US President Trump is scheduled to sign Thursday an executive order on religious liberty.

If the final version of the executive order on religious liberty is anything like the draft that was leaked a few weeks into President Trump’s term, there will be much to celebrate. Foes of religious liberty—gay rights activists and secular militants—are attempting to frame this vital First Amendment right as a legal excuse to discriminate. They are distorting the issue.

The Advocate, a radical gay publication, claims the executive order would allow “a broad license to discriminate against LGBT people and others.” The left-wing website, the Daily Kos, refers to it as an “anti-LGBTQ ‘religious liberty’ order.” The ACLU, a determined enemy of religious liberty, declares it will file a lawsuit before the ink is dry.

The Center for Inquiry, a militant secularist organization, ratchets up the threats by arguing the order is “really about discriminating against LGBTQ folks and controlling the bodies of women.” Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which is rooted in anti-Catholicism, screams that this statement “could be the most sweeping attack on LGBTQ and women’s rights in the name of religion that we have ever seen.” Atheist Hemant Mehta frets it will allow “faith-based discrimination in public places.”

If they were all merely crazy, they could be dismissed. But they carry clout in the culture, and deserve a rejoinder.

The primary purpose of the executive order is to secure for religious organizations the kinds of exemptions from law and public policy that have traditionally been afforded, but are now under attack, thereby protecting conscience rights. That’s it.

There are always instances when two rights conflict: a reporter’s First Amendment right to cover a trial may conflict with the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to a fair trial. How do we reconcile these competing rights? We can’t, not completely. It is part of American jurisprudence that we protect the rights of the accused by disallowing television coverage in some courtrooms.

Does this mean we discriminate against reporters? Technically speaking, the effect of the courtroom ban is to discriminate against them. But would it be fair to say that the purpose of the prohibition is to discriminate against reporters? Would it not be more fair to say that it is done to protect the rights of the accused?

Similarly, when a Catholic social service agency does not allow children to be adopted by two homosexual men, the effect of this ruling, technically speaking, is to discriminate against the gay men. But would it be fair to conclude that the purpose of this policy is to discriminate against gays? Would it not be more fair to say that it is done to protect the religious liberty interests of the Catholic organization?

When rights compete, compromises often appear elusive. Choices must be made. When it comes to guaranteeing the First Amendment right to religious liberty, there should be a presumptive right to honor it. That is what President Trump is seeking to do, and we pray he has not backed off from his pledge.

“My chances of being PM are about as good as the chances of finding Elvis on Mars, or my being reincarnated as an olive.” -— Boris Johnson, UK Foreign Secretary

Few characters in history have seen so much spoken about him for one seemingly so irrelevant.  Out of obscure follies and foolhardy decisions, he rose from being a questionable journalist for The Times, sacked, no less, for falsifying the news, to being editor at The Spectator. He also became a local Tory MP.  Stints at publicity and image management started to push him into the fray.

Before Donald Trump, before Brexit, there was Boris, sacked for philandering (to be more precise, lying about his philandering to his Tory constituency) in 2004 and for essentially charting parallel universes capable of only accommodating himself. That way lies not just madness but crowded, warped contradiction.

Then came the improbabilities made probable: the first politician to host the legendary satirical news program Have I Got News For You where he went like an enthusiastic lamb to the comedic slaughter; the position of Mayor of London, which provided another astonishment for the pollsters.

Having won the mayoral contest for London suspecting all the time that Prime Minister David Cameron wanted him out of the way, Boris sat prettily, and innocuously, from 2008. But what mattered, and where he came into his own, was the dream that became Brexit, his finger poking gesture at the European Union laced with mendacity and loose figures.

For months, he hedged his bets. He wrote columns in preparation for and against leaving the EU, tinkering the argument to suit the audience.  In truly schizophrenic fashion, he belies the British condition towards Europe, on the one hand finding the continent unavoidable and indispensable, yet loathing its paper pushing governance. As Sir Nicholas Soames had kept saying, Boris was “not an outer”, being very much, and very gaily, of the remain set.  For all that, he was outing all the way.

His entire campaign against the European Union, pursued with boyish enthusiasm on the stump and via the lucrative slot with The Daily Telegraph, was prefaced on conjuring up what was termed “a new reality”, where “correspondents witnessed Johnson shaping the narrative that morphed into our present-day populist Euroscepticism.”[1]  It was truly the stuff of Breitbart journalism, just wittier.

During his as Mayor, he also managed to create his own variant of the alt-fact world.  He dreamed about manned ticket officers for every station throughout the London transport network, but proceeded to close them down. He spoke of reducing transport fares, only to increase them by 4.2 percent.[2]

The end in this cornucopia, then, is illusion fed by no uncertain amount with bountiful delusion. His views on trade opportunities dragged out from former imperial domains is not merely speculation, but charmingly fanciful.

Sounding like a crazed Colonel Blimp, he believes that Indians will slash tariffs on whisky brought into the country with colonial charm and exuberance.  In January, on a trip to the country, he claimed that bringing something “for our Sikh relatives who live in both Delhi and Mumbai” was always mandatory given the “tariff of 150 per cent on whisky imports”.[3]

In his first major speech of the general election campaign, he dreamed about a plenitude of trade deals that drew more on an archive of fantasy than concrete, drawn up negotiations.  “I was amazed, when walking the backstreets of Uxbridge, to find a little company that makes the wooden display counters that are used to sell the duty free Toblerones in every Saudi Arabian airport.”  The key was to “crack markets like that”.

Then there was the United States, an enormous market that beckons.  Eager to cultivate relations with the Trump team, he scooted across the Atlantic in January to see if the position of the previous Obama administration placing the UK to the back of any free trade negotiating queue still held sway.  “We hear,” he chirped to journalists, “that we are first in line to do a great free trade deal with the United States.”[4]

He might have left such speculation there, but Johnson has never shied away from the foolish, not to mention bizarrely crumbling afterthought. A US-UK free trade deal, he surmised in the first campaign speech, could see the US overturn their “ban on British haggis”, one that has been in place since 1971.

Even peering into the suspicious minds of the US Department of Agriculture, which made the decision based on its objection to the use of sheep’s lung, a salient ingredient in haggis, is not beyond Johnson.

As Foreign Secretary, looking every bit a whimsical, witty loon who just might set the party on fire at any given moment, he is on electioneering duty for Prime Minister Theresa May.  He has already demonstrated school-boy maturity by observing that Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is no more than a “mutton-headed old mugwump”.

Not wanting to be outdone, deputy Labour Tom Watson came back with the retort that he was “a caggie-handed cheese-headed fopdoodle with a talent for slummocking about.”  Rarely has British politics descended to such a level of Hades, a point Johnson would find not just refreshing but natural and alternative.

Notes:
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/26/boris-johnson-latest-euro-myth-brexit

[2] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-are-we-so-surprised-that-boris-johnson-lied-when-he-s-been-sacked-for-lying-twice-before-a7105976.html

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretarys-speech-at-raisina-dialogue-new-delhi

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/09/boris-johnson-holds-warm-and-frank-talks-with-trump-aides

The theme that unites all of Trump’s initiatives so far is their unnecessary cruelty.

1. His new budget comes down especially hard on the poor – imposing unprecedented cuts in low-income housing, job training, food assistance, legal services, help to distressed rural communities, nutrition for new mothers and their infants, funds to keep poor families warm, even “meals on wheels.”

These cuts come at a time when more American families are in poverty than ever before, including 1 in 5 children. So, why is Trump doing this? To pay for the biggest hike in military spending since the 1980s – at a time when the U.S. already spends more on its military than the next 7 biggest military budgets put together.

2. Trump and his enablers in the GOP are on the way to repealing the Affordable Care Act, and replacing it in a way that could cause 14 million Americans to lose their health insurance next year, and 24 million by 2026.

Why is Trump doing this? To give $600 billion in tax cuts over the decade mostly to wealthy Americans, when the rich have accumulated more wealth than at any time in the nation’s history.

The plan reduces the federal budget by only $337 billion over the next ten years – that is a small fraction of the national debt, in exchange for the largest redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy in modern history.

3. Trump is banning Syrian refugees and slashing the total number of refugees this year by more than half. This comes just when the world is experiencing the worst refugee crisis since World War II.

So, why is he doing this? Your odds of dying by a lightening strike are higher than by an immigrant terrorist attack. No terrorist attacker inside the U.S. has come from Syria (nor, for that matter, from any of the 6 countries in Trump’s current travel ban.)

4. Trump is rounding up undocumented immigrants helter-skelter – including people who have been productive members of our society for decades, and young people who have been here since they were toddlers.

Why is Trump doing this? These actions come when unemployment is down, crime is down, and we have fewer undocumented workers in the U.S. today than we did ten years ago.

Trump is embarking on an orgy of cruelty for absolutely no reason. This is profoundly immoral. It is morally incumbent on all of us to stop it.

As part of my ongoing coverage of Guantánamo, I try, wherever possible, to keep track of the stories of former prisoners, especially those who were resettled in third countries, either because the US government refused to send them home, or because it was considered unsafe to do so — or, in the case of Palestine, because the Israeli government would not allow them to be repatriated, even if the US government wanted to.

Many of those resettled in third countries are Yemenis, and third countries had to be found for them because, since the start of 2010, the entire US establishment has regarded the situation in Yemen as too unstable from a security perspective to allow any Yemenis to be repatriated. Amongst those for whom repatriation was regarded as too dangerous are the Uighurs, 22 men from China’s Xinjiang province, historically oppressed by the Chinese government, who were found new homes around the world between 2006 and 2013, and a handful of men from other countries including Egypt, Libya, Syria and Tunisia.

In March, for Middle East Eye, the journalist Lidia Kurasinska wrote an article about Tariq al-Sawah, an Egyptian, who had been resettled in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the capital, Sarajevo, in January 2016. Before his capture in Afghanistan in late 2001, al-Sawah had been living in Bosnia, where he had been granted citizenship, and had married a Bosnian woman, with whom he had a child, so this was not a random resettlement based solely on whichever country could be persuaded, through a combination of cash and favors, to give a former prisoner a home.

Al-Sawah’s release had been recommended, in February 2015, by a Periodic Review Board, a parole-type process introduced by President Obama, which began reviewing the cases of 64 men in November 2013, and concluded the first round of those reviews in September 2016. That recommendation reversed the US government’s earlier position — that he should face a trial by military commission on “charges of conspiring with known members of al-Qaeda and providing material support for terrorism,” as Lidia Kurasinska described it.

The charges were eventually dismissed, in 2012, but the decision to charge him in the first place was, frankly, idiotic, as al-Sawah was regarded as a helpful informant, and, as a result, had been housed separate from the other prisoners, and given a somewhat easier life, along with the Mauritanian Mohamedou Ould Slahi, who used his time to write the memoir that eventually became his best-selling book, Guantánamo Diary.

Al-Sawah had become seriously ill at Guantánamo. His weight more than doubled — to 420 pounds — and, as his classified military file, released by Wikileaks in 2011, explained, he was “closely watched for significant and chronic problems” that included high cholesterol, diabetes and liver disease, so I was particularly interested to see if his health had improved after his release, and also to ascertain if he was being looked after by the Bosnian authorities.

Unfortunately, as Lidia Kurasinska’s article — “Life after Guantánamo: Egyptian ex-detainee stuck in Bosnia limbo” — made clear, he was “stuck in a legal no-man’s land.” As she explained, “Slowly strolling through a housing estate on the outskirts of Sarajevo, al-Sawah cut “a sombre figure.”

“They didn’t even say sorry,” he told her. “They just dropped me off at Sarajevo airport after 14 years, and all I had with me was a t-shirt. I live in limbo. Even though Sarajevo is a big city, I don’t have any papers, and I can’t get a job and take care of myself.”

He also told her about his suffering in Guantánamo, explaining how he was “shackled 24 hours a day and kept in solitary confinement despite suffering from poor health and depression.”

He explained that life was “a constant economic struggle,” and that he “survives by living off donations from local mosques and charities.”

Kurasinska added that “an agreement made between the Bosnian state and the US government promised him shelter and financial assistance from the Bosnian government,” but “the living allowance of $125 a month he recently started receiving is too meager to live on by Bosnian standards.”

He also claimed that the US government “had offered him $200,000 in compensation before his release from Guantánamo,” but that he has not received any money, a claim reiterated by Jelena Sesar, Amnesty International’s researcher for the Balkans and the EU, who said, “We understand that the US government promised financial and legal assistance as a part of Mr al-Sawah’s resettlement, but that assistance never materialized.” Kurasinska also noted that the US State Department “did not confirm or deny whether any support package had been put in place.”

Speaking about how he came to be imprisoned in Guantánamo, al-Sawah told Kurasinska that “he travelled to the Balkans in the early 1990s as the region was engulfed in a war caused by the break-up of Yugoslavia,” and “initially worked for the media office at the International Islamic Relief Organisation, known locally as IGASA, in Zagreb, Croatia.” From there, he said, “he moved to Bosnia and worked as a truck driver distributing humanitarian aid before joining the Bosnian army and serving in the 1992-95 war.”

When the war ended, with the 1995 Dayton agreement, al-Sawah said that he “settled alongside other former foreign fighters and aid workers in the central Bosnian village of Bocinja.” As Kurasinska noted, “Many of the new arrivals, of whom the vast majority were of North African and Middle Eastern origin, married local women and started families.”

This is also what al-Sawah did, and his daughter “is now a teenager attending high school in Bosnia.” Although Kurasinska didn’t make it clear in her article, one of his US lawyers, federal defender Mary Petras, told me that he “was living with his daughter when he was first released,” and confirmed to me that “their financial circumstances were dire.”

Reminiscing with Kurasinska about “how good his life was in Bosnia during the post-war period,“ al-Sawah said, “We had land and chickens.”

Kurasinska added, “The exact number of former foreign fighters who stayed in Bosnia following the ceasefire is estimated at anywhere from 700 to more than 1,000.” She also noted thatmany of them, like al-Sawah, “were given Bosnian citizenship as a reward for their service in the army,” although their presence “was later frowned upon by the Bosnian government who said they were endorsing a radical form of Islam.” As she put it, “The Bosnian government did not want to be seen as a refuge for Islamic militants and caved in under diplomatic pressure from its international partners to deport the community.” As she also notes, the Dayton agreement “stipulated that all forces of foreign origin were to withdraw from Bosnia,” and “[e]ven though many of the men had started families and held Bosnian citizenship, they were still considered a security threat.”

I think Kurasinska rather understates the extent to which foreign pressure was put on Bosnia, as the Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights article linked to above makes clear. It is entitled, “Revoking Citizenship in the Name of Counterterrorism: The Citizenship Review Commission Violates Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina.”

However, she does note that, after 9/11, the US “reportedly intensified pressure on the tiny Balkan country to hand over men it deemed a security threat,” mentioning the case of the Algerian Six, the six men who were kidnapped by US forces and taken to Guantánamo after an investigation by the Bosnian authorities — instigated because of pressure exerted by the US — found nothing to warrant their arrest. Two of the six, Lakhdar Boumediene and Mustafa Ait Idir, have just had a book of their experiences published, Witnesses of the Unseen: Seven Years in Guantánamo, which I wholeheartedly recommend.

Back in 2000, when Tariq al-Sawah heard rumors that Bosnia was “about to commence deportations,” he “left for Afghanistan, rather than Egypt,” and “was not the only one who headed for Kabul,” as Kurasinska explained, adding, “Having served in the Bosnian army during the war, many believed going back to their countries of origin carried a risk of prosecution and imprisonment,” which, with Egypt, was certainly true.

Turning to al-Sawah’s life in Afghanistan, Kurasinska noted that he “was reluctant to elaborate on his choice of destination and the nature of the activities he engaged in,” but also noted that his Wikileaks file explains how he became engaged in bomb-making, a period of his life which, of course, he renounced in Guantánamo.

Al-Sawah also told her about his suffering in Guantánamo, explaining how he was “shackled 24 hours a day and kept in solitary confinement despite suffering from poor health and depression.”

Turning to his situation now, Kurasinska noted that, while he was in Guantánamo, his “Bosnian citizenship was revoked and thus he is currently living in a state of limbo.” She added that “Bosnia’s citizen revocation process drew widespread criticism as it allowed no appeal and subjected the individuals concerned to immediate deportation, at times due to minor bureaucratic omissions.”

As a result, alhough Bosnia “agreed to take back Sawah in the deal struck with the US government, it is limited to subsidiary protection only, allowing him to stay in the country with limited rights.” When she asked him “whether he still holds Egyptian citizenship or if he receives any support from Egypt,” he “said he no longer has any links to the country” and confirmed he “is trying to rebuild his life in Bosnia, where his daughter lives.”

However, he is clearly dissatisfied with “the lack of substantial support from Bosnia and his desperation at the legal state of uncertainty he is living in,” although “his most bitter complaints are reserved for the US government.”

Jelena Sesar of Amnesty International stated, “Amnesty International strongly believes that the US government has the primary responsibility for resolving the problem it has created at Guantánamo.” She added that the US “must work with host countries to ensure that detainees are successfully resettled after their transfer from Guantánamo, and that their human rights are respected. This includes financial assistance to aid successful integration, including for housing, transportation, medical and social support, ensuring access to educational and employment opportunities so that former detainees can learn a trade and/or earn a living wage. This is particularly important for countries such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are struggling to address the needs of their own vulnerable populations.”

Kurasinska also noted that, “Despite numerous requests for comment, Bosnia’s Ministry of Security, the body responsible for handling Sawah’s case, refused to respond to any questions regarding his status in the country.” She also noted that a US State Department official told her that they “cannot discuss the specific assurances” they receive from foreign governments, but that they include requirements for threat mitigation and “ensur[ing] humane treatment.”

Unfortunately for Tariq al-Sawah, it is not entirely clear to me that ensuring humane treatment has been a priority for the US government — and now, of course, under Donald Trump, the situation seems only to be worse, as Trump has not even appointed replacements for the two envoys in the Pentagon and State Department who, under President Obama, were not only responsible for making safe arrangements regarding the release of prisoners, but also, afterwards, monitored their resettlement and their transition to civilian life.

By Jonathan Power*

Last May a court in Senegal convicted and sentenced to life-imprisonment Hissène Habré, the former ruler of Chad, for the crime of torture and crimes against humanity. On April 27, 2017 an appeal court upheld the sentence and now Habré, who ran from Chad after a coup in a military transport that airlifted him, his entourage and a Mercedes to what he hoped would be a luxurious exile in Senegal, is languishing in an ordinary prison cell.

Habré’s government killed more than 40,000 people during his presidency from 1982 to 1990, when he was deposed. The American government made a last minute effort to save but failed. He had long been an important, if secret, ally. He was, according to Michael Bronner, writing in the respected Foreign Policy magazine in January 2014, “The centrepiece of the Reagan Administration’s attempt to undermine Muammar Gadaffi who had become an increasing threat and embarrassment to the US with his support of international terrorism”.

Senegal became the first country in the world to ratify the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). According to Hugh Brody, the head of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, Senegal “is a country that always considered itself to be in the avant-garde of international law and human rights”. Nevertheless, for years it gave refuge, before finally succumbing to pressure from human rights organisations, Belgium and the African Union to put him on trial.

One of the people who staggered to freedom from his jail in Chad, the moment of the release of all Habré’s political prisoners, was Souleymane Guengueng. He was a former accountant, nearly blind and barely alive. In 2013 he would prove to be Habré’s undoing.

Brody sent a student law team to Senegal to interview him. While in prison, Guengueng had compiled 792 witness accounts that he had coaxed out of fellow prisoners. The students hid copies of the documents in the laundry room of the monastery in which they were staying. One of them took the risk of an airport search by putting them in his bag and taking a plane home.

The next step was for Brody and his colleagues in January 2000 to file a case against Habré. Brody says, “When we began we didn’t know who was who- who would give information back to . We were really afraid he would try to escape from Senegal”.

Fortunately, they had had Guengueng’s documents, which were the documentary core of the case. They filed the case on January 26. Two days later, the senior investigating judge summoned the Chadians to tell their stories. The case made headlines across Africa. Four days later the judge indicted and placed him under house arrest. The New York Times editorialised: “An African Pinochet…a welcome new chapter in the evolution of international law.”

But the drama still had many acts to go. On July 4 the judge was removed from the case. The following year the country’s top court ruled that Senegal didn’t have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Habré in another country.

Then Brody helped Chadian victims, who had been given refuge in Belgium, to file a criminal complaint under the country’s law of universal jurisdiction.

In 2009, after Senegal had repeatedly failed to respond to an extradition request, Belgium took the case to the World Court, the International Court of Justice. In March 2012 the court convened. Days later Senegal elected a new president, Macky Sall. He announced that Habré would be tried in Senegal.

Senegal’s minister of justice, Aminata Toure, told Bronner, “We have to walk the talk”. On July 20, the World Court issued its unanimous decision, ordering Senegal to “without further delay submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.”

On June 30, 2013 the police arrested Habré at his house where he had lived in gilded exile for 22 years. The Obama Administration welcomed the trial. It began in the summer of 2015 and finished in May 2016.

It was the first time that a former head of state has been prosecuted for human rights abuses in a country other than his own (and where until recently he had enjoyed the hospitality and protection of his hosts). The conviction is also significant, as it required the intervention of courts across several jurisdictions.

It also required the African Union with its 54 member states to mandate Senegal’s prosecution and judges to proceed with the case. It has allowed the African Union to reclaim some of the moral high ground it has lost during its campaign of threatening to withdraw from the ICC because of its alleged bias against Africa.

It points the way to reconciling the conflicting demands of international law, regional politics and national sovereignty. Other parts of the world could emulate it with their own human rights criminals.

*For 17 years Jonathan Power was a foreign affairs columnist for the International Herald Tribune. He has forwarded this and his previous Viewpoints for publication in IDN-INPS. Copyright: Jonathan Power.

By Todd Royal

When OPEC instituted their recent production cuts, the theory went that oil prices would balance after crashing in 2014. After Donald Trump won the presidency, it was speculated that price fluctuation would become the norm based upon his inexperience in public office and statements during the U.S. presidential campaign.

Popular news outlets also conjectured he would start World War III and possibly limit democracy. That hasn’t occurred and it’s time to realize the geopolitical risk that has caused prices to rise in oil and natural gas markets is overblown. A supply glut and U.S. shale record output are large factors keeping prices depressed. But if prices spike, the reason should be a drawdown in inventories, and returning to the laws of supply and demand will give an indication of where prices are headed in 2017 –not overheated, geopolitical rhetoric.

According to Matthew Kroenig Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council:

“On almost every front, the U.S. is positioned for the challenges to come with the current team and policies in place. 

This is good news for U.S. supplies, and as it was announced in late April, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman appointed his son as the new ambassador to the U.S. in a major diplomatic reorganization. This is an indication that the Saudi’s want closer relations with the U.S. and the potential for another Saudi-led war against U.S. shale firms more than likely won’t occur in the near future.

Certainly there are geopolitical challenges which could affect global prices and supply. The U.S. deployed the controversial THAAD missile defense system in South Korea sparking fierce protests from China further rattling the tense relationship between the U.S., North Korea, Japan and China over the issue. North Korea attempted another missile launch in mid-April and news has surfaced that the test was disrupted using cyber-warfare.

Through the chaos, President Xi of China wants stability, “in what is the equivalent of an election year in one-party China.” Xi doesn’t want a war between the U.S. and North Korea with China caught in the middle. Now that the U.S. is selling coal to China it is unlikely war between the U.S. and North Korea will break out.  It’s simply bad economics for the U.S. and China. After the recent meeting between Trump and Xi, the Chinese are considering a tougher stance on North Korea, lessening the chance of a geopolitical standoff, which is welcomed news for stable oil and gas prices. Still, North Korea is a dangerous factor in terms of prices and supplies, which means that China and the U.S. should be monitored for how they handle the situation.

Syria is unstable, and French intelligence reported forces loyal to Assad, “carried out a sarin nerve gas attack on April 4 in northern Syria.” The report also states that Assad has carried out over 140 gas attacks while being backed by Russia and Iran. These developments could potentially be troubling for oil price stability if the U.S. and other allies were to expand the war against Assad that included Russia and Iran as targets. That is tough to envision since Trump alerted the Russians before his recent targeting of a Syrian airfield, and the U.S. is still a signatory to the landmark P5+1 nuclear deal between Iran and Western powers. Though Iran is still acting as a belligerent nation by continuing to harass U.S. naval vessels in the Persian Gulf and nearby Strait of Hormuz.

Foreign Affairs Magazine reported that U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had “tense but engaging meetings,” with his Russian counterpart and Vladimir Putin in late April. Each side believes “the glass is half full in their relationship,” after the Syrian strikes, and neither side believes there will be any direct military or diplomatic conflicts taking place. Putin isn’t going to let Syria dictate his relationship with the U.S. or his stance on energy policies.

While the current international environment may be the worst since the Cold War, that isn’t a reason to base investment decisions or allow oil prices to rise based on political or geopolitical risk. What should concern bullish investors are announcements by the Saudi Energy Minister stating, “It is too early to decide if OPEC will extend production cuts,” along with Libyan political instability, Venezuelan production going offline, and Nigerian unpredictability. These are geopolitical issues that can affect Crude and Brent prices depending on the circumstances, but the world is still awash in oil, therefore it is difficult to envision prices rising to pre-2014 crash levels.

There are also a number of factors pointing to increased oil output, which could continue to depress prices. According to Mark Papa, chief executive of Centennial Resource Development: “We are still in a carbon-based economy, and we see more demand than ever.” The Gulf of Mexico, moreover, reached a record-high output of 1.7m bpd in January based on numbers from the EIAs Short Term Energy Outlook. U.S. rig counts have also hit a two-year high along with new pipelines coming online.

Goldman Sachs has taken a contrarian view from other investment banks and firms who follow oil prices when it predicts oil at $50 a barrel based on:

“Improvements in technology and costs involved with shale extraction. Price fluctuations are now likely to be within the realm of 10-20 percent, rather than quadrupling noted when new technology methods were being tallied.”

The strategic case for oil rising has solid reasons, and while there is geopolitical uncertainty, the market is still flush with inventory. It doesn’t seem wise to let geopolitical corrections cloud wise oil and gas investment decisions. The Trump administration is also adding to the supply gut by opening up federal lands and other previously untapped, U.S. offshore drilling sites through an executive order – this could alter prices toward a downward slope. Supply and demand along with large-scale supply cuts should be at the forefront of pricing decisions, and if geopolitical risk is part of that model, then it should be objective, unbiased geopolitical analysis, on day-to-day and long term prices for 2017.

The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the authors are theirs alone and don’t reflect any official position of Geopoliticalmonitor.com, where this articl was first published.

Julian Assange has fired back at Hillary Clinton, branding her the “butcher of Libya” in a scathing response to the former presidential candidate’s labeling of WikiLeaks as “Russian WikiLeaks”.

The editor of the whistle-blowing website shared his agitated response in a tweet Wednesday, a day after Clinton claimed that her loss to Donald Trump in last year’s presidential election was caused by the actions of FBI Director James Comey and WikiLeaks.

Clinton claimed to take “absolute personal responsibility” for her loss, adding that she “was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter, on October 28, and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me, but got scared off.”

Assange hit back at the claim, describing it as a lie and calling Clinton the “butcher of Libya.

On Wednesday a lawyer for Assange said a request had been filed with a Swedish court to rescind a detention order against him, claiming it should be granted on the grounds that it was now evident the US wants to arrest the WikiLeaks editor.

Assange has been in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden, fearing a handover to the US to face prosecution for WikiLeaks’ publication of thousands of classified military and diplomatic cables.

Per Samuelson said rescinding the order would not hamper the Swedish prosecutor’s investigation into allegations of rape filed against Assange. The lawyer claimed they could continue with the investigation with Assange in Ecuador.

“If they want to charge him and go to trial, that can happen just as well with him at liberty in Ecuador since that’s the only place he can be,” Samuelson said, reported Reuters.

A previous request was rejected by Sweden’s Supreme Court on the grounds that Assange was unlikely to be handed over to the US by Sweden, claims Samuelson.

“Given that the US is obviously hunting him now, he has to make use of his political asylum and it is Sweden’s duty to make sure that Sweden is no longer a reason for that fact he has to stay in the embassy,” Samuelson said.

Last month sources in the Department of Justice told the CNN and the Washington Post that charges were being prepared against Assange.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions told reporters that his arrest was a “priority,” describing documents revealed by WikiLeaks as “quite serious.”

“We’ve already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail.”

CIA Director Mike Pompeo, whose organization has become the subject of WikiLeaks #Vault7 series of leaks, said he would be pursuing Assange.

The #Vault7 leak, which WikiLeaks claims originated from the CIA center in Langley, Virginia, has revealed sordid details of alleged CIA hacking techniques, including the ability to spy via Smart TVs and hide traces of their hacks.

In the elections held in five states in March 2017, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won majority in two states and managed to form the government in another two with coalition partners. A total of 690 seats were contested in the five states, of which the BJP won 406 that translates to 59 percent of the total.

Of the five states that went to the polls, the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) is of special significance in Indian politics for a number of reasons and it is in this state that the BJP claimed an overwhelming victory. UP is India’s largest state with a population of over 220 million. If it had been an independent nation, it would have been the fifth most populous country in the world. In UP, BJP garnered over 40 per cent of the vote, which in a first-past-the-post electoral system gave them 77 percent of the assembly seats on offer.

With this victory in state elections, the BJP now runs 13 of India’s 29 states. More importantly, the 13 states that it runs also contain the ones at the forefront of national development. The impressive electoral showing in March has been hailed as a personal moral victory for the Prime Minister Narendra Modi. More importantly it indicates a direct victory of the altered political values that he represents at the national level. About six months before the elections, the Central Government in Delhi had initiated a controversial economic reform through the demonetisation of the 1000-rupee note.

Traditionally India has always been heavily dependent on a cash-based economy. The demonetisation brought on tremendous hardships on the middle and lower strata of the society who were the people directly affected. Not only was the initiative supposed to fail, but popular dissatisfaction was also supposed to be reflected in the forthcoming state elections. Most of the analysts predicted a huge electoral backlash whenever elections were held next. It was commonly predicted that the demonetisation drive would weaken the Prime Minister’s ability to consolidate power and assert the will of the Central Government. However, the state elections in March, half-way through the 5-year term of the Central Government, proved this gloomy prediction completely wrong. Not only did the BJP improve its standing, the results have also provided the BJP with the foundation to gather political momentum for the national elections scheduled for 2019.

Consolidating Power

India has been a practising democracy only for the past seven decades. However, even within this short span of time it has managed to evolve its own special brand of democratic processes. Of particular note has been the rise of regional parties, which dominate state politics. The regional parties emphasise and mainly focus on regional pride and caste-oriented populism.

From a national perspective, they are divisive elements to the national ethos, even though most of them manage to govern with reasonable efficiency. These regional parties follow narrow parochial interests and have been in power in a large number of states for the past few decades. Such state governments can become a hindrance to central leadership in implementing economic reform, becoming the catalysts that delay progress and development. The BJP victory in UP and Uttarakhand decimated the regional parties of these two states. The election results have brought to the fore two fundamental questions that needs to be asked.

The first is generic—do these results mean that politics is changing in the Hindi heartland of India? There are already commentaries extolling the fact that the election results are the triumph of development over communal politics and religious vote banks. It is true that caste and religious alliances that have so far been dominant in creating ‘vote-banks’ that in turn provide the numbers needed for electoral victory have been pushed aside. However, it is too early to call this a trend that will be sustained into the next election and the one thereafter.

It is also not sure at this time whether or not the trend will spread across the nation. There are high probabilities that this could be a ‘one-off’ result. More so if the BJP government either fails to deliver on its promise of development, or worse, starts to cater to the Hindu nationalistic rhetoric that is being touted openly in the country. In UP, BJP has promised economic development to one of India’s poorest states.

At present there is no clear evidence that it was this promise that reengineered voter sentiment towards an inclusive nationalism. There could have been a few other dynamics at play, which made the resounding BJP victory possible. It is possible that the BJP projection of overt nationalism that delivered inclusive economic growth, combined with their indirect refusal to ‘appease minorities’ played a chord that brought in some of the undecided voters to its side. There is no evidence that such a trend manifested itself in UP. However, if this is indeed true, then it is a new trend in Indian politics and needs careful analysis and monitoring in forthcoming elections.

The second question is more personal and oriented towards the Prime Minister. There is no doubt that in the three years since winning government in Delhi, Modi has charted a new course and narrative in Indian politics. It is also true that he has won more trust from the people than any other leader in recent times. There is an inherent connection that is palpably visible between the Prime Minister and the people, the common man.

This unparalleled status is very similar, and more than equal, to the popularity that Indira Gandhi held during her heydays in power. However, Mrs Gandhi squandered the people’s trust in very short order, for a number of reasons that are not germane to this discussion. Therefore, the second question is, how will Prime Minister Modi use this overwhelming trust of the people through the life of this government? Or will he squander this massive mandate through catering to the baser religious elements within his own party?

If the past three years are any indication, it is certain that Modi is acutely aware of this massive opportunity—that comes only once in a lifetime for any democratic leader—and therefore will not let it slip through his fingers. The portents that can be read are many and indicate a move in the right direction. After the recent electoral victory, he has called on the BJP cadre and leadership to ‘bend down’ in humility before the will of the people and to shun arrogance and hubris. Even so, the BJP and its overt Hindu nationalism may yet prove to be the Achilles’ heel in the Prime Minister’s armour. The BJP is being accused of overt Hindu chauvinism that could turn vituperative rapidly. While the Prime Minister is circumspect regarding the growing Hindu nationalism, the rank and file of the BJP have made minorities feel apprehensive by their display of religion-fuelled nationalistic bravado.

It would seem that the BJP has been charting a nuanced strategy for the March state elections. The strategy was actively pursued for the first time in the recent UP elections and was a resounding success. It is safe to assume that the BJP will follow this new strategy, crafting it to suit local requirements, in future elections in different parts of the nation. At the base level, the strategy aims at consolidating the Hindu vote, moving across and blurring the traditional caste divisions that have so far kept it divided.

If this holistic assimilation can be effectively achieved, then it is a move that will create a situation where the BJP could afford to selectively ignore the minority votes and yet win the elections. The minority votes in each constituency will vary and may even be large in some, but as a percentage of the total vote it would still remain largely inconsequential in the current electoral system. The caveat to achieving this is that the Hindu votes remain undivided.

Consolidating power at the central Government is essential to push forward the economic reforms that the Prime Minister has been focused on since assuming power. The strategy being adopted is aimed at achieving a populist domination of the people by the BJP—which in turn will translate to electoral victories.

Consolidation is necessary to open the economy in order to establish a pluralistic society with a federal polity, within the next two decades. It is also critical to creating job opportunities for the burgeoning youth population. Modi is focused on making unrelenting efforts to rapidly transform the nation; to convert normal development into a ‘people’s movement’ that in turn will ensure inclusive upward mobility and transition for one and all.

For the past two years the pace of this transition has been hobbled by a moribund bureaucracy, which has stood steadfast as an antithesis to everything that the Prime Minister articulates. The realisation that inaction is no longer a viable option is only now sinking into the bureaucracy. Modi needs to urgently create efficient, transparent and accountable governance if any of the many ambitious schemes are to bear fruit. More than anybody else, it is the Prime Minister who is aware of this.

In spite of an inactive bureaucracy, the central government has assumed the lead in a number of activities and is also viewed as being strong and viable. From a commerce and trade viewpoint this is definitely a plus point. Only after creating a strong and consolidated Central Government can the Prime Minister make tough economic decisions and policy choices to move the nation forward. India needs to be opened further to the global market and barriers put up by state legislations will have to be dismantled in order to achieve this. Already a national sales tax has been approved and will replace the completely confused state-levied taxes in vogue now. This should improve the currently chaotic regulations that increase the difficulty of ‘doing business’ in India.

In this equation to consolidate power, why are state elections so important? There are two reasons for state elections to assume critical stature in moving the nation forward. First, is the constitution of the Rajya Sabha, the Upper House of Parliament. Currently it continues to have a blocking power on the initiatives of the government. The colour of the Rajya Sabha membership will only change gradually. The Rajya Sabha is a 245-member house of whom 233 are elected by the state legislative assemblies and the remaining 12 are nominated by the President.

The changes in state governments directly affect the membership of the Rajya Sabha that in turn could make life easy or difficult for the government. It can either ensure that the Lower House bills are passed in time or it can drag its feet and make the process a bane on development. When a government is in a hurry to move forward, an uncooperative Rajya Sabha can become a perennial spoke in the wheel. This is the current situation in India.

The second reason for state elections to play such an important role in national governance is the size of the country, and its geographic, demographic and cultural diversity. In order to cater for this diversity, governance of the states is legally designated to the elected state governments. The Chief Minister of each state exercises executive powers at the state level. Therefore, it becomes extremely important for the Central Government to have the states ‘on-side’ if national developmental agenda have to be pushed forward. This is easier to achieve when the centre and state have unanimity in political ideology through being ruled by the same party. In these circumstances, consolidation of power becomes relatively easy.

The Downside of BJP Nationalism

Hinduism is the philosophical underpinning of the BJP and it also happens to be the religion of nearly 80 percent of the population. Even so Hinduism is not the official religion of India, which constitutionally remains a secular nation.

However, in recent months BJP-sponsored Hindu nationalism has started to incrementally challenge the core philosophy of Indian secularism, as has been practised in the nation for the past sixty years. This has initiated heated national debates, especially regarding the nation’s political identity and the direction in which the broader society seems to be moving.

Within the BJP there is a perceptible hard-line though process that insists on making Hinduism the guiding principle of the entire Indian society. This would obviously lead to the political and cultural subordination of other religious minorities, especially the Christians and the Muslims. Such a dramatic change will not be palatable to the majority of the nation and is bound to create further schisms. Independent India suffers from a history of religious and communal violence, starting from the riots in the aftermath of partition in 1947 to the current day.

Within this somewhat ambiguous situation, the Prime Minister could be said to be pursuing a nuanced pro-Hindu strategy in a subtle manner. Some analysts have even termed it an anti-Muslim agenda, without such a strategy being openly articulated. This conclusion is not entirely true and does not give credit to a Prime Minister who has gone to great lengths to drop all biased religious references in the formulation of his policies and his speeches.

Irrespective of Modi’s stance, the majority of the BJP cadre is wedded to and push a Hinduism-based agenda. The unsaid part is that such an agenda invariably is a non-secular one. Even with an overwhelming Hindu religious agenda, the BJP ranks can be divided into two wings, with sufficient overlap at the dividing line to make distinct divisions difficult. The first is the pragmatic wing, concerned mainly with national economic development and understanding the need for inclusivity to achieve this. The second is focused on religion and on the fall out that minority politics have had on the social and cultural fabric of the nation. These two disparate groups will have to compromise and come to terms in agreement regarding the direction that the party and the nation must adopt, before tangible progress can be made.

Considering heterogeneous quality of the BJP, at least for the moment, it is difficult to interpret the recent electoral victories as a manifestation of a long-term reconfiguration of the voting pattern, which has so far been based almost entirely on caste, religion and identity.

Further, the question emerges, would the demonstration of the consolidation of the Hindu vote mean a reworking of the society itself? Both of the above, a reworking of the society based on Hindu consolidation, remain distinct possibilities and could then radically change the political and societal ethos of the nation. At this juncture it is impossible to predict the actual changes that would be brought to bear and also the direction that the nation would take thereafter, if such a change come to pass.

There is no doubt that the minority religions are apprehensive, especially when they see that the BJP clamour for an overt and offensive Hindu nationalism as a core concept that must be embraced by all Indians have been strengthened by the recent electoral results. The vociferous nature of this demand has been demonstrated by reported numerous cases of ‘cow vigilantism’ that have led to violence and death.

The foundational plank of Prime Minister Modi’s way forward for India is inclusive economic development and the delivery of essential services. In a number of areas this developmental aspiration will come directly into conflict with the overt Hindu nationalism of the party. For example, the leather industry, which is one on the ‘make in India’ list, would come up against the need to ‘worship’ and safeguard the cow. The future direction of the society and India at large will be determined by the manner in which such contradictory situations are resolved.

Even with further consolidation of power in the centre, if the BJP continues to function within the current framework of the party, the Prime Minster will find it difficult to deliver inclusive economic development. Cultural politics, especially in an entrenched caste-ridden political environment, will not have the heft to carry the deadweight of religious minorities pulling the other way. The story of BJP in government is an on-going and developing saga—watch this space.

The large marches, in Washington, DC and around the country, calling attention to importance of science and focusing on the calamitous impacts of climate change  had impressive turnouts. But the protests would have been more productive if they concentrated more – in their slogans and signs – on 535 politicians to whom we have given immense power to influence policies relating to those issues, for ill or for good.

I’m speaking of Congress.

Congress cannot be ignored or neglected simply because we know it to be a corporate Congress, or a gridlocked Congress, or a Congress that is so collectively delinquent, or perk and PAC addicted, or  beholden to commercial interests, or self-serving through gerrymandered electoral districts where they, through their party’s controlled state government, pick the voters to elect them.

Sure, there are probably 100 good legislators on Capitol Hill. But many of these progressive elected officials fail to effectively network with citizen groups, or organize left-right coalitions back home into an unstoppable political force. Issues that invite such left/right consensus are numerous, including  raising the federal minimum wage, protecting civil liberties, tackling government waste and corruption, advancing solar energy, reforming the corporate tax system, full Medicare for all (with free choice of doctor and hospital) and a crackdown on corporate crime and abuses against consumers, workers and communities. Polls show big majorities behind these  and other much needed redirections and reforms.

All these improvements in the lives of all Americans have to go through Congress. Sure, some efforts can be partially achieved by self-help and state/local governments. But for a national, comprehensive change movement, it is the Congress,  which must be effectively and forcefully instructed to act in the public interest.

The big business lobbies haven’t given up on Congress, have they? They’re swarming over the Senators and Representatives to get the power we’ve given these lawmakers regularly deployed on the behalf of the crassest, most avaricious and harmful demands of the business bosses.

The most successful “citizen lobbies” focused on Congress do not bother with major marches and demonstrations. Groups like the NRA and AIPAC focus, with laser-beam precision, on each member of Congress. They know their background, their strengths and weaknesses, their key advisors and friends back home, their physicians, their lawyers and accountants, the social clubs they belong to, the kinds of hobbies and vacations they pursue. The NRA and AIPAC advocates personally know the lawmakers’ staff, sources of their campaign contributions, their concerns about possible primary challengers, what kinds of well-paying positions members of Congress seek after retirement or defeat.

With this face-to-face lobbying, threats of primary challenges and ample campaign contributions, these groups have gotten their way in Congress to an amazing degree, given their relatively small numbers of supporters.

Here is some advice: Get to know your two Senators and Congressperson personally and on your terms. It’s easier to do this with a comprehensive agenda of long-overdue reforms which can give you broad-based left/right support in your state. Then issue a formal Summons (a draft is in my new paperback, Breaking Through Power: It’s Easier Than We Think) for your Senators and Representatives to attend YOUR town meeting on YOUR agenda of changes and advances.

Every Congressional District has about 700,000 men, women and children. Most Districts have community colleges and/or universities. All have the necessary one percent of serious citizens working together to focus majority opinion directly on members of Congress. Often what is required is less than one percent, or say 2,000 people, working collectively as Congressional Watchdogs for 5 to 10 hours a week and raising enough money for two full time offices each with two staff.

The fruits of such efforts are numerous and immensely important to our country, our children and their children, not to mention the world.

To expedite and increase the ratios of success, such Congressional Watchdog organizations require study, discussions, and some training sessions with easily available material in bookstores or on the Internet. Just consider how much serious input goes into hobbies by millions of Americans all the time. Consider participating in this very important “civic hobby” achieving a better life for the people with “liberty and justice for all.”

The sheer magnitude of the urban population, haphazard and unplanned growth of urban areas, and a desperate lack of infrastructure are the main causes of the current chaotic situation.

The rapid growth of urban populations, both natural and through migration, has put heavy pressure on public utilities such as housing, sanitation, transport, water, electricity, health, education and so on. Poverty, unemployment and under-employment among rural immigrants, beggary, thefts, burglaries and other social evils are on rampage. Additionally, urban sprawl is rapidly encroaching precious agricultural land. By 2030, more than 50 percent of population is expected to live in urban areas.

The following problems need to be highlighted.

Intensive urban growth can lead to greater poverty, with local governments unable to provide services for all people. Concentrated energy use leads to greater air pollution with significant impact on human health. Automobile exhaust produces elevated lead levels in urban air. Large volumes of uncollected waste create multiple health hazards. Urban development can magnify the risk of environmental hazards such as flash flooding. Pollution and physical barriers to root growth promote loss of urban tree cover. Animal populations are inhibited by toxic substances, vehicles, and the loss of habitat and food sources. Unemployment is now considerable in many towns and informal sector opportunities (including market trade, food and betel nut selling and cleaning) cannot absorb growing population numbers. Low incomes and large household sizes have posed problems.

Though many migrants have achieved success, social problems, with domestic violence and family breakdown have sometimes occurred away from kin support and the subsistence safety net of rural areas. Crime has worsened, creating a new security industry, raising the costs of business development and straining the judicial system. Socio-economic inequalities have grown. Health and nutrition are sometimes poor in town where low incomes, poor access to gardens and the rise of a junk food industry exist. Service provision (water, sewerage, electricity, waste removal etc.) is sometimes inadequate, especially in the squatter settlements that exist in marginal areas (such as remote, swampy or steeply sloping land). Housing is costly, low-cost housing scarce and rents are high.

Urban land is increasingly scarce, whether for housing, industrial development, recreation or open space. Land tenure issues complicate urban management and planning as customary land remains in or close to most towns. Land use plans are therefore difficult to construct whilst town planning remains in its infancy.

Population densities are very high in some towns, especially in Micronesia, whilst lack of land has made waste disposal a problem. There is little recycling and a scarcity of landfill sites, especially in atoll environments. Many urban rivers and coastal lagoons are polluted and water supplies contaminated, posing threats to health. Land settlement schemes have absorbed few people and rural development has not discouraged rural urban migration, especially where rural service provision is inadequate.

Achieving sustainable urban development requires slowing urban growth rates (by reducing overall population growth rates, and slowing migration by stimulating rural development), integrated urban development and planning, new employment creation ( at a time when comprehensive reform programs are reducing the public service) and more rates and revenue collection. None of this is easy hence urban problems will remain into the new millennium.

The following recommendations can curb urbanization:

• Combat poverty by promoting economic development and job creation,involve local community in local government.
• Reduce air pollution by upgrading energy use and alternative transport systems.
• Create private-public partnerships to provide services such as waste disposal and housing.
  Plant trees and incorporate the care of city green spaces as a key element in urban planning

*Myrah Qadeer Khan, MPhil in Media studies/ Lecturer- UG studies in International Development studies from University of London mahira.qadeer@yahoo.com

If average Americans could visit the sprawling countries of Eurasia, including Russia, Khazakstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey, China, and other nations, they would quickly surmise that those nations are literally drenched in oil, gas, minerals, and natural resource wealth which is literally just begging to be developed and marketed in the international stream of commerce.

Brand new buildings, with the latest advances in structural and physical ingenuity, dot the landscape of these nations, being commissioned and put up by the latest geniuses who brought us the towers in Dubai and other fabulously wealthy nations in the East, while the infrastructure and architecture of the United States and Great Britain lay in self-pleased antiquity and junky comparison.

The United States has always been a nation of progress, ingenuity, discovery, wonder, and periodic renewal in almost each and every capacity for growth and development, but for some reason, the kernel of genius and wisdom so carefully inserted into the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights by the Founding Fathers has been subverted and stifled by the International Central Bankers and their minions within the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branch, as well as its lapdog corporate Mainstream Media, to literally prevent and paralyze America from joining in this absolute financial and economic boom currently underway in Eurasia.

Even though the United States has the most advanced technological abilities to fully assist and help develop the natural resources and markets of all of the countries that the short-sighted and idiotic U.S. Treasury Department on its own is waging a “sanction war” against, American corporations and its employees are being held back and kept out of the loop by various members of the U.S. Government itself, who are often shareholders and members of the Board of Directors of those foreign companies from Eurasian nations, who are in fact, making a “killing” on these new and emerging and developing markets going on right now.

The stench and sickness of hypocrisy in denying the American citizenry the boons and benefits of this newfound wealth and natural resource prosperity by their U.S. Treasury masters with idiotic and counterproductive sanctions is truly mind-boggling, while these governmental economic suppressors continue to take part in and financially benefit, through their own corporate and international cronyism, in these burgeoning industries.

These idiots within the U.S. Treasury Department, using their half-educated nimrods within the U.S. Congress and Senate, continue to pump out international economic stifling sanctions, seemingly 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days per year, under the idiotic appellation and specious banner of “combating international Islamic terrorism,” against certain nations which, if the USA actively encouraged trade and friendly relationships with, would yield untold and limitless bountiful economic fruit to all segments of the U.S. economic sector and its people, but again these “harbingers of doom” working within the U.S. Government would rather deprive their fellow American citizenry while all the while having one foot in the Eurasian economic door through their international relationships overseas.

And “international Islamic terrorism” has also been revealed to be simply a disruptive “boogeyman” created, funded, armed, trained and dispatched by our friendly neighborhood International Central Bankers and their equally stooge-like Intelligence Services for precisely this purpose, to foment conflict, division, and provocation so that they can use variously selected, idiotic, and shortsighted world leaders to sanction, embargo, invade and terrorize other world nations not towing the proverbial line of their international and global agenda.

For example, in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Khazakstan, and other oil/gas rich nations, we are constantly repressing and sanctioning integral nations such as Iran, Russia, Syria, Belarus, Balkans, China, Kyrgyzstan, Venezuela, and scores of other nations who are being idiotically alienated and provoked with financially crippling U.S. embargoes and sanctions, instead of enjoying full diplomatic relations in the spirit of working together, thus hitting all Americans directly where it counts the most – in their pocket book.

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, stated that “it is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.”

Thomas Jefferson, at his Inauguration, pledged “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.”

It is quite striking when one of our most powerful and wealthy American companies, Boeing, can not even sell its passenger airplanes to a country like Iran, potentially making trillions of dollars and creating hundreds of thousands of high-paying U.S. jobs, just because a handful of disloyal and crony members of the U.S. Treasury and their minions in the U.S. Legislature carry out their bidding and prevent them all from doing business, thus driving this massively lucrative business and jobs creation directly into the hands of Airbus, Europe’s number one passenger airline company, to the tune of trillions of dollars in current and future revenue.

But this is only one example out of thousands of U.S. Corporations and Foreign Nations that they target.

But our counterproductive sanctions and embargoes against so many different nations, under the dubious guise of “terrorism,” rather than through direct problem solving, conflict resolution, and resolute negotiation procedures through diplomacy and communication, are having the ultimate and pernicious effect of leaving America in the economic and financial dirt, while augmenting and increasing the economic and logistical development of the nations (and their friends) that we are targeting.

However this might be the grand game and goal of the International Central Bankers in their international economic chess game, in the first place.

For over one hundred years, the world has been celebrating May 1 as Labor Day, hailing the historical struggle of workers against oppression and suppression. The question is as to whether this May Day only has anymore a historical relevance, as the fortunes of labor have vastly improved.

Several governments continue to declare May 1 as national holiday, even as many employees relax at home or at leisure outfits, enjoying the holiday. Obviously, many governments dare not cancel the May 1 holiday, despite the fact that May Day is only now a remembrance day and does not seem to have much relevance in the present context, where the original objectives of the labor movement have largely been achieved. Governments seem to think that the cancellation of the May 1 holiday would get them branded as anti-labor and therefore, continue the practice.

Should white collar employees be deemed as working class?

In the last several decades, the status and image of the working class has undergone a sea change for the better.

Today, we find that White Collar employees living in comfort with high salaries and perks, and they also call themselves as working men and demand trade union rights, distorting the original image of a worker as doing hard physical labor, without commensurate compensation and as a suffering entity for whom justice had been denied. Additionally, White Collar employees insist that they are participants in the labor movement, though many discerning observers think that this is an unacceptable claim.

The fact is that with automation and computerization many of the labor intensive jobs have been replaced by machines with the White Collar employees only operating a button or keyboard while sitting in a comfortable ambience, without much physical labor. Can they claim to also have the same image, as the working men as described by the original initiators of the labor movement in the world?

It is high time that one should have the courage to question the wisdom of calling White Collar employees and those operating machines with remote controls and enjoying fat salaries as working men and call the bluff on their claims that they represent the working class.

Organised vis a vis unorganized class

With the labor laws around the world becoming more civilized and liberal, the rights of the organized class of employees are now highly protected and safeguarded. The right to strike given to them ensures that their voice does not go unheard and the employer cannot have whimsical ways in dealing with them. The ground reality is that such rights are now being enjoyed by those who are not in economically distress situations or defenceless positions.

Many people believe that the organized class sometimes has become an exploitative class, keeping their narrow interests in view and resorting to strikes and agitations in the name of exercising their trade union rights and demanding a bigger share in the income of the country or enterprise, totally unmindful of the needs of those who live in less fortunate conditions.

Today’s organized class that claims that they reflect the spirit of May Day can be clearly seen as an anachronism.

Let May Day be for unorganized class

There is need to distinguish between the organized class and unorganized class of employees and highlight the fact that spirit of May Day has relevance now only for the unorganized class, whose rights are still not adequately protected. It is necessary to fix the minimum income levels and define the nature of the work for any group to lay claims as work men .

These May Day thoughts should make everyone think about the changing scenario and strive to create a new definition for labor.

Pollution in Europe has contributed to one of the worst droughts in India which has destroyed the lives of more than 130 million people, according to a new study. Researchers believe manufactured aerosols are to blame for the weakening of monsoon winds and rain in India over the past few decades.

Emissions from the northern hemisphere’s main industrial areas caused a staggering 40 per cent drop in rainfall in north west India in 2000, according to researchers from Imperial College London. Europe’s emissions alone caused levels of rainfall to fall by ten per cent in the same year.

Sulphur dioxide – produced mainly by coal-fired power plants – causes a number of harmful effects, such as acid rain, heart and lung diseases, and damage to plant growth. Now researchers at Imperial College London have calculated just how big an effect emissions of sulphur dioxide had on rainfall in India in 2000.

The north-west of India experienced a staggering drop in precipitation of about 40 per cent because of emissions from the northern hemisphere’s main industrial areas. Aerosols, which release sulphur dioxide and stay in the atmosphere for weeks, can both reflect and absorb solar radiation. They also affect cloud cover – and can make them brighter and suppress rainfall. Although they are produced naturally from sea salt spray and desert dust, man-made aerosols make up a major part of this pollution.

One of the researchers, Dr Apostolos Voulgarakis, of ICL’s Grantham Institute, said the study showed how emissions in one part of the world could have a significant effect on another – even if the pollution itself didn’t actually get there. Dr Voulgarakis said their research, along with other studies, showed the kind of problems that might result from attempts to use sulphur dioxide in a geo-engineering scheme.

“Geo-engineering has generally suggested to be problematic because of the knock-on effects it could have,” he said. “This research shows one of those reasons as it can affect rainfall quite dramatically.”

How does European air pollution affect the South Asian monsoon?

In a blog post researcher Dilshad Shawki from ICL’s Grantham Institute explains how understanding and predicting monsoon rainfall is of huge importance to those societies like India that have developed following its rhythms.

Aerosols are liquid and solid particles suspended in the atmosphere that have the ability to reflect or absorb solar radiation. They also influence clouds by making them brighter and even supressing rainfall. Aerosols can also occur naturally from sea salt spray and dust plumes driven by winds in desert regions, but synthetic aerosols make up a major part of global air pollution. Whether manufactured or natural, aerosols remain in the atmosphere for days to weeks, which makes their direct influence on the climate more localised. Interestingly though, local differences in temperature and pressure can influence circulation – and hence the climate – in areas far away from the emission source.

The South Asian monsoon’s interaction with aerosols has been studied extensively in recent years, with many researchers concluding that manufactured aerosols may be responsible for weakening the circulation of monsoon winds and precipitation in recent decades. These changes matter to people on the ground. In the second half of the twentieth century, drier conditions in central India have led to more frequent and intense droughts, and a devastating effect on crop yields.

Each summer the South Asian monsoon drenches the Indian subcontinent, as strong moisture-laden winds from the Indian Ocean deliver over 70% of the region’s annual rainfall in just 3 months. As such, the monsoon’s bountiful rain is crucial to the economy and to livelihoods in the region. In recent decades however, rising pollution levels and increases in global surface temperatures have influenced atmospheric circulation patterns in the tropics, in turn affecting monsoon rainfall patterns.

Villages Turning Into Ghost Towns

Hit hard by this man-made European drought villages in India are turning into Ghost Towns, chief among them is the Anantpur district of the South Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. Last year, India saw its highest temperature on record – a sweltering 51 degrees Celsius (123.8F). Hundreds of farmers died as crops failed in more than 13 states. More and more farmers are gearing up to leave their villages and migrate to cities leaving the elderly and kids behind to use last traces of water while the able-bodied earn a fighting wage in the cities. With the economy collapsing over large swathes, people migrate as a last resort.

Thanks to deficit rainfall more farmers are gearing up to leave in the next two months. The few who remain survive by selling milk and doing odd jobs that fetch them not more than Rs 100 a day. This is not a case of just one state. Farmers across the country are facing similar situation. Recently in a dramatic move, 150 farmers from the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu protested at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar with skulls of fellow dead farmers who had allegedly committed suicide.

The drinking water ministry has asked 18 drought-prone states to utilise 25% of the Central budget available with them to mitigate drinking water crisis. While 13 states were identified last year as drought-prone, the ministry has assessed another five states as the ones facing drinking water scarcity this year.

While the entire nation is grappling with one of the deadliest droughts to hit the region deciphering the root causes of monsoon changes in the past and the various scenarios of monsoon change in the future will be an ongoing challenge for climate researchers.

Arab American journalism is under siege in America, not just from anti-Arab and anti-Muslim activists, but also from mainstream American journalists themselves. Mainstream American news media have been the primary source to fuel rising anti-Arab discrimination and stereotypes; they have done everything to suppress Arab voices, barring them from media participation.

Mainstream news media have fought to keep us out; even when we do get “inside,” they fight to keep us silent. There were very few Arabs in American journalism when I pushed my way into the profession in 1976. The editor who hired me warned me about criticizing Israel, ordering me to “keep your views on your side of the typewriter.”

Today, a dozen Arabs have risen to heights of professional journalism, but they have been forced to curb any criticism of Israel or promotion of Palestinian rights. It is unfair because journalists of other ethnic and religious backgrounds are encouraged to write about their experience, their culture and even their political beliefs. Not so for American Arabs.

We are muzzled. We are bullied. We are vilified. We are marginalized. Every effort is made to keep Arabs out of the profession, especially those Arab-American journalists who tend to focus on the bias and distorted reporting that defends Israel in this country.

Here is a snapshot of the ongoing war by the journalism industry against Arab Americans. In 1999, after launching the National Arab American Journalists Association (NAAJA), we organized a conference in Chicago that drew 300 attendees, including many young Arabs who wanted to pursue journalism as a career.

The conference was covered by Mike Mansour, an Arab American journalist who worked as a reporter and anchor at the Chicago Tribune-owned TV station, CLTV. After doing his report, he was called in by his bosses, including one very pro-Israel activist, and was fired.

In 2007, Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) President Christine Tatum invited NAAJA to establish an Arab American journalism section called “Al-Sahafiyeen.” It was the first of several special sections addressing its ethnic membership.

SPJ’s Al-Sahafiyeen translated the SPJ Code of Ethics into Arabic, outlined plans to encourage Arabs to join and launched a blog where issues facing Arab American journalists could be addressed.

President for one year, Tatum left a strong mark on professional journalism. She had the courage to expose journalism’s hypocrisies. She listed numerous ethical lapses of other “professional journalists” that year, angering many journalists who love to criticize others but hate to be criticized themselves.

Al-Sahafiyeen was put under review by Tatum’s successor when Iraqi journalist Muntadhar Al-Zaidi threw his shoe at President George Bush during a press conference on Dec. 14, 2008.

After conferring with many Arab American journalists, Al-Sahafiyeen felt the need to explain Al-Zaidi’s actions, defending the principle of the protest.

They noted that it was an Arab tradition even American soldiers celebrated when they pulled down Saddam Hussein’s statue in Firdaus Square, in downtown Baghdad, on April 9, 2003, in a hail of thrown shoes. The blog post was removed, deemed “inappropriate.” So much for free speech.

His next two successors, including the SPJ’s first-ever Israeli president, went further, closing Al-Sahafiyeen in 2010 without any discussion with SPJ’s Arab members.

2010 was a bad year for Arab American journalism, which was now under all-out assault. On May 27, a pro-Israel rabbi confronted Helen Thomas, whose coverage of the White House dated back to the 1950s, to the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower. He asked her about Israel.

One of the toughest women in journalism, Thomas was fearless in confronting the double standards of American presidents and their failure to speak out about Israel’s atrocities. Thomas often asked about Israel’s brutality against Palestinian civilians and Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal while other journalists squirmed uncomfortably or with ridicule.

No wonder pro-Israel activists hated her.

When Thomas responded to the rabbi that Israel should “get out of Palestine,” meaning end the occupation, her critics turned it into “anti-Semitism.” The Hearst Newspapers, her employers, forced her to resign.

In December, the SPJ board headed by the same Israeli president “retired” the SPJ’s prestigious “Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award,” which was established in 2000. The SPJ said it was the result of other opinions Thomas expressed, including that Israel “controls” the “Congress, White House and Hollywood.” The meaning of her statement was clear to Arab American: That pro-Israel activists and interests block support for Palestinian issues and produce hateful movies that exaggerate racist Arab stereotypes.

SPJ’s core principle is to defend “free speech.” But in America, “free speech” is not “free” when it involves criticism of Israel.

In July 2010, CNN fired Octavia Nasr after she tweeted praise for a Hezbollah leader, Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah. Nasr was referring to Fadlallah’s progressive efforts to defend women’s rights in Iran, but her free speech had a cost, too.

In July 2014, Palestinian-Israeli journalist Rula Jebreal was fired by MSNBC for protesting the major American networks’ one-sided coverage of Israel’s siege of the Gaza Strip. She noted that Israeli officials were interviewed repeatedly by MSNBC during Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip but never invited Palestinians to give them equal time. Jebreal said she protested network bias many times, but was rebuffed because she was Palestinian.

These are just some of the highlights of America’s war against Arab American journalists and free speech involving criticism of Israel’s government. Arab American journalists are on the frontlines, fighting for Arab rights in America. It is not possible for the Arab world to make any headway in America without the support of this small but important segment of American society. I hope journalists in the Arab world would take time to recognize the struggle of Arab American journalists and make our cause a major part of their agendas.

We can make a difference when we insist that America’s mainstream news media must be professional and fair in reporting on Israel, Palestine and the Arab world. We are not asking that Americans be biased in favor of Palestine and the Arabs, we are asking them to stop being biased in favor of Israel and start to be fair, professional and objective.

Every day in unimaginable ways, prominent leaders from the left and the right, from bankers to Parisian intellectuals, are fabricating stories and pushing slogans that denigrate presidential candidate Marine Le Pen.

They obfuscate her program, substituting the label ‘extremist’ for her pro-working class and anti-imperialist commitment. Fear and envy over the fact that a new leader heads a popular movement has seeped into Emmanuel “Manny” Macron’s champagne-soaked dinner parties. He has good reason to be afraid: Le Pen addresses the fundamental interests of the vast- majority of French workers, farmers, public employees, unemployed and underemployed youth and older workers approaching retirement.

The mass media, political class and judicial as well as street provocateurs savagely assault Le Pen, distorting her domestic and foreign policies. They are incensed that Le Pen pledges to remove France from NATO’s integrated command – effectively ending its commitment to US directed global wars. Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have enriched bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum over the EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and, instead, increase trade. She will end France’s intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran and Palestine.

Le Pen is committed to Keynesian demand-driven industrial revitalization as opposed to Emmanuel Macron’s ultra-neoliberal supply-side agenda.

Le Pen’s program will raise taxes on banks and financial transactions while fining capital flight in order to continue funding France’s retirement age of 62 for women and 65 for men, keeping the 35 hour work-week, and providing tax free overtime pay. She promises direct state intervention to prevent factories from relocating to low wage EU economies and firing French workers.

Le Pen is committed to increasing public spending for childcare and for the poor and disabled. She has pledged to protect French farmers against subsidized, cheap imports.

Marine Le Pen supports abortion rights and gay rights. She opposes the death penalty. She promises to cut taxes by 10% for low-wage workers. Marine is committed to fighting against sexism and for equal pay for women.

Marine Le Pen will reduce migration to ten thousand people and crack down on immigrants with links to terrorists.

Emmanuel Macron: Macro Billionaire and Micro Worker Programs

Macron has been an investment banker serving the Rothschild and Cie Banque oligarchy, which profited from speculation and the pillage of the public treasury. Macron served in President Hollande’s Economy Ministry, in charge of ‘Industry and Digital Affairs’ from 2014 through 2016. This was when the ‘Socialist’ Hollande imposed a pro-business agenda, which included a 40 billion-euro tax cut for the rich.

Macron is tied to the Republican Party and its allied banking and business Confederations, whose demands include: raising the retirement age, reducing social spending, firing tens of thousands of public employees and facilitating the outflow of capital and the inflow of cheap imports.

Macron is an unconditional supporter of NATO and the Pentagon. He fully supports the European Union. For their part, the EU oligarchs are thrilled with Macron’s embrace of greater austerity for French workers, while the generals can expect total material support for the ongoing and future US-NATO wars on three continents.

Propaganda, Labels and Lies

Macron’s pro-war, anti-working class and ’supply-side’ economic policies leave us with only one conclusion: Marine Le Pen is the only candidate of the left. Her program and commitments are pro-labor, not ‘hard’ or ‘far’ right – and certainly not ‘fascist’.

Macron, on the other hand is a committed rightwing extremist, certainly no ‘centrist’, as the media and the political elite claim! One has only to look at his background in banking, his current supporters among the oligarchs and his ministerial policies when he served Francois Holland.

The ‘Macronistas’ have accused Marine Le Pen of extreme ‘nationalism’, ‘fascism’, ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘anti-immigrant racism’. ‘The French Left’, or what remains of it, has blindly swallowed the oligarchs’ campaign against Le Pen despite the malodorous source of these libels.

Le Pen is above all a ’sovereigntist’: ‘France First’. Her fight is against the Brussels oligarchs and for the restoration of sovereignty to the French people. There is an infinite irony in labeling the fight against imperial political power as ‘hard right’. It is insulting to debase popular demands for domestic democratic power over basic economic policies, fiscal spending, incomes and prices policies, budgets and deficits as ‘extremist and far right’.

Marine Le Pen has systematically transformed the leadership, social, economic program and direction of the National Front Party.

She expelled its anti-Semites, including her own father! She transformed its policy on women’s rights, abortion, gays and race. She won the support of young unemployed and employed factory workers, public employees and farmers. Young workers are three times more likely to support her national industrial revitalization program over Macron’s ‘free market dogma’. Le Pen has drawn support from French farmers as well as the downwardly mobile provincial middle-class, shopkeepers, clerks and tourism-based workers and business owners.

Despite the trends among the French masses against the oligarchs, academics, intellectuals and political journalists have aped the elite’s slander against Le Pen because they will not antagonize the prestigious media and their administrators in the universities. They will not acknowledge the profound changes that have occurred within the National Front under Marine Le Pen. They are masters of the ‘double discourse’ – speaking from the left while working with the right. They confuse the lesser evil with the greater evil.

If Macron wins this election (and nothing is guaranteed!), he will certainly implement his ‘hard’ and ‘extreme’ neo-liberal agenda. When the French workers go on strike and demonstrators erect barricades in the streets in response to Macron’s austerity, the fake-left will bleat out their inconsequential ‘critique’ of ‘impure reason’. They will claim that they were right all along.

If Le Pen loses this election, Macron will impose his program and ignite popular fury. Marine will make an even stronger candidate in the next election… if the French oligarchs’ judiciary does not imprison her for the crime of defending sovereignty and social justice

The regional oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea have become economically and geopolitically less important due to oversupply in the global oil and gas markets, new diversification options and low oil and gas prices. Beijing’s deepwater projects in the South China Sea are not exclusively or primarily driven by commercial factors.

By Frank Umbach*

In light of previous forecasts of “peak-oil” assumptions and the resulting worldwide increase in resource competition, the presumed large offshore oil and gas fields in the South China Sea had sometimes been labelled as the “new Persian Gulf”. But according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) and its estimate for 2013, the presumed 11 billion barrels of oil (comparable with Mexico’s) and 190 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas (comparable with Europe’s without Russia) under the South China Sea appear much more marginal.

However, many Chinese estimates, such as the one by the state-owned oil company China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), assume that the South China Sea deposits are much larger (at 125 bn barrels of oil and 500 tcf) – up to one third of China’s total oil and gas resources. As perceptions often matter more than facts, the situation is complicated by other factors.

Other Drivers at Play

There are three other factors that come into play.

Firstly, the South China Sea may indeed hold much more additional (up to now undiscovered) oil resources in underexplored areas. The US Geological Survey (USGS) has estimated additional resources between 5-22 bn barrels of oil and 70-290 tcf of natural gas.

Secondly, only exploration and drilling projects can ultimately answer the question how much of those resources can be exploited in a commercially profitable way.Thirdly, this question is dependent on available technologies, and the political as well as industrial interest to implement those drilling projects. This depends on worldwide oil and gas prices, which determine the commercial viability of those projects.

Joint Development Projects?

The ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague on 12 July 2016 rejected China’s “historical” maritime claims in the South China Sea. What this implies is that the territorial and resource disputes in the South China Sea might offer new hopes of the long-discussed perspective of joint development of oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea.

It can build upon the example of Malaysia and Thailand, which signed an agreement for hydrocarbon projects in disputed waters in 1979 for joint exploration projects in an overlapping area designated as the “Joint Development Area (JDA)”. In principle, Beijing has expressed its willingness to support joint oil and gas projects with its neighbours. But it has often linked its support with the precondition that its partners and neighbouring countries need to first recognise China’s sovereignty and territorial claims in the disputed areas.

But as long as Beijing does not recognise the international law for the South China Sea and become much more pragmatic in regard to its territorial claims, the prospect for joint development projects will remain unclear.

Ignoring Economic Fundamentals for Commercial Projects

Over the last decade, given the technological capabilities of their national oil and gas companies, all claimant parties in the South China have become more interested not only to expand their oil and gas projects in shallow waters (200-300m). But “ultra-deepwater” (>1,500m) oil and gas drilling projects are, at present, commercially hardly profitable given the low global oil prices.

As a result, international energy companies had reduced worldwide their maritime exploration projects. In June 2016, CNOOC announced that it could postpone the development of its first independent deepwater gas discovery until after 2020 due to “current market conditions” and lower gas demand in the government’s 13th Five-Year Plan (2016-2020). It had already shelved plans to develop its offshore gas field Lingshui 17-2 using a floating LNG-terminal (FLNG) project near Hainan Island with certified reserves of more than 100 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas — one of China’s largest offshore gas fields.

But while these projects have been postponed for some years, China has not changed its energy resource strategy by really giving up its deepwater energy projects in the South China Sea. From 2014-2030, CNOOC has still earmarked around 70% of new offshore equipment for deepwater projects.

In December 2015, China had 57 deepwater production facilities and support vessels — including seven platforms that can operate waters deeper than 3,000 metres. The newly developed seventh-generation rigs of deep-water semi-submersible drilling platforms can operate at a water depth of 3,600m and drill wells 15,000m in deepwater.

Creeping Occupation

Many observers of China’s South China Sea policies have assumed that the energy dimensions have fuelled the regional maritime disputes due to China’s strategy of pursuing energy independence by reducing the rise of vulnerable maritime oil and LNG imports. While this is so, they have often overlooked that China’s oil and gas exploration projects are also supported as another instrument to bolster its “creeping occupation” of reefs in the South China Sea to bolster its maritime territorial claims.

The CNOOC Chairman Wang Yilin, for instance, has justified the “mission” of its first deepwater oil rig 981 on 8 August 2012 not just on commercial reasons. The commissioning of the oil rig was described as a “mobile national territory” to help “ensure our country’s energy security, advance maritime-power strategy and safeguard our nation’s maritime sovereignty”.

In July 2016, Chinese state media reported the launch of a series of offshore nuclear power platforms to promote the development of heavy oil reserves in the Bohai Bay and to support development in remote deepwater zones of the South China Sea, such as deepsea production bases with control centres and living space for workers.

In February 2017, China announced it would build its first long-term national under-water-observation platform in key waters of the South China Sea, but refused to give the exact location and offered no further details. A month later, China launched its “largest and deepest-operating” offshore oil exploration platform “Bluewhale” for drilling >3,600m underwater, designed specifically for the deepwater oil reserves in the South China Sea.

*Frank Umbach PhD is Research Director at the European Centre for Energy and Resource Security (EUCERS), King’s College, London (www.eucers.eu) and Senior Associate at the Centre for European Security Strategies (CESS GmbH), Munich (www.cess-net.eu). He was previously also a Co-Chair of CSCAP-Europe. He contributed this to RSIS Commentary.

The NASA/ESA Hubble Telescope has peered across six billion light years of space to resolve extremely faint features of the galaxy cluster Abell 370 that have not been seen before. Imaged here in stunning detail, Abell 370 is part of the Frontier Fields programme which uses massive galaxy clusters to study the mysteries of dark matter and the very early Universe.

Six billion light-years away in the constellation Cetus (the Sea Monster), Abell 370 is made up of hundreds of galaxies [1]. Already in the mid-1980s higher-resolution images of the cluster showed that the giant luminous arc in the lower left of the image was not a curious structure within the cluster, but rather an astrophysical phenomenon: the gravitationally lensed image of a galaxy twice as far away as the cluster itself. Hubble helped show that this arc is composed of two distorted images of an ordinary spiral galaxy that just happens to lie behind the cluster.

Abell 370’s enormous gravitational influence warps the shape of spacetime around it, causing the light of background galaxies to spread out along multiple paths and appear both distorted and magnified. The effect can be seen as a series of streaks and arcs curving around the centre of the image. Massive galaxy clusters can therefore act like natural telescopes, giving astronomers a close-up view of the very distant galaxies behind the cluster — a glimpse of the Universe in its infancy, only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

This image of Abell 370 was captured as part of the Frontier Fields programme, which used a whopping 630 hours of Hubble observing time, over 560 orbits of the Earth. Six clusters of galaxies were imaged in exquisite detail, including Abell 370 which was the very last one to be finished. An earlier image of this object — using less observation time and therefore not recording such faint detail — was published in 2009.

During the cluster observations, Hubble also looked at six “parallel fields”, regions near the galaxy clusters which were imaged with the same exposure times as the clusters themselves. Each cluster and parallel field were imaged in infrared light by the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3), and in visible light by the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS).

The Frontier Fields programme produced the deepest observations ever made of galaxy clusters and the magnified galaxies behind them. These observations are helping astronomers understand how stars and galaxies emerged out of the dark ages of the Universe, when space was dark, opaque, and filled with hydrogen.

Studying massive galaxy clusters like Abell 370 also helps with measuring the distribution of normal matter and dark matter within such clusters. By studying its lensing properties, astronomers have determined that Abell 370 contains two large, separate clumps of dark matter, contributing to the evidence that this massive galaxy cluster is actually the result of two smaller clusters merging together.

Now that the observations for the Frontier Fields programme are complete, astronomers can use the full dataset to explore the clusters, their gravitational lensing effects and the magnified galaxies from the early Universe in full detail.

[1] Galaxy clusters are the most massive structures in the Universe that are held together by gravity, generally thought to have formed when smaller groups of galaxies smashed into each other in ever-bigger cosmic collisions. Such clusters can contain up to 1000 galaxies, along with hot intergalactic gas that often shines brightly at X-ray wavelengths, all bound together primarily by the gravity of dark matter.

By Emily B. Landau*

There is little doubt that Barack Obama deems the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) of July 2015 to be his crowning foreign policy achievement and an important pillar of his presidential legacy. To his mind, the deal is a shining nonproliferation success story achieved via peaceful diplomacy and an important catalyst to improving decades-long, moribund U.S.-Iranian relations.

But, Obama’s assessment is wrong. The JCPOA has many flaws and weaknesses, and it is important to assess the president’s role in the process that produced this dubious deal: What happened on the ground; how Obama’s perceptions of nuclear disarmament colored his attitudes toward Iran, and the tactics he used to marginalize criticism and mobilize support for a flawed deal at the domestic level. It is equally important to examine to what lengths the president went in order to protect his problematic deal after it was presented, and at what cost. What legacy on Iran has Obama left for the next administration?

The Road to the JCPOA

In early April 2009, shortly after entering the White House, Obama made his first major foreign policy speech in Prague where he unveiled his agenda for advancing the goal of global nuclear disarmament.[1] While his initial steps in this direction were taken primarily at the global level,[2] in autumn 2009—after Tehran had been caught red-handed constructing a hidden enrichment facility at Fordow[3]—Obama made his first attempt to conclude a partial nuclear agreement with Iran in the context of a “fuel deal” offered by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany (P5+1). The offer was that 75-80 percent of Iran’s then-stockpile of low enriched uranium would be shipped abroad and turned into the fuel plates that the Iranians said they needed to run the civilian Tehran Research Reactor.[4]

The offer was purposely designed to test whether Tehran was exclusively focused on civilian nuclear activities as it emphatically insisted—a claim the West did not believe and for which it demanded “proof” via Iranian action.[5] Yet while Tehran rejected the deal and failed the U.S. test, the administration persisted in its efforts to engage the determined proliferator. Although Obama did move to ramp up sanctions significantly on Tehran in 2010 after the deal was rejected—a process that culminated with the biting sanctions of 2012[6]—the bad faith displayed by Iran in the nuclear realm hardly resonated with an administration that was bent on diplomacy. The tendency to try to prove Tehran’s intransigence, only to continue the talks after such proof was provided—including agreeing to more concessions—is a dynamic that was also to reappear in later stages of the negotiations. Maintaining diplomacy, which began as a means to an end (i.e., stopping Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons), gradually became an end in itself. This provided an important lesson for Tehran when negotiations began in earnest in 2013.

After securing an interim deal, or Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), in late November 2013, negotiations on a final and comprehensive nuclear deal began in January 2014. Up until 2013, the P5+1 had sought to dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—except perhaps for an extremely limited and mainly symbolic enrichment program of no more than 1,500 centrifuges—and to deny it the ability to develop nuclear weapons. However, by 2014, the P5+1 negotiators had deemed this goal unattainable and settled instead for the much watered-down aim: merely lengthening Tehran’s breakout time from several months to a year while leaving much of its nuclear infrastructure intact.[7]

Moreover, they agreed to lift the restrictions in ten to fifteen years regardless of any change in Iran’s interests or behavior. Initial concessions, such as agreeing not to discuss ballistic missiles, opened the door to further compromises, all in an effort to keep Tehran at the negotiating table. The red-lines regarding the dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure turned pink, and many disappeared altogether. This included the number of centrifuges left spinning (originally 1,500, then 4,000, finally 6,000). Furthermore, the centrifuges were not dismantled but rather mothballed; the Fordow facility was left running; research and development was enabled into a full range of advanced centrifuges; and the demand for inspections of suspicious activities “any place, any time” turned into a much longer and ambiguous process. Indeed, the hard-gained leverage of the biting sanctions that brought the Iranians to the table was gradually squandered in a process where Washington projected greater eagerness for a deal than Tehran.

What’s in the JCPOA Deal?

With the July 2015 JCPOA, Obama proudly claimed to have severed every pathway to Iranian nuclear weapons, thus preventing Tehran from obtaining such capability. He further emphasized that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have access to any suspicious facility “where necessary, when necessary.”[8] But a closer examination of the nuclear deal reveals that it does not uphold these sweeping assertions. Rather, the agreement contains major concessions that undermine the deal’s effectiveness as well as including ambiguities that will no doubt be abused by Tehran to advance its nuclear program. Briefly, the major weaknesses and flaws of the deal, both technical and political, include the following issues.[9]

Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Not only did the JCPOA depart from the goal of eliminating Tehran’s enrichment program—leaving it with 6,000 centrifuges—but it actually legitimized the program by allowing continued enrichment under the terms of the deal. The agreement stipulates that Iran’s stockpile of low enriched uranium must not exceed 300 kg, but Tehran can continue its enrichment operations while perfecting its techniques and doing away with excess amounts. Moreover, the deal enables Iran to continue research and development on an entire range of advanced generations of centrifuges, which will be far more efficient than its current IR-1 centrifuges and which Tehran plans to begin operating by the thousands from year eleven of the deal.[10]

Inspections and verification. According to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), the IAEA is allowed access only to declared nuclear sites but has no inspection rights at military facilities. In Iran’s case, this meant that inspectors could not demand entry to Parchin where Tehran was carrying out its illegal military nuclear activities. By way of closing this loophole, the JCPOA was meant to ensure “any time, any place” inspection rights for the IAEA.

In reality, however, the deal fails to secure timely access despite Obama’s claim to the contrary. According to one reading, the JCPOA ensures that Tehran will have to agree to a requested inspection at a suspicious military facility within twenty-four days (which in some cases could be too long a wait for the inspectors). But looking more carefully at the wording in relevant sections reveals that Tehran can use different excuses to prolong that timeline before the 24-day clock even begins ticking.[11] In light of Tehran’s continued insistence that it will never allow entry to its military facilities,[12] any demand for inspection is bound to spark a major confrontation. The regime can be expected to do everything within its power to delay and bar entry, building on the ambiguity in the JCPOA text.

An additional problem relates to possible military work conducted at a facility outside Iran with North Korea being the most obvious suspect. Cooperation between Tehran and Pyongyang in the non-conventional realms, including the nuclear sphere, has been tracked for years.[13] It would make perfect strategic sense for Iran to try to outsource some of its nuclear activities to North Korea, and it is not clear how closely this issue is being monitored. Pyongyang’s work on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) is also of great concern. Any in-formation would have to rely on state intelligence as North Korea abandoned the NPT in 2003.[14]

Iran’s past military work. The entire case for confronting Tehran’s nuclear ambitions hinges on its persistent violation of the NPT—both the safeguard agreements with the IAEA when it failed to notify the agency about nuclear facilities under construction at Natanz, Arak, and later Fordow, and, more significantly, its work on a military nuclear program. But the negotiations curiously did not include clarification of lingering questions about the “possible military dimensions” (PMD) of Iran’s program; in fact, the P5+1 instructed the IAEA investigation in this regard to be carried out in the months after the JCPOA was announced.

In early December 2015, despite Tehran’s continued lack of cooperation, the IAEA published the results of its investigation confirming that the Iranians had worked on a military program until 2003 and, in a less coordinated manner, until at least 2009.[15] But in response, the P5+1 shelved the report and moved to implementation day. These states never pushed back against Tehran’s claim of “nuclear innocence” (i.e., that it has never worked on a military nuclear program), which it maintains to date. Continued international acquiescence in this blatant falsehood gave rise to suspicions that this could have been pre-agreed to with Tehran, possibly even in the context of the secret U.S.-Iranian negotiations in Oman in 2013[16] though there is no hard evidence of such an understanding. What is clear, however, is that Tehran’s narrative of innocence is anything but innocent; rather it has been a commonly used Iranian ploy to reinforce its claim to have been unjustly singled out for “illegal” sanctions and to demand that it be treated as a “normal” member of the NPT, including the right to confidentiality in its dealings with the IAEA.

Dealing with a future violation. The JCPOA lacks decision-making guidance for dealing with Iranian violations beyond mention of the so-called “snapback sanctions.” What kind of violations would be significant enough to elicit such a response, and what are the criteria for their determination? Who must agree and in what timeframe? What should be done, and who will do it? These are all questions that will take time to answer and agree upon; failing to address them in advance risks granting Iran valuable time to race to breakout. On the snapback sanctions, to state the obvious, they do not snap back on their own but rather are reinstated by states, which must decide which sanctions will be reinstated and under which conditions. All these issues require further deliberation and decisions, and there is no indication that they have been tackled.

Sunset provisions. Perhaps the most problematic aspect of the JCPOA are the sunset provisions, whereby restrictions on Iran will be lifted in ten to fifteen years regardless of Tehran’s behavior or demonstrated regional and nuclear ambitions and interests. Without indication of a strategic U-turn in its nuclear outlook, there is no reason to assume that in ten to fifteen years Tehran will not go back to doing precisely what it was doing before the deal was reached. Moreover, it will be doing so from a far more advantageous starting point after having built up an industrial-sized enrichment program. It is important to note that the counterargument whereby many arms control agreements, such as those between the United States and Russia, have termination dates is irrelevant to the JCPOA for the simple reason that it is not a political arrangement between two nuclear powers but rather an agreement between an NPT violator, Iran, and the international com-munity aimed at bringing it back to the fold of the treaty. Until the violator indicates that it has altered its nuclear ambitions, there is no justification for sunset. The sunset provision is another instance which high-lights why Tehran insists on its narrative of nuclear innocence: It helped justify the Iranian demand for an unconditional expiration date. If Tehran’s proven past record of violating the NPT had been at the forefront of the debate, it would have been obvious why the JCPOA could not reasonably be terminated without the Iranians meeting certain benchmarks.

Obama’s View on Nuclear Disarmament and Iran

From the start, and flowing from Obama’s nuclear disarmament agenda, the rationale and strategy for dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions were ill-conceived. To begin, Obama believed that the great powers must come with “clean hands” when confronting Tehran,[17] thus linking the goal of stopping determined proliferators to global disarmament. But this link is misguided, not least because Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons was a blatant violation of the NPT whereas the treaty sets no deadline for nuclear states’ disarmament. Moreover, Tehran was pursuing its own nuclear goals, and these were not at all connected to whether the nuclear powers were disarming or not. But Obama’s belief that Washington was on shaky moral ground vis-à-vis Tehran at least partially explains his overly lenient attitude on some key issues, such as conceding to Iran’s demand not to include ballistic missiles in the nuclear negotiations and insisting on not publicly “shaming” Tehran by emphasizing its deceitful past behavior in the nuclear realm.

Nor was the close connection between Tehran’s nuclear aspirations and its regional ambitions well-integrated into Obama’s thinking and policy. And while there were good reasons for not attempting a “grand bargain” with Iran encompassing a wide range of issues,[18] which would have undoubtedly complicated and prolonged the negotiations, it was a mistake to think that the nuclear issue could be neatly separated from other aspects of Iranian behavior. Ironically, Obama implicitly validated this linkage by implying that the nuclear deal could lead to a more moderate Iran and improved bilateral relations. What he refused to accept, however, is the flip side. Namely, that absent such a change, the intimate connection between Tehran’s military nuclear ambitions and its overall hegemonic aspirations could not be ignored and should have led Washington to resist firmly any sunset provisions before a strategic U-turn could be discerned. Otherwise, the most that could be achieved—in the best-case scenario—is a delay in Iran’s plans after which it could pick up where it left off.

Complicating matters considerably was Obama’s desire to mend fences with all U.S. enemies, a theme he set forth in his inaugural speech in 2009: the famous “outstretched hand” in return for the “unclenched fist.”[19] The president wanted a deal with Iran, and in the latter stages, it seemed that he willed it at almost any cost. He appeared unwilling to give up this goal, which brought together the twin aims of rolling back nuclear capabilities and befriending a major enemy of the United States. Some have suggested an even more far-reaching strategic aim that guided Obama’s dealings with Tehran from the start: the desire to fundamentally restructure U.S. relations with the Middle East in a manner that would place Iran, rather than traditional U.S. allies, at the core of the new regional architecture.[20]

Marginalizing Criticism of the Deal

Given that Obama wanted a nuclear deal—seemingly at almost every cost—it is hardly surprising that the heavy-handed manner by which his administration promoted the JCPOA and delegitimized any and all criticism of its substance has become an integral part of his legacy.

In the early stages of the negotiations, Obama had frequently reiterated the maxim that “no deal is better than a bad deal” in an attempt to reassure skeptics that he would not accept an unsatisfactory arrangement. Al-though he resisted defining what would constitute a bad deal, it was believed that he was adamant about not being out-maneuvered by Tehran. But as he began to demonstrate an increasingly firm commitment to achieving a negotiated agreement, it seemed that this slogan was being replaced by another, whereby “almost any deal would be better than no deal.” This was about the same time that the administration began stressing to the American public that the only alternative to the emerging deal—which clearly failed to fulfill the original nonproliferation goals set by the ad-ministration itself—was war.

By misrepresenting the choice between the JCPOA and war as a statement of fact, the administration sought to depict anyone who voiced reservations or criticism of the deal as a warmonger, which is how critics were regularly labeled.[21] But the choice between diplomacy and war was never an accurate depiction of reality: It was a political argument. In fact, what many, if not most of the critics were advocating—in the months leading up to the deal—was not to end negotiations and resort to other means but rather to use the economic leverage more wisely in order to get a better deal at the negotiating table. Washington would have done well to call Tehran’s bluff when it threatened to leave the talks because the Iranians would not have left for long. Indeed, the only way to get sanctions lifted—which is what brought Tehran to the negotiating table in the first place—was to continue negotiating. Moreover, Washington’s demonstrated eagerness for a deal was clearly undermining its leverage. Had more sophisticated bargaining techniques been employed, a better deal could most likely have been achieved. But by turning critics into despicable hawks itching for a war, the message was that their advice should be ignored altogether.

The administration used other tactics to silence critics. It falsely claimed that opponents had no idea what was going on in the negotiating room, hence, had to await the conclusion of the deal in order to be familiarized with its actual details. However, there were media reports along the way that reflected much of what transpired in the negotiations—especially regarding the concessions being made to Iran. When the JCPOA was announced, it was clear that the reports had been accurate. But the minute the JCPOA was announced, critics were told that their criticism had been rendered irrelevant because it was a done deal. This manipulative messaging policy obviously left no room for voicing legitimate and potentially useful critique of the negotiations and the nascent deal—it was either too early or too late.

In selling the deal to the American public, the administration pushed additional political positions as statements of fact. A good example is the claim that there was no risk in giving the deal a chance since even if Tehran were to violate it, or to wait it out, Washington would always have the same options (i.e., military force) that it had had when negotiations began. But this is not necessarily true, and the statement reflects a poor understanding of international politics where options and opportunities can easily change over time. Even today, one can see how Russia’s increased and active role in the Middle East, cooperating closely with Iran in the military campaign in Syria, can greatly complicate the calculus of a military strike against Tehran down the line, as compared to previous years. In future years, such a strike could risk escalation not only with Iran, but with Russia as well.

By 2015, there was an accelerated campaign to suppress and squelch any criticism that might have led to a better deal, and the “echo chamber” that was devised for this purpose was later described by none other than Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, during in-depth interviews with The New York Times.[22] Lawmakers such as Sen. Robert Menendez (Dem., N.J.)—a long-time, outspoken critic of the negotiations and deal—were directly derided by the administration for their critique.[23] The echo chamber tactics were particularly intense during the summer 2015 congressional debate on the JCPOA, which together with the special voting procedure set by the administration, resulted in the deal not being toppled by Congress.

Israel’s objection to the deal—voiced loudly and clearly by Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu—presented a particular challenge for Obama, resulting in great effort to frame the prime minister as the odd man out on the issue. He was depicted as an unwavering rejectionist to any deal with Iran and as out of step with the international community. When Netanyahu persisted in his criticism, culminating in his controversial speech to Congress in March 2015,[24] his relations with Obama almost reached a boiling point, and all bets were off as far as the administration was concerned. One new tactic was to delve into the internal Israeli scene and to frame Netanyahu not only as the odd man out vis-à-vis the world but also with Israel’s defense establishment, which the Obama administration claimed actually supported the deal.[25] In contrast to Netanyahu’s speech—which was politically problematic and which many considered unwise but accurate in its content—the administration’s claim was spurious and unfounded. The actual range of opinion voiced in Israel was much more varied and nuanced, necessitating more sophisticated analysis, but it never amounted to “Netanyahu vs. the defense/security establishment” regarding assessments of the negotiations, and certainly not with regard to the merits of the deal itself.[26]

The First Year of Implementation

As misconceived and problematic as the JCPOA is, developments in the first year of its implementation have rendered the situation even worse. This is reflected in a string of revelations about additional concessions made to Tehran as well as the particular manner in which U.S.-Iranian interactions have unfolded over this period.

Deception and distortion revealed. Part of Obama’s legacy regarding the Iran nuclear deal is no doubt the deception and distortion, revealed in 2016, which the administration employed about certain aspects of the JCPOA and related events. Two issues in particular deserve mention: Tehran’s enrichment plans from the eleventh year of the deal, and the $1.7 billion paid to it, ostensibly to settle a pre-Islamic Revolution debt from the days of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

Information with regard to Iran’s enrichment plans for year eleven was first published by Associated Press (AP) in July 2016,[27] which revealed that Tehran plans to install and begin operating 2,500-3,500 advanced generation centrifuges that will be many times more efficient than the IR-1 centrifuges currently in use. This development would shorten the time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear weapon to six months. This information was hidden from public view when the deal was presented and in the subsequent congressional debate and revealed only a year later. Worse, this lack of transparency was thereafter explained by the common practice among NPT member states to conclude confidential arrangements with the IAEA, ignoring the fact that as an NPT violator, there was no justification for granting Iran privileges enjoyed by NPT members in good standing.

Moreover, the AP revelation was a reminder of an interview granted by Obama to NPR in April 2015, in which, when referring to the emerging deal, he noted that “a more relevant fear [than hoarding uranium] would be that in year 13, 14, 15, [Iran has] advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”[28] This statement sparked immediate attention because it confirmed the fears that critics had been voicing about Tehran’s ability in the not too distant future to rush quickly to develop a nuclear bomb. But in a press conference, then-acting spokesperson for the State Department, Marie Harf, flatly denied the implication, claiming instead that Obama was referring to the scenario of no deal. However, the president’s interview had been filmed, and it was obvious that he alluded to the scenario of a deal.[29] The information on Iran’s enrichment plans that was finally revealed in July 2016 is clearly the basis for Obama’s earlier statement and assessment, underlining the secrecy, deception and distortion that characterized this episode.

The money transfer episode of January 2016 offered a similarly disturbing illustration of the administration’s deceptive conduct. The original story was that the JCPOA’s implementation day was followed by two parallel and unrelated events: the release of four (but not all) American prisoners held in Iran on bogus charges and the return of money paid by the shah for an arms deal that was aborted after the Islamic Revolution. The Wall Street Journal revealed that there not only was a clear linkage between the two events but that the $400 million transferred in January had been paid in hard cash in line with Tehran’s demand,[30] leading many to conclude that the administration had in effect paid Tehran ransom for releasing the prisoners, in contravention of long-standing U.S. policy.

No pushback against Iran’s provocations. Since the JCPOA was adopted, Tehran has been testing the international community’s readiness to respond to provocations. Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamene’i has been clear about rejecting any form of cooperation with the United States, and during 2016, Washington was repeatedly (and falsely) accused of not upholding its end of the deal.[31]

Other Iranian provocations included testing precision-guided ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear payload in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and stepping up military intervention in Syria—in cooperation with Russia—with the aim of keeping Bashar al-Assad in power. All indications are that rather than the nuclear deal promoting Iranian moderation and opening the door to new opportunities for cooperation, Washington and Tehran are still engaged in a fierce struggle, at least as far as the Iranians are concerned.

Specifically on the nuclear file, Iran’s compliance has not been stellar, and while the violations have thus far been relatively minor, the Obama administration has not rebuked Tehran and has rather adamantly defended its supposed compliance with the JCPOA, citing IAEA reports on Iran at every turn. But, following the November 2016 IAEA report, David Albright, a leading nuclear proliferation expert and head of the Institute for Science and International

Security, noted that for the second time, Tehran had exceeded the limit of heavy water production and was con-ducting activities related to IR-6 advanced centrifuges, which may not be allowed by the JCPOA.[32] Since then, it has been reported that Iran is also set to begin injecting gas into IR-8 centrifuges, meaning they are beginning to test them, on the way to making them operational.[33]

These Iranian actions have been matched by Washington’s lack of response. Indeed, in every instance, the administration rushed to provide reassurances that whatever transpired was of no real consequence and that there was no reason for concern. This whitewashing even extended to German intelligence released in 2016 indicating that, throughout 2015, Tehran had continued attempts to illicitly procure technologies and components that could be used in a nuclear weapons program.[34] The administration’s thinking in all of these cases seemed to have been that it could not risk upsetting Tehran in any way because this might cause the Iranians to abort the deal. But Iran most likely would not have left the JCPOA since the deal is not unfavorable from its point of view. The result of Obama’s bending over backward has been a dangerous shift in the balance of deterrence between the two states in Tehran’s favor, leaving the Trump administration with the daunting task of regaining the upper hand in dealing with Iran and reassuming lost leadership, authority, and power.

Conclusion

Having orchestrated a deeply flawed nuclear deal, Obama leaves the Middle East a far more dangerous place than it was eight years ago. Not merely because the JCPOA opens the door to the terrifying prospect of a nuclear Iran within ten to fifteen years, and perhaps even sooner, but because the administration enabled an emboldened Iran to emerge over the course of 2015-16, unchallenged by Washington. In fact, while negotiating the deal, the U.S. president was already helping to transform the Islamic Republic, with its extremist, hegemonic agenda, into the region’s preeminent power at the expense of traditional U.S. allies. For example, despite Obama’s pretense to be focused exclusively on the nuclear issue by way of securing the JCPOA, Jay Solomon of The Wall Street Journal argues that the president resisted upholding the redline he had set with regard to Assad’s use of chemical weapons due to a warning issued by Tehran: If the U.S. resorted to military force in Syria, it could scuttle the nuclear negotiations. Obama continued to shun the Syrian crisis to his final days in office so as not to upset Tehran and risk rattling the nascent nuclear deal.[35] According to this interpretation of events, Washington left Syria to Iran (and Russia) in return for the nuclear deal, a tradeoff that the administration denies.

Sadly, the American public remained largely oblivious to these blunders as the administration’s echo chamber strategy proved extremely effective with most pundits—except a few very notable exceptions—expressing unmitigated support for the JCPOA in line with administration talking points and positions. The arms control and nonproliferation community, which should have been at the forefront of the debate, pointing out all the deal’s weaknesses and potential pitfalls, was in the main uncritically lured by the administration’s propaganda. On a broader level, Obama’s heavy-handed delegitimization of any and all criticism and his aggressive pushing of the deal in Congress have left domestic political scars, including among Democrats, that add to the president’s dismal Iranian legacy.

Obama’s only achievement lies in kicking the nuclear can down the road to future administrations. But he created a reality in which it will be far more difficult to stop Iran down that road. With its nuclear program legitimized by the JCPOA, Tehran is much better poised to forge ahead at a time of its choosing. For contrary to Obama’s emphatic statements, the JCPOA does not end Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, nor has it lived up to the president’s hope of ushering in a new era in U.S.-Iranian relations.

The challenge for the Trump administration is to try to reverse some of these negative trends. In making the best of a bad situation, the preferred route at this point—after Tehran has already pocketed billions of dollars—would be neither to renounce the deal nor try to renegotiate it but, rather, to enforce it strictly as well as strengthen its provisions. Much can be achieved by reversing the Obama administration’s approach to Iran—recognizing Tehran’s overt hostility to U.S. interests and responding with firm determination to its provocations beyond the direct context of the JCPOA.

These, however, are but general guidelines for future U.S. policy on this issue. After the damage wrought by the Obama administration, the road ahead will be strewn with difficulties, and there are no shortcuts or magic solutions for redressing the situation.

About the author:
*Emily B. Landau is a senior research fellow at The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Tel Aviv and head of its arms control and regional security program.

Source:
This article was published in the Middle East Forum’s Middle East Quarterly, SPRING 2017, VOLUME 24: NUMBER 2

Notes:
[1] “Remarks by President Barack Obama in Prague as Delivered,” White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Apr. 5 2009. This followed in the footsteps of Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry, and Sam Nunn—the four high-level U.S. statesmen who together penned two extremely influential op-eds in January of 2007 and 2008, advocating the need to work toward a nuclear-free world.

[2] Emily B. Landau, “Obama’s Nuclear Disarmament Agenda: Blurred Aims and Priorities,” in Emily B. Landau and Tamar Malz-Ginzburg, eds., The Obama Vision and Nuclear Disarmament, INSS Memo. 107, Mar. 2011, pp. 15-26.

[3] The New York Times, Sept. 25, 2009.

[4] Ibid., Oct. 19, 2009.

[5] Ibid.

[6] “Sanctions against Iran: A Guide to Targets, Terms, and Timetables,” Belfer Center, Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, Mass., June 2015.

[7] See Emily B. Landau, “Principles and Guidelines for a Comprehensive Deal with Iran,” in Emily B. Landau and Anat Kurz, eds., The Interim Deal on the Iranian Nuclear Program: Toward a Comprehensive Solution? Memo. no. 142 (Tel Aviv: INSS, Sept. 2014), pp. 11-5.

[8] “Statement by the President on Iran,” White House, Office of the Press Secretary, July 14, 2015.

[9] For fuller analysis of these deficiencies, see previous writings, including Emily B. Landau, “Dangerous Ambiguity,” The Jerusalem Report, Aug. 24, 2015.

[10] “AP Exclusive: Document Shows Less Limits on Iran Nuke Works,” Associated Press, July 18, 2016.

[11] “Annex 1-Nuclear Related Measures,” Q: “Access,” p. 23, para. 75-6. For a further explanation, see Emily B. Landau, “What 29 Top US Scientists Don’t Know,” Times of Israel (Jerusalem), Aug. 10, 2015.

[12] The Times of Israel, May 20, 2015; Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2015.

[13] Alon Levkowitz, “North Korea and the Middle East,” Mideast Security and Policy Studies no. 127, The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies (BESA), Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Jan. 10, 2017.

[14] Claudia Rosett, “The Audacity of Silence on Possible Iran-North Korea Nuclear Ties,” Forbes, Dec. 15, 2016.

[15] “Final Assessment on Past and Present Outstanding Issues Regarding Iran’s Nuclear Programme,” International Atomic Energy Agency, New York, GOV/2015/68, Dec. 2, 2015; David Albright, Andrea Stricker, and Serena Kelleher-Vergantini, “Analysis of the IAEA’s Report on the Possible Military Dimensions of Iran’s Nuclear Program,” Institute for Science and International Security, Washington, D.C., Dec. 8, 2015.

[16] The Wall Street Journal, June 28, 2015; Los Angeles Times, Nov. 24, 2013.

[17] “Remarks by the President at the New Economic School Graduation,” Moscow, Office of the Press Secretary, July 7, 2009; “Executive Summary,” Nuclear Posture Review Report (Washington: D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Defense, Apr. 2010).

[18] See, for example, Meir Javedanfar, “The Grand Bargain with Tehran,” The Guardian (London), Mar. 3, 2009.

[19] “President Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address,” White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Jan. 20, 2009.

[20] See, for example, Michael Doran, “Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy,” Mosaic, Feb. 2, 2015.

[21] The Guardian, Aug. 5, 2015.

[22] David Samuels, “The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru,” The New York Times Magazine, May 5, 2016; David Samuels, “Through the Looking Glass with Ben Rhodes,” The New York Times Magazine, May 13, 2016.

[23] Algemeiner (New York), Jan. 16, 2015.

[24] “Netanyahu’s Full Speech to Congress,” The Times of Israel (Jerusalem), Mar. 3, 2015.

[25] Times of Israel, Feb. 24, 2016, Aug. 5, 2016.

[26] For an example of a former defense official’s position, see Moshe Ya’alon, “Why Iran Is More Dangerous than Islamic State,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 29, 2016.

[27] “Less Limits on Iran Nuke Works,”, July 18, 2016.

[28] President Obama, interview, National Public Radio, Apr. 7, 2015.

[29] The Times of Israel, Apr. 7, 2015.

[30] The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 3, Sept. 6, 2016.

[31] OilPrice.com (London), Aug. 2, 2016; The New York Times, Sept. 21, 2016.

[32] David Albright and Andrea Stricker, “Analysis of the IAEA’s Fourth Iran Deal Report: Time of Change,” Institute for Science and International Security, Washington, D.C., Nov. 15, 2016.

[33] The Times of Israel, Dec. 21, 2016; Tasnim News Agency (Tehran), Dec. 19, 2016.

[34] Reuters, July 18, 2016; The Washington Free Beacon (D.C.), July 8, 2016.

[35] Jay Solomon, The Iran Wars (New York: Random House, 2016), pp. 229-33; Tony Badran, “Obama’s Syria Policy Striptease,” Tablet Magazine (New York), Sept. 21, 2016.

By Saji Thomas

The ruling pro-Hindu party in eastern India’s majority-tribal Jharkhand state has pushed for an anti-conversion law that church leaders fear will be used to intensify the harassment of local Christians.

The two-day state-level executive meeting of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP), that concluded May 1 in Palamu, adopted a resolution proposing a law to end religious conversion activities in the state.

“The resolution asks the state government to formulate a law that will make all conversions done through allurement or force illegal and punishable,” J.B. Dubit, the state’s BJP spokesperson, told ucanews.com May 2.

The BJP and other Hindu groups maintain that Christian missionaries’ service in the fields of education and health are a cover to attract poor tribal and Dalit people in the villages.

“We are not against religious conversion per se, but it is not acceptable to take advantage of someone’s poverty, or other such issues, by coercing them to switch religions,” Dubit said.

However, he did not identify any specific religious groups or provide data to support such claims.

The Indian Constitution “provides all citizens the freedom to practice and propagate the religion of their choice without any interference from anybody, including the government,” Auxiliary Bishop Telesphore Billung of Ranchi, based in the state capital, told ucanews.com.

“We Christians do not convert anyone through allurement or force but allow those who want to join the community of their own accord,” he said.

Bishop Billung said that the BJP was pushing its agenda of turning India into a theocratic Hindu state, using all resources at its disposal. “The party has used the media to carry false news of conversion from Hinduism and reconversion to Hinduism to prepare the ground for an anti-conversion law,” he said.

The state, under BJP rule since 2014, has witnessed a series of anti-Christian activities including Hindu hardliners banning Christian prayers and the entry of pastors in villages. Many Dalit and tribal leaders allege that their communities are threatened with violence to dissuade them from becoming Christians.

Bishop Vincent Barwa of Simdega who is based in the state and is chairman of the Indian bishops’ Committee for Tribal Affairs, told ucanews.com that the push for this law confirms that the BJP is playing a “game to divert the attention of people from real issues” of poverty and misrule.

Jharkhand has some 9 million tribal people, who form 26 percent of state’s population of 33 million. About 1.5 million people in the state are Christians, at least half of whom are Catholics, almost all of them tribal.

The state’s almost 5 percent Christian population is much above the national average of 2.3 percent.

Several Indian states such as Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha carry laws that restrict religious conversion, making it a punishable offence to convert without the prior permission of local government authorities.

The European XFEL, the biggest X-ray laser in the world, has reached the last major milestone before the official opening in September. The 3.4 km long facility, most of which is located in underground tunnels, has generated its first X-ray laser light. The X-ray light has a wavelength of 0.8 nm – about 500 times shorter than that of visible light. At first lasing, the laser had a repetition rate of one pulse per second, which will later increase to 27 000 per second.

European XFEL Managing Director Prof. Robert Feidenhans’l said: “This is an important moment that our partners and we have worked towards for many years. The European XFEL has generated its first X-ray laser light. The facility, to which many countries around the world contributed know-how and components, has passed its first big test with flying colours. The colleagues involved at European XFEL, DESY, and our international partners have accomplished outstanding work. This is also a great success for scientific collaboration in Europe and across the world. We can now begin to direct the X-ray flashes with special mirrors through the last tunnel section into the experiment hall, and then step by step start the commissioning of the experiment stations. I very much look forward to the start of international user operation, which is planned for September.”

Helmut Dosch, Chairman of the DESY Directorate, said: “The European X-ray laser has been brought to life! The first laser light produced today with the most advanced and most powerful linear accelerator in the world marks the beginning a new era of research in Europe. This worldwide unique high-tech facility was built in record time and within budget. This is an amazing success of science. I congratulate all those involved in the research, development, and construction of this facility with passion and commitment: the employees of DESY, European XFEL, and international partners. They have achieved outstanding results and demonstrated impressively what is possible in international cooperation. The European XFEL will provide us with the most detailed images of the molecular structure of new materials and drugs and novel live recordings of biochemical reactions.”

The X-ray laser light of the European XFEL is extremely intense and a billion times brighter than that of conventional synchrotron light sources. The achievable laser light wavelength corresponds to the size of an atom, meaning that the X-rays can be used to make pictures and films of the nanocosmos at atomic resolution – such as of biomolecules, from which better understandings of the basis of illnesses or the development of new therapies could be developed. Other opportunities include research into chemical processes and catalytic techniques, with the goal of improving their efficiency or making them more environmentally friendly; materials research; or the investigation of conditions similar to the interior of planets.

The X-ray laser light of the European XFEL was generated from an electron beam from a superconducting linear accelerator, the key component of the X-ray laser. The German research centre DESY, the largest shareholder of the European XFEL, put the accelerator into operation at the end of April.

In a 2.1 km long accelerator tunnel, the electron pulses were strongly accelerated and prepared for the later generation of X-ray laser light. At near-light speed and very high energies, the intense electron pulses entered a photon tunnel containing a 210 m long stretch of X-ray generating devices. Here, 17 290 permanent magnets with alternating poles interacted with the electron pulses from above and below. The magnetic structures, known as undulators, bring the electrons into a slalom course, and with every turn they release extremely short-wavelength X-ray radiation, which intensify across the length of the undulator stretch. For the first lasing, the X-ray light was absorbed and measured shortly before arriving in the underground experiment hall.

The 3.4 km long European XFEL is the largest and most powerful of the five X-ray lasers worldwide, with the ability to generate the short pulses of hard X-ray light. With more than 27 000 light flashes per second instead of the previous maximum of 120 per second, an extremely high luminosity, and the parallel operation of several experiment stations, it will be possible for scientists investigate more limited samples and perform their experiments more quickly. Therefore, the facility will increase the amount of beamtime available, as the capacity at other X-ray lasers worldwide has been eclipsed by demand, and facilities have been overall overbooked.

At the start of September, the X-ray laser should officially open. At that point, external users can perform experiments at the first two of the eventual six scientific instruments.