan in military and nuclear fields. At the same time, Pakistan and China are pursuing the strategies to counter the threats and challenges to regional strategic stability but not by violating the international laws or norms as US did to support India’s membership for NSG. Subsequently, Pakistan’s vision is to promote the idea of regional cooperative development; CPEC is the most significant example of that.

Two categories of strategic partnerships: the Indo-U.S strategic partnership and China-Pakistan Strategic co-operation has evolved the unique kind of equilibrium in the South Asia. However, India’s military modernization plane, missile program, Indo-U.S civil nuclear deal and discriminatory approach of U.S towards Pakistan have directly challenged the regional strategic balance.

In this regard, the absence of crisis stability and deterrence stability mechanism is increasing the fragility of South Asian strategic stability. So it is imperative to develop a framework comprised of conventional force balance, arms control regime and conflict resolution. Unfortunately, India has always rejected such proposals regarding nuclear restrains. In order to ensure the regional stability it is necessary to take the establishment of restraint regimes seriously for durable peace in the South Asian region.

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

In 2011 when Gaddafi was killed by the mob or the militias, everybody believed that it was a new beginning for the country: a free and democratic Libya. In the aftermath, Libya did not become free and was not democratic, in the least. Instead, it became fractured, violent, tribal, patriarchal and divided. Rather than starting a new chapter and a new life, Libya, alas, was sliding slowly but surely into a tenebrous abyss resembling some sort of a hell or purgatory chamber.

Over the years, as violence became a daily casual occurrence, Libya almost became synonymous of disorder and dissonance in the news and the views and there were even thoughts that it is on its way to become a sister country of God-forsaken Somalia. However, hope emerged anew with the United Nations attempt to negotiate a national agreement through UNMSIL (United Nations support Mission in Libya).

In its Resolution 2144 (14 March 2014), article 6,i the Security Council tasked the Mission, in full accordance with the principles of national ownership, to support Libyan government efforts to:

a – Ensure the transition to democracy;

b – Promote the rule of law and monitor and protect human rights, in accordance with Libya’s international legal obligations;

c – Control unsecured arms and related materiel in Libya and counter their proliferation; and

d – Build governance capacity.

Glimmer Of Hope, But

On December 17, 2015, the different protagonists of the Libyan crisis reached a historic agreement in the Moroccan city of Skhirate south of the capital Rabat, under the active leadership of UNMSIL, but that did not mean, in the least, the end of turmoil in Libya because there are a lot of splinter groups that were not part and parcel of this accord and that have the means and the will to stand on the way of peace. Besides, there is the lethal ISIS, that is present through proxy organizations all over the country, ready to step into deadly action, and for which such an agreement means nothing.

Martin Kobler, The Special Representative of the Secretary General of the UN and Head of UNMSIL Mission made it quite clear in his statement after the signature of the accord:ii

“We must not forget that this is the beginning of a difficult journey. There is a critical need for national reconciliation and an inclusive national security dialogue. Urgent solutions must be found to bolster the Libyan-led fight against terrorism and in particular the threat of Daesh. The dire humanitarian situation in Benghazi and other areas needs to be addressed as a matter of highest priority, including through the establishment of a dedicated reconstruction fund for Benghazi. The concerns of the Eastern and Southern constituencies should be brought to the forefront. This work must start immediately. The signing of the Libyan Political Agreement is the first step on the path of building a democratic Libyan state based on the principles of human rights and the rule of law.”

And no sooner that this agreement was concluded by the main warring factions that the “no, no” answer came from either the marginal groups not invited or the trouble maker ISIS, itself. Indeed, on January 7, 2016 a truck bomb was detonated outside of a police training center in the western city of Zliten, leaving 65 people dead, the worst bomb attack in years. No group claimed this deadly attack, but the message was crystal clear: peace is not for tomorrow.

This, however, entails two possible explanations, at the outset:

1. Tribal tug: the several armed groups that represent the various tribes of the country care less about national union because they would lose power and consequent wealth in favor of the federal government and, as a result, would become insignificant and die out, in the long run, and that is not an acceptable solution for them and they would surely resist it as long as Libya is in chaos and they bear arms; and
2. Caliphate solution: many hard core Islamists believe strongly that if strict and radical Islam is made to prevail in the Muslim world through the re-islamization of the society and the countering of Western influence, it would be made to become an important contender and player on the international scene and, consequently, regain the prominence it had in the Golden Age. As such, it must be made clear that any UN-brokered accord is a Western-imposed subterfuge to halt the inexorable advance of the glorious Islam of such people.

The Dangers Lurking In The Dark

Since the time of the Ottoman Empire, Libya was always ruled by a heavily-centralized government that delegated minimal power to the regions and this insured peace and stability to the people and continuity for the state. Tribes existed, but had only a honorific role and a cultural existence, no more. They were used, at times, as auxiliaries to strengthen the power of the state and, in return, they were given rentier privileges as gratification.

When Colonel Gaddafi toppled King Idris Senusi in 1979, in the name of the revolution, he consolidated further the state and made it all-prominent. In return, he subdued the population through direct generous cash handouts and a wide array of rentier privileges. The population did not have to work, in the least, and if they did they held senior positions that did not require much effort. This way Gaddafi guaranteed himself total control of the state and the revolutionary legitimacy to get rid of the recalcitrant individuals or groups, which he did at will.

In the aftermath of the Arab Spring in 2011 and the ensuing uprising of the Cyrenaica region against the rule of the dictator Gaddafi, NATO decided to side with the revolutionaries of Benghazi to topple him. However, NATO directed the war operations from the skies and never fielded any foot soldiers to mop up the floor. In an article in Foreign Policy, Ethan Chorin,iii argues just that:

“The current situation in Libya is the product of a series of significant mistakes, erroneous assumptions, and myths that date back to NATO intervention in 2011.The United States and its NATO allies made a fundamental mistake in not imposing a robust reconstruction plan on Libya and stabilizing the country before radicalism was able to flourish. Even U.S. President Barack Obama understands that this was a mistake: In an interview last year with the New York Times, he cited lack of a plan for “the day after Qaddafi is gone” as potentially one of his biggest foreign-policy regrets. (The Libyans, of course, share much of the blame too.)”

As Gaddafi’s forces started withdrawing from various regions, religious and tribal groups moved in and helped themselves to the huge arsenal left behind and with that came the temptation to rule and have access to a share of the oil cake. At the fall of the dictator in October 2011, there were over 300 armed groups, all dreaming of leadership and control.

Tribal-Religious Instincts

On May 2014, the, then, retired General Haftar, armed with US benediction and support from Egypt, UAE and Saudi Arabia led an army from the east with the objective to rid the country from the powerful Islamist groups strong in the west. His movement was dubbed: Operation Dignity. In spite of a few limited successes, his secular-oriented movement soon faltered miserably.

In reaction to the establishment of this front, the Islamists, supported by Turkey and Qatar, put together their own front bearing the name of Fajr Libya (Libya Dawn) on July 13, 2014.iv The declared aim of this front was to correct the direction of the revolution and set up a stable government, the undeclared objective is to turn Libya in an Islamist country.

The front, in principle, was made of a myriad of Islamist militias all dreaming of power and wealth and on top of that religious consecration:

• Libyan Shield Militia of Misrata with links with the Ikhwane (brotherhood);
• The Tripoli Brigade of the famous Islamist leader Belhaj, who opposed openly Gaddafi, in his lifetime;
• The Libya Revolutionaries Operation Room; and
• The Brotherhood.

The Fajr Libya front was, in addition, allied to a large group of heavily armed brigades that each controlled one tribe or region of the country reflecting the disintegration of Libya in small kinglets reminiscent of the taifas in Arab Spain starting in 1009 and lasting until 1287.v

During the Barbary Coast era, that lasted from the 16th to the 19th century, North Africa developed a taste for piracy, under the religious justification of jihad al-bahr (sea jihad) that protected dar al-slam (the land of Islam) from the onslaught of dar al-kufr (the land of the infidels), especially after the fall of Grenada in 1492 and the ensuing Reconquista. It was very much an easy gain of goods and slaves.

Today, the tribal piracy instinct seems strong, yet again, for various reasons, mainly affirmation of tribal undemocratic and patriarchal power under the cover of Islam, the ability to dispose of the riches of the country directly by selling oil and benefiting from its revenues without having to pay any taxes to a central government, undertaking contraband commerce and, most importantly, organizing immigration traffic to Europe, unhindered.

For the above-mentioned reasons, many of these groups and the warlords of Libya would see a Libyan national reconciliation as a threat to their unlimited power and lucrative business and are certainly behind the terrorist attack, one way or the other, that took place in Zliten on on January 7, 2016, in the aftermath of the Skhirate Libyan accord of December17, 2015, to send a clear message to the Libyan politicians of Skhirate that their political agreement will not go further than the Moroccan city where it was signed.

ISIS, before its military decline, needed Libya badly for its operations in North Africa: to spread its paramilitary brigades and organize its terrorist networks and, most importantly, prepare its political pawns to take over power, after the chaos.

Taking control of North Africa, which is the soft belly of Europe, would amount to getting ready to recuperate, by terror and force, al-Andalus from the Catholic Christians of Spain, according to the political message in the literature of this terrorist organization.

In an article published in the New York Times in 2014,vi David D. Kirkpatrick argued that “Strife in Libya Could Presage Long Civil War” and he was dead right the civil war is still raging on and the end of turmoil is not at hand, on the contrary it is pushing the country to become a failed state, very much like Somalia.

“Until now, a rough balance of power among local brigades had preserved a kind of equilibrium, if not stability. Although the transitional government scarcely existed outside of the luxury hotels where its officials gathered, no other force was strong enough to dominate. No single interest divided the competing cities and factions. But that semblance of unity is now in tatters, and with it the hope that nonviolent negotiations might settle the competition for power and, implicitly, Libya’s oil.”

Today, in 2017 the state of Libya has not changed a bit, everyone is fighting everyone and no group wants to make concessions for the sake of stability of the country. It seems that the belligerents are thinking more in terms of tribal identity and allegiance than in terms of a nation-state, if it has ever existed in the Libyan psyche at all.

In the same article of Foreign Policy, mentioned here above, Ethan Chorin puts his finger on the reasons why Libya is not finding the peace most of its people and politicians want:vii

“Over the last four years, Libya has become a key node in the expansion of Islamic radicalism across North Africa, West Africa, and the Sahel, and into Europe. Arms and fighters have crossed Libya’s porous borders, feeding radical organizations from al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to Boko Haram and reinforcing radical trends in the heart of the Middle East. If events in Libya continue on their current path, they will likely haunt the United States and its Western allies for a decade or more.”

What Is Next Now?

If Libya is not pacified in the near future, the whole world will regret it, at some point later on, as it is regretting today that NATO did not disembark from its airplanes to cleanse the country from extremists, once for all.

Pacifying Libya will help undoubtedly fight religious radicalism in West Africa and cut the lifeline of the lethal Boko Haram, active in the whole of West Africa, as well as, al-Qaeda in the Muslim West that is threatening stability of the Sahel countries like Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso.

Now, the following actions must be implemented, at once, to insure peace for Libya and stability for the rest of the world:

1. Transform UNMSIL into a peace-keeping force besides what it is:
   This peace-keeping force must be of, at least, 10,000 elite soldiers with heavy equipment and NATO air support to undertake the pacification of the country, with obviously the help of government forces sympathetic to the Skhirate accord. This much wanted peace-keeping force could be made of the following countries: Spain, Italy, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan and Senegal;
2. Disarm militias: Disarm all paramilitary groups by persuasion, incentive or sheer force and make, by law, bearing arms strictly illegal;
3. Train a national army and a police force: Offer the militias the possibility to integrate the army and police force and be under the rule of law;
4. Undertake a cultural study: There is an urgent necessity to understand the social and cultural make-up of the Libyan society. The Amazigh and Tuareg people must be granted unconditionally their cultural rights;
5. Adopt a federal system of government: Probably the best government system that could befit the numerous needs and the varied wishes and hopes of the Libyan population in political, cultural and religious terms is undeniably the federal system, with which tribal groupings, cultural minorities and religious lodges can, eventually, all identify; and
6. Help the country set up an open and competitive economy: International economic institutions will need to help Libya restructure its economy especially now that the oils prices have dwindled dangerously and, bearing in mind, that Libya is and has always being a rentier country.

Swift Action Needed, At Once

Libya is on the verge of implosion, due to both internal and external challenges. The Skhirate accord is a good move forward to resolve the Libyan internal conflict, but it is not enough, given that many national groupings have different agendas for the country and have the necessary firepower to see them through.

Now if the armed groups are kept on the loose and not checked, Libya will turn into a new Somalia, that could ultimately be hijacked by terrorist groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda, that have grand designs of their own for the region and the world.

On this subject both Giorgio Cafiero and Daniel Wagner, in an article entitled: “Four Years After Gaddafi, Libya Is a Failed State,” published in Foreign Policy in Focus on April 6, 2015viii argue quite rightly:

“The number of weak or failing states across Africa suggests that such international networks will continue to take advantage of frail central authorities and lawlessness throughout the extremely underdeveloped Sahel and other areas of the continent to spread their influence. In the absence of any political resolution to its civil war, Libya in particular — as a failed state with mountainous oil reserves — will remain vulnerable to extremist forces hoping to seize power amidst the ongoing morass.”

Alas, the Libyans are unable or unwilling to unite and solve their internal tribal disputes. The internationally-recognized government of al-Serraj in Tripoli is in feud with the self-proclaimed government of General Haftar based in Tripoli, they both seem to think more about achieving their personal designs rather than saving their country that is on the edge of the precipice. While these two ambitious politicians are fighting it out crudely, the star of Seif al-Qaddafi is rising in the firmament and, indeed, many Libyans who regret the era of his father would want him to take over the reins of the country and unite Libyans anew, if possible and still feasible.ix

In the present set up the future is very grim and Libya is a lethal danger to Europe, Africa and the Middle East and to its own people and its unity, so action from the international community is needed urgently, before it is too late.x

A Stable Libya Is An Urgent Necessity For The Whole World

Today, the instability of Libya is a source of worry for North Africa, Europe and the world at large. It is used by economic migrants coming from poor Africa as a stepping stone to go to Europe for better prospects. But, the problem is that not all the migrants are looking for better living conditions in the European Eldorado, among them there are people with criminal inclinations, as well as, terrorists in the form of sleeping cells.

The militias in power in Libya are allowing migrants in and out of the country for a fee, unconscious of the outcome of such a behavior on stability in the Mediterranean and elsewhere. The instability that has resulted from the fall of Qaddafi’s rule had already brought to the country the plague of ISIS which took the Libyans months and many casualties to get rid of. The country in its failed status of today is an easy prey to religious violence and terrorism and there are still many terrorists lying in the dark in the Sahara desert waiting for the propitious moment to strike at Europe or the Americas or elsewhere.

A stable Libya requires a charismatic leader, a strong army able to control the whole country, a viable and potent police force, an elected parliament and a democratic state. Would Seif al-Islam be able to deliver all of this to the Libyans and the rest of the world or would he just be a mirror image of his brutal father?

Only time will show.

Endnotes:
i. http://unsmil.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=3544&language=en-US
ii. http://unsmil.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=3543&ctl=Details&mid=6187&ItemID=2099398&language=en-US
iii. http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/03/the-new-pirates-of-libya/
iv. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/alarabiya-studies/2014/08/25/Libyan-Dawn-Map-of-allies-and-enemies.html
v. First Taifa period (1009–1106), Second Taifa period (1140–1203) and Third Taifa period (1232–1287)
vi. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/world/africa/libyan-unrest.html
vii. Op.cit. http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/03/the-new-pirates-of-libya/
viii. http://fpif.org/four-years-after-gaddafi-libya-is-a-failed-state/
ix. https://intpolicydigest.org/2017/03/19/are-libyans-ready-for-another-qaddafi/
c. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-libya-idUSKBN14W2AA

By Henry George

Back in October, a Student Union leader of King’s College London wrote a Facebook post, saying he thought the National Anthem should be banned because it promoted far-right ideology, white supremacy and xenophobia. He also said that nation states are a really bad idea.

First, why does this trivial issue occupy someone in a position like the vice president for welfare and community at the KCL SU? Surely this post requires a lot of time? Doesn’t he also have some studying to do?

Anyway, I disagree entirely with Mr Abdullahi’s premise and argument. As such, in response to his use of his right to free speech to criticise what he sees as an out-dated institution, I’ll use my right to free speech to rebut him.

His entire position seems to revolve around the fact that he finds the anthem racist and a remnant of the British Empire. It also apparently empowers far-right nationalists who glory in the old and timeworn idea of the nation state.

First of all, if Mr Abdullahi had actually looked into the history of the national anthem, he might find that it was written during the Jacobite rebellion in the 1740’s. If anything it is an anti-Scottish anthem more than anything else, as it was penned in reaction to Bonnie Prince Charlie storming south to retake the English throne for the Stuart dynasty.

Incidentally, if he wants to see examples of national anthems with less than savoury lyrics maybe he should look at the Chinese, the Mexican, the Algerian, the Turkish and the Vietnamese national anthems. These have some blood curdling lyrics that make Britain’s look meek in comparison.

The second issue with Mr Abdullahi’s misguided comments concern his “f*** the nation state” statement. By this comment, I guess Mr Abdullahi is against all forms of national sovereignty and identity. In other words, he seems to want to live in the world of John Lennon where there are no countries and we are all just one big happyfamily.

I’ve got bad news for him: the nation state is arguably the single biggest protection against external and inter-tribal violence in the history of humanity.

Mr Abdullahi seems to have read some Jean-Jacques Rousseau and apparently believes that the idea of the state corrupts everything it touches and turns us all into slavering nationalists who can’t wait to conquer everything in sight.

Well, the opposite is actually true. I side more with Thomas Hobbes and believe that if it were not for the stability, law and order that the nation state provides, our fundamentally flawed human natures would lead to our lives being “nasty, brutish and short” if we were left to live in a “state of nature”.

The statistics bear this reality out. Spanish scientists found that among primates, 2% of deaths are murders. They then found the same murder rate from human archaeological records up to 10,000 years ago, when it rose slightly with greater contact between groups of humans. Steven Pinker, for example, says that if we extrapolated the death toll from inter-tribal violence among First Nation peoples in North America to WW2, the death toll would have been two billion.

Post-medieval era however, the murder rate among humans has fallen to 1.3%. To further hammer the point home that the nation state is instrumental in driving the murder rate down, in countries where peace and the rule of law prevail (something often only found in nation states) the murder rate is under 0.02%.

The message is simple. In the medieval era people were roving across Europe in feudal war-bands killing each other. This is why there are so many images like the one below from the time, because people were sick of having their lives destroyed by lawless gangs of armed men. With the advent of the nation state after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, violence dropped, allowing for the progress of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.

In other words, no state = death and destruction (on the whole), state = peace and prosperity which leads to the full flowering of the individual as a sacrosanct being with inherent value. Where are the most violent places in the world today? On the whole, they are where the structure and the idea of the nation state have broken down or were non-existent.

The national anthem, in celebrating the virtues of the nation state, is emblematic of a tradition that has steadily reduced violence. The tearing down of borders increases violence.

I’m a disabled student, and I would argue say that the only reason I’m alive and well today, with the opportunity to attempt to reach towards my potential as an individual is because of the stability that the nation state provides, which in turn allowed the development of the science that keeps me alive.

If it weren’t for the nation state, I’d be dead.

About the author:
*Henry George  studied for a History BA at Royal Holloway, University of London. He then studied for a War Studies MA at King’s College London, focusing on ISIS inspired terrorism and Fourth Generation Warfare for his dissertation. He also blogs here, focusing on issues surrounding identity politics, political philosophy, free speech and cultural issues broadly linked to the West’s decline. He can be reached on Twitter at @intothefuture45.

Source:
This article was published by Bombs And Dollars