By Ali Esmaeili Ardekani*

A rapid review of how Iran has been treated by three past and present US administrations, that is, under former presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and also under the incumbent President Donald Trump, will clearly prove that Iran has always been a complicated actor in US foreign policy by playing an enigmatic game in the Middle East region. The most important question in this regard is what is the reason behind this ambiguity and enigma that surrounds Iran’s regional role? Which aspect of Iran’s foreign behavior has created this degree of ambiguity in the mind of American decision-makers and analysts? At the first glance, one may claim that this ambiguity and enigma emanates from absence of a successful effort to understand the nature of Iran’s foreign policy. Two basic principles in understanding Iran’s foreign policy logic include: A) recognition of the country’s position in the region and international system; and B) showing equal respect in political interactions.

To the contrary of the aforesaid hypothesis, some analysts maintain that the main factor, which sets direction of the United States foreign policy in the face of Iran, is merely the plurality of tactics prescribed and opinions held by various political elites at the White House. In other words, this group of analysts maintains that this direction is set by the policies that neoconservatives and democrats adopt in reaction to international and regional developments. However, continuation of this ambiguity shows that although the United States has almost come up with a clear strategic approach in the face of regional countries (including Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and so forth), Iran has been constantly considered as an enigma in the country’s foreign policy under all the aforesaid three administrations.

The foreign policy elites and strategists working for former president, George Bush Jr., tried through a realistic-romantic approach to impose international isolation on Iran by labeling it as a party to the so-called “Axis of Evil.” However, the same elites reached out to Iran for help after they were taken by a strange surprise due to developments in West Asia, especially in Iraq. Because of its realistic approach to regional issues and the priority that it gives to stabilizing West Asia, Tehran accepted Washington’s request for help. In line with this policy, Iran decided to work with the United States on a limited number of cases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the other hand, elites and strategists working for former US president, Barack Obama, at first took a realistic-idealistic approach through which they identified Iran as a problem. However, in addition to recognition of this problem, they owned up to cultural, and military position of Iran and, in short, admitted to the Islamic Republic’s position as a hegemonic power on regional and international levels. At that juncture, there were concerns about closeness between China and Iran in view of two economic (energy supply) and political (third way and look to the east) variables that existed at that time. They were concerned that when faced with the West’s pressure, China and Iran would form a tripartite alliance, which would include Russia as well.

At that juncture, Obama administration finally reached the conclusion that Iran should not be left alone with China and Russia. They concluded that if possible, Iran must be added to the list of the United States’ allies through a win-win strategy. This seemed especially true because further closeness between Iran and China would have made US calculations with regard to offshore balancing in the Persian Gulf and East Asia more complicated. This realism and understanding of Iran’s power and regional position was such that some advisors to Obama administration, including Stephen Walt, believed that the main and necessary ally of the United States in West Asia, especially under conditions when a new development was unraveling there on a daily basis, was not Egypt, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, but was Iran. Of course, they admitted that achieving such an alliance with Iran would be very difficult given the history of 35 years of severed relations and discontinued cooperation between the two countries.

Meanwhile, understanding of Iran’s role under Trump administration has been so far the result of a misinterpretation. In other words, understanding of Iran’s role at this juncture has been merely romantic and unrealistic. This type of understanding, which is result of a coordinated effort by Saudi Arabia and the Zionist regime of Israel to set direction of Trump administration’s strategy in its regional policies, has failed to offer an accurate analysis of how to understand Iran’s role as an actor in West Asia and the Persian Gulf region. Contradictory remarks made by US president and secretary of state as well as the CIA director and those strategists and elites, who have been serving this administration during the past few months, are signs of this type of understanding of Iran’s foreign policy.

The most important variables that cause confusion within Trump administration with regard to Iran include: 1. Iran’s undeniable role and position in the region as an influential power; 2. the role played by Saudi and Israeli lobbies in their effort to make Iran look like an immediate and serious threat.

These two variables will be explained as follows:

– Iran has always declared stability in West Asia as the most important goal of its foreign policy. Iran has never started any conflict and war in the region and has used its independent military capabilities in defense. The effort made by Iran to stabilize its security environment cannot be considered illegitimate in view of the norms of international law. By accepting the reality of this position in the region and also through understanding the main motif in Iran’s foreign policy, which is based on mutual respect for neighboring states and other countries, the United States will be in a better position to follow up on its declared policies with regard to Iran.

– Trump’s problem in the face of Iran is that countries like Saudi Arabia and the Zionist regime are concerned about their long-term security and military dependence on the United States after Trump declared its policy to give priority to problems inside his country. As a result, such countries are trying to project an image of Iran, which would make the United States accept responsibility for protecting them from security and military viewpoints. These countries are reflecting the reality of Iran, which is an independent country in political, security and military terms, as a serious threat in the region. This reflection will help them implement their “free riding policy” in military and security fields.

In conclusion, the United States must first bear in mind Iran’s diplomatic logic in its relations with the international system, which was most successfully reflected in achievement of the country’s nuclear deal with the P5+1 group of countries, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Afterwards, Washington must note that any measure based on the current romantic understanding of the nature of Iran’s foreign policy can turn into an exact example of the recommendation by America’s senior strategists and advisors, who believe that such an approach would “merely add a mistake to a raft of the United States’ mistakes in West Asia.”

* Ali Esmaeili Ardekani
Doctoral Student of International Relations at Allameh Tabatabaei University

I cannot think of any Somali national issue that was debated in the public domain as vigorously, and as intelligently, as the London Conference on Somalia. This is the third of such conferences hosted by the United Kingdom- a role that made her the Big Dog and secured her the most influential position within the international community.

Despite its unflattering colonial record, history of shady deals that is still causing bloodshed in the Horn, the velocity in which it appeared in the Somali political scene and swiftly cultivated political clout, many Somali analysts—this one included—have remained optimistic. Assessing the outcome of the first one, I wrote: “it is fair to say that the outcome of the conference is a mixed bag of positives and negatives, though the former outweighs the latter.”

Ever since then, what transpired was that UK was far from being an honest broker, and it was the principle facilitator of a clandestine economic butchery and security dependency.

The Soma Oil and Gas Model

The earlier London Conferences have secured the deal of the century for Soma Oil & Gas- a politically connected shady British company that was registered in the Caribbean only a few days earlier. A company that neither had the expertise in oil exploration nor had any assets.

In that company’s possession a carte blanche signed in a dark room, spoils that make it virtually the sole owner of Somalia’s oil and gas. Soma Oil & Gas is believed being the source of the ghost funding, or the millions of dollars distributed to buy votes during the parliamentary and presidential elections. Interestingly, Somalia’s current Prime Minister, who also had a special relationship with the previous administration, was Soma Oil & Gas’ Executive Director until he was named for the nation’s top executive position.

UK Driving Motives

On March 15^th, British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson went to Mogadishu to personally convince the new President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo to endorse the British framed conference agenda and attend the conference. He made the same appeal to each of the Federal State “Presidents”.

UK is anxiously readying herself for an immanent economic hurricane following Brexit and the Conservative Party lead by Theresa May is eager to duplicate David Cameron’s legacy and zero-sum triumph. The successful delivery of Soma Oil & Gas had international predatory capitalists salivating and marching to the orders of the gatekeeper of the chamber of exploitation.

Second, UK is adamant to sideline Turkey and torpedo its relational and strategic progress in Somalia, mainly by proxy and soft disinformation.

Third, UK is conducting geopolitical brokering camouflaged with Gulf dollars. UAE secured military bases with commercial façade in Berbera seaport in the unilaterally seceded (but unrecognized Somaliland. It also secured a deal in Puntland and is negotiating for more. All independent of the Somali federal government.

An Incredible Architecture

By deliberate design, ignorance or default, the plan unveiled by the so-called National Security Architecture seems nothing more than scheme to keep Somalia dependent on foreign security, if it does not sow the seed of perpetual enmity between clans. There could never be a sovereign Somali state so long as it cannot protect its territories.

As the provisional constitution, clan-based federalism and other existentially propositions designed to undermine genuine progress in Somalia, the Security Architecture is a foreign designed with indigenous façade.

The Federal Parliament Committee on Security asserted its opposition to limiting the Somali national army to 18,000 and its police force to 32,000 due to its unconstitutionality. Dividing the 18,000 equally between six clan-based Federal States strips the central government its exclusive authority to build the national defense, not to mention being tantamount to funding clan militias without integration, national objective or central command.

This will make Somalia the testing ground for the feasibility of the clan-ite model that could be applied on many African nations in the near future. Failed or fragile states could be divided into fiefdoms ruled by alpha clans that are too weak to defend themselves, except when fighting each other. From the exploiters’ perspective, there is no better model.

Opting Out Of All Options

Under internal and external pressures, the new president succumbed to what is known as the path of the least resistance. President Farmaajo had three options:  Either to request a moratorium to give the new government time to form and assess its priorities and evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the agenda, timing, venue, representation, method of implementation, and allocation of resources. Or insisting on hosting the conference in Somalia and involving all appropriate institutions before overhauling the so-called Security Architecture and the rest of the agenda to suit Somalia’s needs. Or boycotting the whole London Conference and all similar powwows that make the new Somali government look like a carbon copy of the one before it. Meanwhile, investing all political capital and traditional, religious, and intellectual resources on a genuine Somali-owned national reconciliation.

Once the internal political tension is somewhat defused, the new government would’ve had a legitimate authority to represent Somalia’s interest with a unified voice and engage each nation individually based on Somalia’s national interest. It is the only viable means to get Somalis to sit behind the steering wheel and drive their nation’s strategic interests.

Inflammatory rhetoric such as “we are in an all-out war against Shabaab” may perpetuate the failed global war on terrorism but it is a self-destructive approach for a new government standing on political quicksand.

Straight Talk

Of course the London Conference is not without a luring carrot. According to the official statement the Conference is set to “agree a New Partnership Agreement between the international community and Somalia” to replace the infamous EU-led New Deal for Somalia.

Unfortunately, as in the New Deal, the New Partnership Agreement would be coming with strings attached. Hundreds of millions of dollars would be extravagantly contracted out to the same usual suspects and their cliques. Sadly, it would not be that difficult to bypass the current government since no Independent Anti-corruption Commission is yet established, no official definition for corruption is offered, and no related policy is yet instituted. And in the next couple of months or so, Transparency International would have its report on corruption out and the rest, as they say, is history.

Despite the prevalence of fake news to build false narratives, the age-old relationship between false premises and false conclusions has never been stronger. The former still result the latter.

So, if your assumption per the London Conference on Somalia is one that is altruistically-driven or that UK is chasing terrorists such as the White Widow who was last seen fleeing to Somalia on a camel, you are in for a memorable entertainment- a ‘now you see it, now you don’t’ magic show.

Against that backdrop, there is only one thing left for President Farmaajo to salvage his nation and his presidency; to do the unthinkable by getting on the stage and kicking up some political dust. All he would need for a speech is a poster with these dozen words: Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us.

Kashmir in India, which is blessed with bountiful natural beauty, has the potentials to be one of the most attractive tourist paradise in the world. People of Kashmir, known for their enterprising attributes and pleasant nature, have always been receiving the tourists from all over the world with warmth and friendly attitude, making them feel comfortable and at home. Unfortunately, this beautiful land is now facing turmoil, unrest and is undergoing strain.

Even while vast majority of the Kashmiris want to live in peaceful and progressive conditions, separatist elements and terrorists are making the life of Kashmir citizens painful. Kashmir is now a victim of terrorism.

There is huge concern in India about the violent happenings in Kashmir and many wonder about the shape of things to come. The Modi government has been trying to find meaningful solution to the issues and have offered several economic and social packages to improve the situation in Kashmir and make the life better for people. But, the terrorists do not want this to happen and are doing everything possible to disrupt the peace and harmony in the state, by whipping up feelings of hatred against India and attacking the law enforcement agencies and innocent people.

There are some elements in Kashmir who want separate state and some other elements who want to join Pakistan, while voice of the vast majority of people remain unheard by the world media. Whenever opportunities are given to the people to explain their views about the state of affairs, they have responded positively , as evident from the way that the people participated in the electoral process and exercised their franchise. Recently, there have been huge response from the youth of Kashmir to join Indian army during the recruitment process.

Obviously, the Government of India is facing serious problem here, as the terrorists seem to be having their way and they are indulging in unchecked violence and guerilla warfare at their will. While it is very well known that people of Kashmir do not subscribe to the demand of the separatists and terrorists, the dilemma of Government of India is to how to tackle the terrorists who mix with the people and these terrorists have no scruples and carry on with their campaign based on hatred and disruptive tactics. They have faith only in violence.

What is happening in Kashmir today is a war against terrorism and terrorists, who get training, financial and military support from across the border and from other countries. This is not a conventional war, where one would clearly know the enemies to be hit. In the case of Kashmir, violent prone terrorists mix with the people and also systematically brain wash the youth and it has become difficult for security agencies to hit the terrorists without hitting the innocent people. Some youth and students are now reported to be pelting stones and obviously, they have been systematically brain washed by the terrorist elements.

India is a democratic country with almost unchecked media freedom and liberty for people. Often , some sections of people indulge in sectarian activities and indulge in negative rhetorics and they are allowed to do so in the name of individual freedom and liberty and what is now frequently termed in India as “fundamental rights”.

Many observers around the world are surprised that separatist elements and known leaders of terrorist groups are almost freely allowed to roam in Kashmir, issue statements and provide interviews to the media. It appears that Modi government is fighting in Kashmir with one hand tied , due to the democratic form of governance.

Now, the options for the Modi government appear to be limited. It has to necessarily put down the terrorists and separatist forces with heavy hand. If such elements would get support from across the border , then the bases from which they derive the support has to be attacked and destroyed and the supply line should be effectively cut. There appears to be no other way, since the terrorist elements are not amenable to reason and it seems that they can understand only force. India has to be prepared to pay the necessary price for this essential and inevitable step.

Any continued success of terrorists in Kashmir rings warning bell for all countries around the world , as continued success of terrorists in Kashmir would amount to success of terrorism in the world.

It is also necessary that the vast majority of people of Kashmir, who are helplessly watching the situation, should introspect as to what would happen to their dear land, if the present disturbing conditions would continue. Kashmir would face a horrible situation, in the unfortunate scenario of present status changing and the future generation of Kashmiris will not forgive the present generation for allowing any negative changes to happen.

It is high time that the world community understand the problems faced by Government of India in dealing with terrorist elements in Kashmir and extend support.

Xi has consolidated a mass of power in his own hands and is not averse to a Mao-like personalised fame.

By Pinaki Bhattacharya

By the end of the year, the Chinese will be witnessing the curtains go up on the 19^th CPC Congress. In normal circumstances, according to a leadership tradition established by Deng Xiaoping, Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang would be embarking on their final five years in the office of presidency and premiership.

Leadership change in China has been quite smooth since Jiang Zemin laid down office in 2003, as the fourth generation leaders took office in 2007 at the 17^th Congress. Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao were the representatives of this generation for ‘two fives’ i.e. two five-year terms. Thus, at the 18^th Congress, the fifth generation took over in the form of Xi and Li.

Presently, an infectious speculation has begun — largely fuelled by the US-based China watchers — whether Xi will give up office at the 20^th Congress, due in 2022. For Xi has turned into being a leader of what can be called a neo-Maoist group. This is the group that has joined hands with the Shanghai group of Jiang Zemin. Xi, in his turn, has consolidated a mass of power in his own hands and is not averse to a Mao-like ‘personalised’ fame.

Even as the 2008 finance capital crisis hit the specially Western world, expanding into a general economic recession, it has affected the Chinese economy in terms of its export-driven model growth. Its pace has declined to a more modest approximation of seven percent and thereabouts. Again the Western commentators on China had been speculating for long that a slow growth rate might cause severe social turmoil. For, they said that the Chinese people had struck a Faustian bargain with the authoritarian party-state : “You give us prosperity, we will keep you in power.”

A recent Pew research study has claimed that only about 2.5 percent of the Chinese population earns less than $2 a day. Looking at the information from a top-down angle shows that the Chinese middle class expanded to 31 odd percent of the population in 2012. Will this slowdown in Chinese economy displace the nation from its goal of becoming a middle income country by 2020?

If this question has arisen, it has become coupled with Zhongnanhai residents’ knowledge that the deeply corrupt mandarinate, including senior leaders, was already leaving a dark imprint on the psyche of the people. So Xi launched his campaign of ‘catching tigers and flies.’ The first to go was a fellow ‘princeling’, Bo Xilai, the provincial chief of Chongqing, which was once a capital of the Nationalist Chinese government. Bo’s father was Bo Yibo, an associate of Mao, and a commander of the revolutionary Red Army. The former, once a Polit Bureau (PB) member, is now serving a rigorous imprisonment.

The next two ‘tigers’ to go was Guo Boxiong and Xu Caihou, who had even higher reach and stronger tentacles. They had been heading personnel selection and deployment department of the PLA. And of course, they were taking fat bribes for prized posts in the various military regions (MRs) that existed, from senior armed forces officials coveting those jobs. In fact, in the last three years the PLA has purged 200 officers (flies) for various misdemeanours.

Now these actions by Xi have added much muscle to his office and political credits for himself. He clearly could not have done all this without the support of other ‘princelings’ in top jobs currently, and more importantly of Jiang Zemin and his cohort. Jiang had not handed over his chairmanship of the CMC for a year to Hu Jintao, when he became president of the nation. An emergency replacement for Zhao Ziyang in the midst of the Tienanmen Square crisis, Jiang Zemin, had a solid lock on the PLA with whom he had the last word. Xi clearly enjoys Jiang’s support, even though he himself has his own constituency in the PLA.

On the back of all this, Xi seems to have disarmed the Premier Li Keqiang, a Communist Youth League (CYL) group leader and a protégé of Hu Jintao. He had the same background as Li Keqiang.

Zhu Rongji, who had replaced Li in 1998, was in any case a darling of the West as he liberalised the PRC economy faster. He also was a graduate of prestigious Tsinghua University where he studied engineering.

But while Li Keqiang is tasked with day-to-day management of the economy, the main driver of economic policy-making remains Xi. He underlined that fact in January this year when for the first time the highest Chinese official attended the World Economic Forum jamboree in Davos. Xi’s speech was hailed as the most important statement by the PRC seeking to lead the world in terms of ‘globalisation’ seeking to replace the West as it remains mired in economic crises.

As Xi manages these huge tasks of detoxification of the rank and file of the officialdom, along with steering the PRC economy in times of severe trouble, the speculation whether he would show intent to step down after the end of the ‘second five’.

The first sign of that will be available in how Xi composes the Standing Committee of the Polit Bureau. Considering five of the seven members of the apex committee would be superannuating, Xi should choose his and Li’s likely successors from the midst of the sixth generation leaders and elevate them to the Standing Committee. They would then work as understudies till the 20^th CPC Congress, when they take-over the reins of the Party and the State. The world is looking forward to the end-of-the-year action with bated breath.

Lebanon’s president, Michel Aoun, is a fervent Hezbollah supporter; Lebanon’s prime minister, Saad Hariri, most certainly is not.  Hariri’s position is scarcely surprising, since he has every reason to believe that back in 2005 his father, Rafik, was brutally assassinated by Hezbollah operatives, acting on the orders of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad.

Why should it matter what either of Lebanon’s leading figures think of Hezbollah?  Because that organization has succeeded in infiltrating so deeply into Lebanon’s body politic that it has become a virtual “state within a state”.  It not only directly runs a range of social, health, infrastructure and media services, but its heavily armed military wing conducts itself much like an independent army.  Its political bloc, designated “March 8”, holds 57 of the 128 seats in Lebanon’s parliament.

In short, although plainly and obviously subject to outside foreign control in the shape of both Iran and Syria, Hezbollah has gained a tenacious grip on the internal power structure and functioning of the Lebanese state. The fact that it has been designated a terrorist organization by, inter alia, the Arab League (of which Lebanon is a member) has not affected its position as a major political player within Lebanon.

It was around 1980 – the exact date is disputed – that Hezbollah planted itself in the soil of Lebanon, a state torn apart by civil conflict. Drawing its inspiration from the extremist Shia-based philosophy expounded by Iran’s first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomenei, Hezbollah declared that its purpose was to oppose Western influences in general and Israel’s existence in particular.  It backed its vision with a string of notorious terrorist actions, such as the suicide car bombing of the US embassy in Beirut in 1983, and the blowing up of the United States Marine barracks six months later. Hezbollah was born in blood, fire and explosion.

Sparked by clashes between Palestinian and Christian militias, civil war had erupted within Lebanon in 1975.  This small country, divided in beliefs and weak by design, was easy prey for its totalitarian neighbour, Syria.  President Hafez al-Assad invaded and all but annexed it.  The end of the war in 1990 did not end Syria’s military occupation.  The Taif Agreement at the conclusion of hostilities required the disarmament of every militia in Lebanon, but Bashar al-Assad, who had by then taken over from his father as Syria’s president, left Hezbollah in place, partly because it was a useful ally in Syria’s conflict with Israel.

Lebanon’s “March 14 Alliance” is a coalition of politicians opposed to the Syrian régime and to Hezbollah – March 14, 2005 was the launch date of the Cedar Revolution, a protest movement  triggered by the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, earlier that year.  The echoes of Hariri’s cold-blooded slaughter have continued to reverberate through Lebanese politics.  Hariri had been demanding that Hezbollah disband and direct its thousands of fighters to join Lebanon’s armed forces. This demand has become ever more insistent since Hezbollah began fighting in Syria alongside Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in support of Bashar al-Assad.  A large segment of Lebanese opinion hates Assad and favours toppling him.

In a recent interview on Egyptian television, Lebanon’s President Aoun described Hezbollah’s armed forces as a “complement” to the Lebanese army, and “an essential part of Lebanon’s defence.”  Adverse reactions came swiftly, from the UN and from within Lebanon.

Farhan Haq, a spokesman for the UN secretary-general, reminded Aoun of the UN Security Council resolutions  that “clearly call for the dissolution and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias. Keeping arms in the hands of Hezbollah and other armed groups outside the state framework would limit Lebanon’s capacity to exercise its sovereignty and full authority over its geographical area.”

Fares Soueid, secretariat coordinator of Lebanon’s anti-Hezbollah March 14 coalition, tweeted: “If Aoun believes that Hezbollah is able to protect Lebanon, why don’t we call on Hassan Nasrallah (Hezbollah’s leader) to move into the presidential palace?”

Lebanon’s Future Movement, led by Prime Minister Hariri, issued a statement confirming its commitment to the UN resolutions which preserve Lebanon’s sovereignty and security: “The Lebanese State’s arms are the only legitimate weapons in Lebanon.”

On 21 April 2017 Hezbollah organized a media tour in south Lebanon.  The next day, Prime Minister Hariri visited the area and heavily criticized the appearance of Hezbollah armed militants in the UN buffer zone meant to be free of Hezbollah presence. “What happened yesterday is something that we, as a government, did not order and do not accept.“

A week later, on 27 April, a Hezbollah arms supply hub in Syria, close to Damascus International Airport, was attacked from the air and destroyed.  Fahad al-Masri, head of the National Salvation Front in Syria, said that the strikes targeted arsenals of weapons and munitions that had arrived recently from Iran. “A large portion was to support Hezbollah and the other armed militias belonging to Iran in Syria,” he said, adding, “there was also qualitative and strategic weaponry to be transferred to Lebanon to bolster Hezbollah’s military arsenal.”

Al-Masri characterised the strike as a “blessed” blow on Hezbollah by Israel. Israel does not usually comment on action it takes in Syria, but in a radio interview minister Israel Katz appeared to confirm Israel’s involvement: “The incident in Syria corresponds completely with Israel’s policy to act to prevent Iran’s smuggling of advanced weapons via Syria to Hezbollah.”  He was referring to prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s earlier statement: “whenever we receive intelligence that indicates an intention to transfer advanced weapons to Hezbollah, we will act.”

Slowly, perhaps too slowly, leading elements among Lebanon’s opinion formers are coming to recognize that Israel is not their enemy.  Their true antagonist is the malign organism that has taken root within their own body politic – Hezbollah – and that, in this, they are at one with Israel.  Indeed, to think what may have seemed unthinkable only a few years ago, Israel could prove a staunch ally in helping Lebanon reassert itself as a fully sovereign state.

European tax rules are not currently prepared for the digital economy and need to be adapted to reality to offer the people of Europe a more prosperous future. This was the main message of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) debate on Taxation of the Digital Economy held on May 5.

“The digital economy is no longer just a part of the economy, but is becoming the actual economy itself,” said the keynote speaker, Rita de la Feria, professor of Tax Law, University of Leeds, and renowned tax expert – “Global Tax 50” in 2015 and 2016. She outlined that consumption has changed – an increasing part of consumption is done online and a large part of this is on mobile phones.

Opening the debate, the President of the EESC’s ECO Section, Joost van Iersel invited the experts participating to explore how the new models of business, work, and consumption in the sharing economy can be taxed appropriately. He reminded that the EESC considers proposals for appropriate taxation of the digital economy vitally important.

Within its wider work on fair taxation, the EESC is preparing an opinion on the taxation of the sharing economy. The debate hosted an exchange with taxation experts and economists, including EESC members Giuseppe Guerini and Krister Andersson, co-rapporteurs of this opinion that the EESC is preparing at the request of the upcoming Estonian Presidency of the Council of the EU.

“Digitalization of the economy is not reversible; neither is globalization. All the technological development cannot be undone,” Ms de la Feria said. “Either we continue to fit reality in our law, patch measures, or try to adapt our rules and laws especially in areas of fraud – and offer prosperity to our people.”

Ms de la Feria’s presentation detailed the other costs of tax fraud, including subsidies to organized crime and perceived unfairness by taxpayers. She also discussed tax competition, declaring that until incentives are removed, the symptoms will just reappear despite any anti tax-avoidance measures.

Fraud has costs beyond revenue loss, and is thus about much more than revenue, according to her. When only focusing on revenue maximization, the applied measures that increase it do nothing to address other causes – such as distortions to competition.

“Current taxation rules risk killing the sharing economy – which is actually good for increased productivity. They are also especially tough on small companies,” said EESC member Krister Andersson. “Mobility is not a problem, but a benefit which we should cherish. Instead, we need to adjust our tax rules accordingly in order to face the challenges and ensure that we realize all potential opportunities,” he added.

“We need a more united taxation system in Europe. Our economy is not united to our territory, so we should treat it with one united European approach,” said Giuseppe Guerini, EESC rapporteur of Taxation of sharing economy.

Hindus are urging all public school districts and private-charter-independent schools in Virginia to close on Diwali, most popular of their festival, which falls on October 19 this year.

Many public school districts in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have already reportedly declared day-off for students on October 19.

Distinguished Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada today, said it if would be a step in the positive direction, as it was important to meet the religious and spiritual needs of Hindu pupils.

Zed, who is President of Universal Society of Hinduism, indicated that schools should make efforts to accommodate the religious requirements of Hindu students and show respect to their faith by not conducting regular business and scheduling classes on Diwali. We did not want our students to be put at an unnecessary disadvantage for missing tests/examinations/papers, assignments, class work, etc., by taking a day-off to observe Diwali.

If schools had declared other religious holidays, why not Diwali, Rajan Zed asked. Holidays of all major religions should be honored and no one should be penalized for practicing their religion, Zed added.

Zed suggested all Virginia schools, public-private-charter-independent, to seriously look into declaring Diwali as an official holiday, thus recognizing the intersection of spirituality and education. Zed noted that awareness about other religions thus created by such holidays like Diwali would make Virginia students well-nurtured, well-balanced, and enlightened citizens of tomorrow.

Rajan Zed urged Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, Superintendent of Public Instruction Steven R. Staples and Board of Education President Dr. Billy K. Cannaday Junior; to work towards adding Diwali as an official holiday in all the state’s public schools, and persuading the private-charter-independent schools to follow.

Zed further says that Hinduism is rich in festivals and religious festivals are very dear and sacred to Hindus. Diwali, the festival of lights, aims at dispelling the darkness and lighting up the lives and symbolizes the victory of good over evil. Besides Hindus; Sikhs and Jains and some Buddhists also celebrate Diwali.

By Zainab Calcuttawala

Innovations in energy storage, smart grid, and electricity generation technologies will affect every part of the source-to-consumer supply chain for powering the planet. Energy storage tech improves the viabilities of wind and solar power – two energy sources that remain cost prohibitive due to expenses related to batteries that would store generated energy. Smart grids will regulate the movement of energy throughout a city or state, insuring the areas from crippling blackouts. Developments in electricity generation make sure we make the most out of fossil fuels and other energy sources to improve efficiency.

What follows is a survey of progress in the development of five different technologies that promise to change the face of the energy industry in the next 20 years.

1. Fuel Cell: Truck manufacturers Kenworth, Toyota, and UPS have begun investing in fuel cell technologies, which would allow transport vehicles to run on hydrogen and oxygen, releasing only heat and water as emissions. Modern hydrogen production still requires copious fossil fuel use, but the process could soon be powered by renewable energies, making fuel cell vehicles extremely clean alternatives to current trucking solutions.
In Europe, fuel cell production facilities will begin pumping out 50,000 fuel cell stacks by the year 2020, making United Kingdom-based Intelligent Energy the market leader in bringing the green technology to the masses. “Hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles are available now, but to continue to drive customer adoption, we need to ensure future fuel cell stacks are robustly industrialised and remain cost competitive in the future,” said the company’s Manufacturing Head Richard Peart.

2. Lithium-air batteries: These storage units, also known as Lithium-oxygen fuel cells, have been gestating in scientific labs all over the world since the beginning of electric vehicles. Science Daily says two instabilities in the technology’s current form have prevented it from hitting mass markets: unpredictable short circuiting and speedy loss of battery power. Cornell University recently tackled the second capacity face problem, meaning we could be just one witty solution away from long-range electric cars.

3. First Generation Smart Grid: The first step in making a reliable and responsive smart grid system requires the installation of smart meters in every household and building. The new meters will send usage information in real time to your energy provider, allowing adjustments in availability to fluctuate according to the area’s latest needs. So far, countries like the United Kingdom are having trouble adjusting the technology to fit the national infrastructure and business norms. The United States jumped on the smart grid bandwagon in 2007 and set up a taskforce to ensure a synchronized adoption of the new technology. The process has been slow, but small communities have begun “microgrid” projects that will allow consumer demand to drive implementation.

4. Tidal turbines: Much like wind turbines, these underwater pinwheels harness energy from wave movement. This green energy has had small-scale success so far, but objections from fishermen, as well as accidents, have set the technology back in California – tidal energy Ground Zero – in recent months. But the science behind tidal energy continues its march forward. Scotrenewables Tidal Power announced the launch of a new low-cost turbine off the coast of Scotland. It’s also the “largest and most powerful” turbine of its kind in the world with a power generation capacity of two megawatts, according to its manufacturers. A retractable arm gives the facility a separate transport mode and an operation mode, which allows easy portability and an impermanence that would please local fishing industries.

5. Space-based Solar Power: Solar power captured from-the-beyond has been a sci-fi concept since the 1970s. The high cost of transporting the panels and other equipment into space has prevented the idea from becoming fruitful for commercial energy production. In addition, the transfer of generated energy back to Earth has been a concern. Solar power panels installed on the ground connect to the local power grid to deliver their harnessed goods, but it is comical to imagine a satellite in space hooked to the planet via cable for efficient energy delivery, prompting scientists to develop wireless energy transfer technologies akin to the iPhone 8’s anticipated wireless charging feature. None of the existing methods have proven to be feasible on a massive scale. Suggestions are welcome.

The advances mentioned above are inter-related: progress in the lithium-air battery efforts will pave the way for the success of electric cars, which could be recharged with energy hardheaded from the tides or space-based solar power. It’s one small step for science, one giant leap for green energy-kind.

Link to original article: http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/5-Clean-Energy-Innovations-That-Could-Transform-Our-World.html

Over the last two years Turkey has experienced some hectic periods in terms of both domestic and foreign politics. Operation “Euphrates Shield” that launched in Syria, the developments in the fight against the PKK, the July 15 coup attempt and the subsequent state of emergency all caused significant changes people’s views of Turkey, both from the perspective of those within it and those in other countries. While progress was made in relations with Russia, American support for PYD in Syria had a relatively negative impact on relations with the US, and all these developments dragged EU relations into abeyance.

Without a doubt, it is not merely due because of Turkey’s politics that the relations with the EU have become problematic. The extreme right-wing leaders who have effectively emerged in the European Parliament in recent years have strongly raised their voices against both foreign and Muslim communities. The anti-foreigner rhetoric that borders racism seems to have long ago hampered the essential presence of the EU, which is supposed to be inclusive and unifying.

The decision about Turkey that was made as a result of the vote of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe last week serves as the latest point reached by Turkey and the European Union. According to this decision, Turkey, one of the founding members of the European Commission, will be under its observation.

The aforementioned watch list was initially intended to accustom Eastern European countries ruled by communist political parties following the dissolution of the Soviet Union to the level of democracy in Western Europe. Turkey was not a country under communist rule, but because it was a Muslim country at the gate of the Middle East it was put on the aforementioned watch list and then was removed from this list as a result of a series of reforms that were carried out after the AKP took power. One of the most remarkable of these reforms was the abolition of the death penalty. Turkey is currently the only country on the list that has come back to it despite being removed in 2004.

PACE is not an organ of the European Union but the decision has emphasized the way the EU looks at Turkey for a while now. The European Union is undoubtedly not in a position to assess the events in Turkey properly and make a fair deduction accordingly. Because Europe, unlike Turkey, is not face to face with a nuisance like the PKK, was not subjected to a coup attempt by an internally organized group, nor did it ever face unrelenting wars on its borders. It seems difficult for the European Union, which evaluates the countries that it will incorporate based on its own norms, to be able to see and evaluate Turkey’s issues closely.

Indeed, within the scope of this decision, the EU’s one-sided viewpoint, its racist leaders, and the hatred stemming from Islamophobia and xenophobia can justify the fact that blame falls largely on Europe. Yet such decisions should be transformed into a positive one for Turkey in many ways. It should not be forgotten that Turkey’s request to join the EU, made many years ago, was a step taken in order to adopt the democracy and human rights of those countries. As a matter of fact, Turkey has made significant progress in terms of human rights with a series of reforms that took place immediately after its application for membership. It should be remembered that the steps in question are essentially the steps Turkey needs to take.

Europe is based on an elite model in which women are held in high esteem and are not oppressed, and in which science, art, aesthetics and quality are strongly emphasized. These are the aspects that are especially now urgently needed by Muslim countries. This is because some Muslim societies have been under the influence of superstitious mentalities for a long time, and they have either turned to false beliefs or remained passive in these issues. This passivity has hindered these societies not only in a social context, but also in the political arena, and have, to a large extent, prevented the formation of happy and creative societies.

Because art, besides encouraging people to appreciate beauty, can help societies to develop skills and fend off pessimism. It is for this reason that societies that are removed from art and aesthetics are societies that can often easily sink into pessimism, lose their spiritual richness, and can get bored quickly. For this reason, aspects such as art, quality and aesthetics, which the EU holds in high esteem, are absolutely necessary to adapt.

Democracy is not only a system recommended by Europe, but a model that is essentially Islamic. Our religion, which does not allow for compulsion, gives us the perfect recipe for democracy. Logically, then, the main democratic societies should be the Islamic societies. Turkey undoubtedly is moving along on the way of democratization. This can indeed be fully achieved by developing a style of democracy superior to that of Europe.

*The writer has authored more than 300 books translated into 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He tweets @harun_yahya.

Turkey, the only Muslim European power, is a very important NATO member and a close ally of USA. Turkey-US relations bloomed and blossomed thanks to what the Americans perceived as a permanent Russian threat to the world on ideological grounds.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited India on an official two day trip from April 30 to May 1. President Erdogan embarked upon his India visit soon after he won the referendum to strengthen his presidency with more powers and he met Indian PM Narendra Modi on a variety of bilateral and multilateral issues. Both signed important bilateral agreements.

Turkey is an important world power, no matter howsoever close it may be with India’s arch-rival Pakistan, and India and Turkey have to build on their many convergences and build mutual trust soon. This is possible at a time when both countries have very strong leaders and stable governments.

President Erdogan is the most important popular Muslim leader advancing the Islamic system that is opposed by all anti-Islamic forces globally. When Erdogan took up the Palestine issue, Israel, its close military ally, got wild as it does not allow any nation to breach the Zionist terror blockades meant to torture the Hamas Palestinians, and thus the “historic” bilateral ties have been strained badly.

PM Modi is in the mold of President Erdogan in terms of popularity and power. Erdogan has been Turkey’s prime minister for 12 years and now president for the last two-and-a-half years. This is his first foreign visit after scoring a comprehensive victory in a controversial referendum recently which gave him overwhelming powers and further cemented his place in the country’s power structure.

Besides economic aspects, the Turkish president and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also held lengthy discussions on terrorism this week during Erdogan’s two-day visit to India. Both parties agreed that there was no justification for terrorism, and urged all countries to disrupt terrorist networks and financing and “stop cross-border movements of terrorists.”

The Turkish president, during his trip, also raised concerns about the Fethullah Terrorist Organisation (Feto). Ankara has demanded schools in India administered by a foundation linked to Fethullah Gulen ─ a US-based preacher who Erdogan accuses of instigating a failed coup in Turkey last year ─ be shut down. “As far as the Turkish concerns about Feto are concerned, they were mentioned to us. Any organisation in India, whether it is Indian or foreign, obviously has to work within the parameters of our laws and our norms and regulations,” Baglay said.

After talks with Modi, Erdogan assured India of Turkey’s full support in the fight against terrorism in general. Modi on his part said that “no intent or goal or reason or rationale can validate terrorism.” President Erdogan has different view on “cross-border terrorism” that India blames Pakistan for. On the question of exiled Turkish cleric Fehtullah Gulen, who is accused by Erdogan of plotting the 16 July coup against his government, the Turkish president described organisations associated with him as “terrorist” and hoped India would take necessary steps to rein in their activities. Both condemn terrorism.

Anti-Islamic media

Anti-Islamism had been a top pastime theme of global media lords who seek to discredit Islam as a terrorist region and Muslims as pure pure terrorists. These media news and reports make the anti-Islamic elements extremely happy.
Global anti-Islamic media continues to harp on anti-Islam themes and Turkey, the only Muslim nation in Europe spearheading for Islamization of the society, has been the target of all anti-Islamic media globally. They shamelessly supported and hailed the coup efforts of enemies of Turkey but President Erdogan, his AKP and people at large successfully faced the their challenge to Islam in Turkey.
Global state terrorism has been targeting Turkey, among top Muslim nations, to help the enemies of Islam destabilize the nation with the help of anti-Islamic elements operating within and from the Western nations.

Turkey president Recep Tayyip Erdogan in his day-long visit to India extended “full solidarity” with India in battling terrorism. After extensive talks with Erdogan, in which the fight against terrorism formed a major part, prime minister Narendra Modi said both the countries have agreed that “no intent or goal, no reason or rationale can validate terrorism”.

PM Modi said that he and Erdogan “agreed to work together to strengthen our cooperation, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to effectively counter this menace.” During the talks, which extended by nearly two hours beyond the scheduled 60 minutes, India and Turkey agreed to boost bilateral trade from the current level of just over $6 billion and expressed the resolve to fight the global menace of terrorism together. “(The) president and I are clear that the strength of our economies presents an enormous opportunity to expand and deepen commercial linkages between our countries,” Modi said while addressing the media.

PM Modi said that at the level of the two governments, “we need to approach the entire landscape of business opportunities in a strategic and long-term manner”. India and Turkey are two large economies,” he stated. “Our bilateral trade turnover of around $6 billion does not do full justice to convergences in our economies. Clearly, the business and industry on both sides can do much more.
For this reason, Turkey’s relations with the West are not optimal but Turkey’s relation with Russia, China and India is qualitatively improving Turkey’s earlier ‘West-centric’ foreign policy towards a ‘multidimensional foreign policy’.

Turkey a source of stability for Mideast

The meeting between Modi and Erdogan was widely reported in Turkish Daily Sabah and commentary and opinion touched upon the future of India-Turkey relations, the kind of stability it would bring to West Asia. The paper also brought out the Israel angle which most media in India failed or refused to touch upon.

India as a new strategic partner of USA is automatically a military ally of Israel as well and their bilateral military tie ups are going up with a lot agreements for latest Israeli terror goods meant to kill Kashmiris are being signed in New Delhi.

Israel seems to use India to push for reactivation of Turkish-Zionist military ties. Turkish-Indian relations and the Israeli angle’ noted that Israel is a key aspect for the India-Turkey relations as Turkey’s move towards India has come after Turkey signing a reconciliation deal on 27 June, 2016 with Israel. Israeli sources say that there is a visible move towards “openness and comfort” between India and Israel in discussing all facets of bilateral relations and India should take advantage of the warming relations between Turkey and Israel and enhance cooperation among its West Asian partners.

However, neither American, neither British nor Russian newspapers like Sputnik News, Russia Today, and The Moscow Times had lent much coverage to President Erdogan’s India visit. In West Asia, The Khaleej Times, Gulf News also had minimal coverage and did not generate any commentary as such. The reason for this important media omission has obvious reasons.

President Erdogan is a wily politician and is a past master in the art of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Recently he had a dinner meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad even as he has been aiding and abetting Salafi jihadis against him. Indian strategic communist says President Erdogan has been trying to mollycoddle New Delhi with sweet nothings while having a very close relationship with Pakistan.

India wants Turkey, like USA and Russia do now, to ignore Pakistan and support its occupational crimes in Kashmir valley. Erdogan does not oblige New Delhi, however.

India stresses cooperation with India in the field of counter-terrorism should be a major area of interest for Erdogan as Turkey is in the grip of a spate of New Delhi asks as to what kind of value can he impart to this exercise when his government is closely involved with a country like Pakistan?

Convergence

Former Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee who should be credited for redefining India-Turkey relations, now waiting for a breakthrough to qualify for another qualitative step forward. In 2001, then Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani was the first high-level dignitary of the NDA government to have visited Turkey which concluded with an important agreement on an extradition treaty.

Later, in 2003, prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had gone on his landmark visit to Turkey — no Indian prime minister since then had gone to Turkey until prime minister Narendra Modi, in 2015, went to Antalaya to meet the Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on the margins of the G20 summit which was followed by another meeting on the sidelines of G20 Summit in Hangzhou, China in 2016.

There was much more visible convergence between India and Turkey on trade and commercial ties. The political and religious differences between them didn’t prevent the two sides from pledging to increase bilateral trade to $10 billion by 2020 from $6.5 billion now.

Turkey has largely been seen as a moderate Islamic democracy with a population of about 80 million, strategically situated at the crossroads of Europe and Asia. Indian leader PM Narendra Modi noted that India and Turkey were two large economies which present an enormous opportunity to expand and deepen commercial linkages. He urged Turkish construction companies to participate in India’s efforts to bolster infrastructure.

At the outset it should be appreciated that the top Islamist ruler from Turkey shared dais with the top Hindutva leader in New Delhi and both struck harmonious cord and signaled friendly rapport. Different religions do not necessarily come in the way of friendly relations between and among nations. But Turkey’s ties with India have been rather indifferent, according to New Delhi, thanks to Turkey’s closeness to India’s arch nuclear rival Pakistan on key issues.
While Turkey’s close ties with Pakistan and Ankara’s ever-deepening involvement in several urban development projects in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir has riled India no end, Turkey too has its own concerns with India, right or wrong.

The Turkish side expressed supported for India’s bid to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, Indian media reported. President Erdogan batted for India’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, something which has been stridently opposed by China. But Erdogan hyphenated his ‘gesture’ with a similar status for Pakistan, a country with which Turkey has extremely close political and strategic relations, and supporting Pakistan’s case for NSG membership. This is what he said in an interview to an Indian TV news channel: “Both India and Pakistan have the right to aspire for NSG membership. I think India should not assume such an attitude. If Turkey was fair enough to support Pakistan, it was fair enough to support India. We are very objective and positive to the NSG process.”

Trade and regional cooperation potentials notwithstanding, India and Turkey have some problems that keep overwhelming the perception of their bilateral relations. Three issues will always be asked when it comes to deepen India-Turkey relations. First, how much Pakistan determines Turkey’s India perception, second, Turkey’s perception of Kashmir, and third, what is Turkey’s view of reforms in international institutions, which should ideally result in including India in the United Nations Security Council as permanent member.

India-Turkey cooperation in fields related to science, technology, education, culture and development areas have massive potential and both countries need each other to achieve their national interests and development goals.

Disagreements

President Erdogan has been honest in telling the world about his intent on supporting global Islam and helping Muslim nations in whatever way it can. Turkey’s Islamist ideology is seen above politics and does not compromise on the religious ideas. This explains why Istanbul supports Palestine and Kashmir sovereignty demands overtly as part of its ideology.

Diplomatic pleasantries, signing of agreements aside, Erdogan remarked that India should ideally be taking a ‘multilateral’ approach to hot button issue of Kashmir, however, India politely, but firmly said that Kashmir was a bilateral issue to be sorted out by India and Pakistan only. Neither of the press representatives mentioned any of this in the official press briefings. However press in Pakistan reported favorably about Erdogan’s comments. Pakistan has always welcomed the statements and endeavors aimed at addressing the human rights issues in IoK (the so-called India-occupied Kashmir) and the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, the statement concluded.”

President Erdogan supports Islamic governments against the will and wishes of anti-Islamic forces, nations, including Pakistan and support s the struggle of Palestinians and Kashmiris for sovereignty and human dignity. Turkey’s concern for Palestinians and Kashmiris is besides the rapport it maintains with India and, to some extent, Israel. In fact, ties between the two countries have been difficult because of their divergent positions on the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir.

For quite some time, the Erdogan government has been asking India tough questions about Gulen and believes that Gulen’s movement, which Ankara dubs as FETO or Fethullah Gulen Terrorist Organisation, has “infiltrated” India, a charge which about New Delhi has neither evidence nor any credible information. Turkey wants India to take action against FETO but has thus far failed to give any concrete information to India on the basis of which action can be taken.

Erdogan had last visited India in 2008 but that time as the prime minister. The Gulen issue was not an irritant in India-Turkey bilateral relations then because Gulen was a major ally of Erdogan. The two fell apart only in 2013, when major corruption scandals against the Erdogan government broke out. This time Erdogan’s stakes in India are much higher.

Turkey is not much impressed by Indian way of getting endorsement of its veto membership from every visiting dignitary and President Erdogan, therefore, did not sign the endorsement sheet extended to him.

Multidimensional foreign policy

Once a reluctant Muslim partner, Turkey has become a close ally of the Gulf countries, thanks to Iran’s growing hegemonic ambitions and Egypt’s preoccupation with its domestic crisis and absence of American leadership from Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) security architecture. Iran’s regional role has become deeply dependent on its military cooperation with Russia and other non-state actors like Hezbollah — something that Iran’s Arab neighbours are extremely worried about.

Turkey’s normalized relations with Russia have a stabilizing role in the region — where it can assume a balancing role among various competitive powers. Despite many serious differences over Syria, Turkey remains in good terms with Iran, however, allowing Turkey to use its leverage to mediate between Iran and its Gulf neighbours.

On Syria, Russia needs Turkey more than any other country to find a lasting political settlement; Russia has been advocating for a political outcome. Since the fall of Aleppo, Turkey has also refocused its Syria policy from regime change to counter terrorism, narrowing its differences with Russia and Iran. Turkey’s counter terrorism response is defined by threats: Islamic State’s presence in many urban areas of Syria and Iraq; and expansion of Kurdish separatist forces closely linked with internationally recognised terrorist group PKK. In 2016, Turkey adopted a go-alone military operation against Islamic State in north Syria starting from Jerablus and stopping at Al-Bab, effectively converting Euphrates as a buffer zone between the two sides of Kurds-held areas. However, the 15 July failed military coup attempt caught Turkey unaware of another terror threat, the Gulen network many Turks perceived only as a threat by “spiritual cult”.

In an extremely complicated Syrian crisis, the Assad government has successfully used the threats tactically against the Syrian rebels, by softening its view on Syrian Kurdish groups and using “Islamic terrorism” card interchangeably with Islamic State, the opposition forces and Al-Qaeda groups. As terrorist attacks increased against Turkish targets in 2015 and 2016, Turkey’s frustration against its Western allies’ support to the Kurdish groups deepened.

Turkey’s relations with its Western allies have gone berserk on Western indifference to what Turkey considers most serious threat to its national security. European leaders have been delaying Turkey’s EU accession. The trust deficit between Turkey and the West is widening. In this context, Turkey’s relation with Russia, China and India is qualitatively improving Turkey’s earlier ‘West-centric’ foreign policy towards a ‘multidimensional foreign policy’.

Turkey’s South Asia engagement is likely to deepen after India has renewed its interest in the Southern Corridor of Asia-Europe Rail (SCAER) project which will connect Istanbul with Kolkata, extendable further to Myanmar and Thailand. Officials from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey have already concluded their first meeting in New Delhi on 16 March, 2017. Trans-Asian Railway (TAR) was originally proposed by United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) in 1980s and endorsed by concerned countries in 1992. The rail link, if started, can revolutionize India’s trade connectivity to Central Asia, Europe and West Asia.

Kashmir

India has murdered over 1000,000 Muslims in occupied Jammu Kashmir. Many Muslims, especially the youth, have disappeared without nay traces. And many secret graveyards have been discovered in Kashmir region.

Kashmir remains the flashpoint of tensions in South Asia where India and Pakistan obtained nukes to fight for entire Jammu Kashmir nation now being occupied by Pakistan and India- India does it brutally and seeks the endorsement of veto powers, particularly the super power USA.

Brutal occupation of Kashmir enabled India to enhance its military prowess and nuke manufacturing efforts. India is not ready to address the Kashmir issue bilaterally through peaceful means as has been stipulated in the Simla Agreement and Lahore Declaration. India and Pakistan keep fighting each other, engaged in cross border fires to terrorize Kashmiris.

Like Israel which has managed to delay the establishment of a soverign Palestine but still says it would resolve the conflict by direct negotiations with Palestinians, India also says it is always ready to talk about Kashmir and all other issues with Pakistan so that “peaceful solutions can be found bilaterally”. That is a bogus statement to fool the world.

Turkey views Kashmir issue as a composite one involving both India and Pakistan. India on the contrary, wants Turkey to ignore Pakistani claims and support Indian case in Kashmir. Istanbul is eager to help Kashmiris regain their lost sovereignty.

On the question of Kashmir—the Himalayan region that India says is part of its territory, something disputed by Pakistan—“India put forth its views that Kashmir was an integral part of India. Erdogan had stirred a hornet’s nest by saying that there should a “multilateral dialogue” on Kashmir—something India has been opposed to; India seeks to bilaterally resolve all its disputes with Pakistan. India has always said it would never brook any third party involvement on the Kashmir issue which is essentially a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. Erdogan had, in an interview before his arrival in India, suggested that the two countries needed to ‘strengthen multilateral dialogue’ in an attempt to find a solution to the Kashmir issue.

Always opposing any outside interest in Indian criminal operations in Kashmir to kill and terrorize Kashmir Muslims, India quickly dismissed Turkish President Erdogan’s suggestion of multilateral talks on the Kashmir dispute, insisting the matter must be resolved bilaterally through talks between Islamabad and New Delhi. India says this knowing fully well that both India and Pakistan, the shared illegal occupiers of Jammu Kashmir, would never want to solve the problem because any credible solution means surrendering of Jammu Kashmir to Kashmiris.

India believes that terrorism issue helps it case for Kashmir and is eager not to loe out Kashmir. India is happy about cross-border terrorism and state-sponsored terror because that made India a strong nation now having established “strategic partnership” with USA and many western powers that sells terror goods to both India and Pakistan.

It is true that Pakistan-Turkey relations are more emotional than Turkey-India relations. Pakistan is projected as a country of Islamic leadership in third word despite the fact that India remains the second largest Muslim country in the world, without OIC membership though. The question many Muslim countries do not ask is: who is more important Pakistan or Kashmir, Pakistan or Indian Muslims? Weak faith could be a major reason for that.

India asks USA, Russia and other major powers not to take up the Kashmir issue for any international debates and as per its demand, USA also says that India and Pakistan would finalize the issue, even as Indian forces mercilessly kiln Kashmiris by missing the extra military laws.

India says it wants to end terrorism and also directly control Pakistan and it policies and politics, but never wants to solve the Kashmir issue. Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) Spokesperson Gopal Baglay said, in a veiled reference to Pakistan that the Kashmir issue has a “prominent dimension of cross-border terrorism” that needs to be stopped by “those who are perpetuating it.

Pakistan’s ‘pro-Muslim’ and ‘pro-Kashmir’ credentials are often received uncritically. Turkey’s strong secular and democratic credentials bring great respect and regard for Turkey in India in stark opposition to the fragility of Pakistan’s democracy.

Turkish president’s offer of mediating between India and Pakistani was welcomed by Hurriyet leaders in India-held Kashmir. Hurriyet Forum Chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq observed that the Turkish president “is well aware of how the Kashmir dispute is the main source of tension between the two nations -India and Pakistan. Turkey being an important Islamic country, and having cordial relations with both India and Pakistan, will hopefully make efforts to end the political uncertainly prevalent in the region since decades,” Farooq said. “Being an active member of Kashmir Contact Group at the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Turkey has always advocated the solution of Kashmir issue in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Kashmir, and Ankara can play a vital role in the resolution of this issue to end the tension in this region,” he maintained.

It is not surprising to observe that Turkish media has been mostly fair and objective in its coverage of India-Pakistan affairs, rather, many Turks have a clear understanding that Turkey should not come into Indo-Pakistan’s trap or support internationalizing the Kashmir issue.

Future

India and Turkey seem to converge on the need to build a stronger economic relationship, committing themselves to a vast increase in trade over the next few years, but seemed to disagree on political issues such as Kashmir. India says Kashmir has been made an integral part of Indian constitution but Turkey wants a sovereign Kashmir.

India and Turkey waited fourteen years to see this moment once again. Turkey wants to play a vital role in bringing India and Pakistan together and resolve the Kashmir issue as well.

There are many good reasons to believe that the leaders of the two nations will find Vajpayee’s legacy as a common point to advance India-Turkey relations. The regional contexts in which the two countries are working support their role as well. Turkey, for example, notwithstanding setbacks in Syria, remains an influential and a key regional power to define the future outcomes of crisis in Syria and Iraq. Indian strategists want Erdogan and Modi to come to an understanding on India’s NSG bid, as this can expedite India entry to NSG.

For Turkey, India’s increasing economic and security profile is very important. India comes off as strong and powerful with its huge young and skilled population, a rich cultural base, and most importantly democratic institutions.

India’s research and development profile: space program, especially micro-satellite and nano-satellites program, research in generic drugs, scientific research institutions have all given India a confident industrial and development scenario.

This is what has been the main force behind redefining India’s strengthening relations with some major Muslim countries, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Egypt, almost unbound from any regional rivalry perceptions.

If New Delhi realizes and give up its faulty policies being pursued since it occupied Jammu Kashmir without the will and wishes of Kashmiris, towards Kashmiris and Pakistan, and think constructively about regain peace by allowing Kashmiris regain their lost sovereignty, that would genuinely build up its relations with not only Turkey and Pakistan and Kashmiris, but entire Islamic world and even entire world.

Peaceful regional cannot be guaranteed by genocides of Kashmir Muslims and silencing their rights to protest against occupational crimes perpetrated by brutal forces.

Erdogan’s visit should start a new era of bilateral engagement where both sides should invest efforts to understand each other. But keep your fingers crossed as India would not change its petrified mindset towards Kashmiris or Pakistanis, so don’t expect an overnight transformation of India-Turkey relations following Erdogan’s visit.

A Pentagon official on Tuesday offered reassurances to Turkey following President Donald J. Trump’s authorization Monday for the Defense Department to equip Kurdish elements in Syria fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

In a statement, chief Pentagon spokesperson Dana W. White said the Syrian Democratic Forces, partnered with enabling support from U.S. and coalition forces, are the only force on the ground that can successfully seize control of the Syrian city of Raqqa in the near future.

“We are keenly aware of the security concerns of our coalition partner Turkey,” White said. “We want to reassure the people and government of Turkey that the U.S. is committed to preventing additional security risks and protecting our NATO ally.”

Prioritizing Support

The United States continues to prioritize its support for Arab elements of the SDF, she said, adding that Raqqa and all liberated territory should return to the governance of local Syrian Arabs.

“The fight for Raqqa will be long and difficult,” she said, “but will ultimately be yet another defeat for ISIS and another step toward eliminating the ISIS threat to peace and security in the region and the world.”

How often are safety concerns raised about a drug after it’s been approved by the FDA? Nicholas Downing, MD, of the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and colleagues have found that for drugs approved between 2001 and 2010, nearly 1 in 3 had a postmarket safety event.

The team defines postmarket safety events as those that lead to either withdrawal from the market due to safety concerns, a boxed warning or FDA issuance of a safety communication. They found that of 222 novel therapeutics the FDA approved during this time period, three were withdrawn, 61 received boxed warnings and 59 elicited safety communications. The team’s findings are published in JAMA.

“The fact that so many new safety risks are being identified after FDA approval indicates that the FDA is taking its responsibility of ensuring the safety of new drugs throughout their lifetime seriously,” said Downing, lead author of the study. “However, these safety risks emerge, on average, four years after approval. This means that many patients are exposed to these medications before the risks become clear.”

The team found that three drugs had been withdrawn from the market over an average follow-up period of 11.7 years. Boxed warnings, which are issued when new, life-threatening risks are identified, were issued for 61 drugs, including antipsychotics, SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and a class of drugs for the treatment of autoimmune disease. Safety communications, which are issued when new, serious risks are identified, were issued for 59 drugs, including drugs for migraine, erectile dysfunction and diabetes.

Postmarket safety events were significantly more frequent among biologics, therapeutics indicated for the treatment of psychiatric disease, those receiving accelerated approval and those with near-regulatory deadline approval. Events were significantly less frequent among drugs with regulatory review times less than 200 days.

“This analysis highlights that there is residual uncertainty about the risks and benefits of new drugs at the time of approval, thereby demonstrating the need for all stakeholders engaged in the drug development process to commit to the generation of clinically useful information both before and after regulatory approval,” said Downing.

Fossil evidence of early life has been discovered by UNSW scientists in 3.48 billion year old hot spring deposits in the Pilbara of Western Australia – pushing back by 3 billion years the earliest known existence of inhabited terrestrial hot springs on Earth.

Previously, the world’s oldest evidence for microbial life on land came from 2.7- 2.9 billion year old deposits in South Africa containing organic matter-rich ancient soils.

“Our exciting findings don’t just extend back the record of life living in hot springs by 3 billion years, they indicate that life was inhabiting the land much earlier than previously thought, by up to about 580 million years,” said study first author, UNSW PhD candidate, Tara Djokic.

“This may have implications for an origin of life in freshwater hot springs on land, rather than the more widely discussed idea that life developed in the ocean and adapted to land later.”

Scientists are considering two hypotheses regarding the origin of life. Either that it began in deep sea hydrothermal vents, or alternatively that it began on land in a version of Charles Darwin’s “warm little pond”.

“The discovery of potential biological signatures in these ancient hot springs in Western Australia provides a geological perspective that may lend weight to a land-based origin of life,” said Ms Djokic.

“Our research also has major implications for the search for life on Mars, because the red planet has ancient hot spring deposits of a similar age to the Dresser Formation in the Pilbara.

“Of the top three potential landing sites for the Mars 2020 rover, Columbia Hills is indicated as a hot spring environment. If life can be preserved in hot springs so far back in Earth’s history, then there is a good chance it could be preserved in Martian hot springs too.”

The study, by Ms Djokic and Professors Martin Van Kranendonk, Malcolm Walter and Colin Ward of UNSW Sydney, and Professor Kathleen Campbell of the University of Auckland, is published in the journal Nature Communications.

The researchers studied exceptionally well-preserved deposits which are approximately 3.5 billion year old in the ancient Dresser Formation in the Pilbara Craton of Western Australia.

They interpreted the deposits were formed on land, not in the ocean, by identifying the presence of geyserite – a mineral deposit formed from near boiling-temperature, silica-rich, fluids that is only found in a terrestrial hot spring environment. Previously, the oldest known geyserite had been identified from rocks about 400 million years old.

Within the Pilbara hotspring deposits, the researchers also discovered stromatolites – layered rock structures created by communities of ancient microbes. And there were other signs of early life in the deposits as well, including fossilised micro-stromatolites, microbial palisade texture and well preserved bubbles that are inferred to have been trapped in a sticky substance (microbial) to preserve the bubble shape.

“This shows a diverse variety of life existed in fresh water, on land, very early in Earth’s history,” said Professor Van Kranendonk, Director of the Australian Centre for Astrobiology and head of the UNSW school of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences.

“The Pilbara deposits are the same age as much of the crust of Mars, which makes hot spring deposits on the red planet an exciting target for our quest to find fossilised life there.” In September 2016, Professor Kranendonk was part of an international team that found what is possibly the oldest evidence of life on earth – 3.7 billion year old fossil stromatolites in Greenland deposits that were laid down in a shallow sea. He has also given geological advice to NASA on where to land the rover on the 2020 Mars Exploration Mission.

“The Pilbara provides us with a rich record of early life on Earth and is a key region for developing exploration strategies for Mars to try and answer one of the greatest enigmas in science and philosophy – did life arise more than once in the universe?” said Professor Walter, founding director of the Australian Centre for Astrobiology.

“That’s why we are working to gain World Heritage listing for its main fossil sites.”

The Australian Centre for Astrobiology, ACA, founded by Professor Malcolm Walter in 2001, is based at UNSW Sydney. It is the only centre of astrobiological research in Australia and is an Associate Member of the NASA Astrobiology Institute.

Astrobiology is a relatively new field of study, developing at the crossroads of astronomy, biology, geology, paleontology, physics and chemistry. The ACA is one of the few organisations in the world that is truly inter- and multi-disciplinary in a way that reflects the goals and aspirations of astrobiology as a scientific discipline. Its key goals include contributing to the understanding of what makes a habitable planet, studying the origin and co-evolution of life and habitats on early Earth, and helping to guide the exploration for life outside of our world.

US President Donald Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey, the White House has confirmed.

A statement from the White House press secretary said that President Trump informed Comey on Tuesday, “that he has been terminated and removed from office.”

According to the statement, President Trump acted based on the clear recommendations of both Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

“The FBI is one of our Nation’s most cherished and respected institutions and today will mark a new beginning for our crown jewel of law enforcement,” said President Trump.

The statement added that the search for a new permanent FBI Director will begin immediately.

The news of Comey’s firing comes after the FBI director recently testified about the FBI’s investigation into allegations that Russia was possibly involved in the elections.

According to a statement released by the Taliban, a jihadist terrorist killed six US servicemen in a suicide bombing in the Nangarhar province of Afghanistan.

The Taliban statement claimed the suicide bomber blasted a US convoy in the embattled eastern province, setting alight a Humvee that killed the soldiers inside.

Washington is yet to address the claim.

Meanwhile, ISIS said it had imposed full control over the Chaparhar District in the very same governorate, expelling the Taliban from its former regional headquarters amid jihadist infighting.

With a three-way war raging across several provinces, an ISIS raid also killed two soldiers and injured a third earlier this week in the Nangarhar region, bordering Pakistan.

By Jim Garamone

No decisions on whether to increase U.S. forces in Afghanistan have been made yet, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told reporters in Israel on Tuesday.

Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford said national security leaders have not gone to President Donald J. Trump yet with Afghanistan troop recommendations for 2017 and beyond.

“One of the key discussions we are going to have is what are the horizons for the mission in Afghanistan and how do we articulate it,” Dunford said in an interview. “I expect [Defense] Secretary [Jim] Mattis and I, and others, will brief the president, soon.”

Any increase in the NATO and U.S. mission to Afghanistan must be viewed in context, the general said. In the past year, Afghan forces have taken a lot of casualties in battling the Taliban and other groups. Army Gen. John M. Nicholson, the commander of Operation Resolute Support in Afghanistan, described the situation in Afghanistan as a “stalemate” during testimony before Congress last month.

Secure, Stable Afghanistan

Dunford said the situation is clearly not moving in the direction Afghan President Ashraf Ghani wants it to. Last year, Ghani announced a four-year plan, which looked at what was possible for the future of his country. It included a listing of the goals for a secure and stable Afghanistan.

Nicholson took this plan and reviewed the campaign to identify what he would need to assist the Afghan government in realizing Ghani’s plan. His recommendations are in the Pentagon and are being discussed among high-level officials across the U.S. government.

“It is fair to say that we have looked at all the potential ways to accelerate the campaign and meet President Ghani’s objective outlined in his four-year plan,” Dunford said.

The president has spoken with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, and the organization has begun conversations with troops contributing nations. The chairman will be in Brussels next week to speak with fellow NATO chiefs of defense. And on his three-day trip, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has been meeting with the ministers of defense for the counter-ISIS coalition.

Besides force levels, new authorities, new capabilities, economic reforms and political aspects must also be addressed, Dunford said.

“It’s all of those things being reviewed” and they all have to be looked at holistically, he said.

Regional Threats

ISIS-Khorasan is active in Afghanistan, as well as almost 20 other designated terror groups in the Central Asia/South Asia region.

“I know from personal experience that the pressure we put on al-Qaida and those terror groups every day for the last 16 years is the reason they have not regenerated and conducted attacks,” he said. “I also know they have aspirations to conduct attacks, and an ungoverned space in Afghanistan or South Asia would be contrary to our interests.”

Meanwhile, the fight against global terrorism continues, Dunford said.

“We can be tired, but war is a clash of wills,” the chairman said. “Who wins and who loses? Who loses is [he] whose will is lost first. What we need to be mindful of is not low long we’ve been there, but what is the remaining threat to the United States and coalition partners.”

The American presence in South Asia is necessary to stop Afghanistan from becoming an ungoverned space again, Dunford said.

“It’s pretty clear to me that Afghanistan could possibly be a place where there are proxy wars with various regional actors, as well,” he said.

Counterterrorism Mission

The Afghanistan campaign is a counterterrorism mission under U.S. auspices, Dunford said. That mission must continue “as long as there is a threat — and I am not going to put a timeline on that,” he said.

It will end, he said, when the underlying conditions that give rise to terrorism are addressed. “That doesn’t reflect the size of the mission, but I would expect some influence, some presence is going to be necessary for an extended period of time,” Dunford said. “Some people call this a generational war. If that’s the case, we need to be prepared as a nation to deal with it.”

Still, the form of the American presence in Afghanistan will change, the chairman said. “We have a ‘by, with and through’ strategy meaning what we’re trying to do is enable local forces, in this case Afghans, to provide security inside Afghanistan,” he said. “I do believe Afghan forces are making progress.”

He noted that when he took over as commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Kabul four years ago, there were 120,000 American service members in the country. When he left, there were 28,000. Now there are around 9,000 Americans in-country.

“The first two seasons the Afghans have been providing security on their own, it has been a pretty tough fight,” Dunford said.

If the Taliban think all they have to do is hold out one more year and then the international forces leave and the capabilities that the coalition gives the Afghan forces will be gone, then they will hang on, the chairman said.

“But if there is an extended commitment by the international community that says we are prepared to do what has to be done as long as it takes to get the Afghans where they need to be … that’s a different story,” he said.

Every two minutes, a child will die from malaria in Africa. It is a preventable, treatable disease, that each year affects approximately 200 million people globally. Of those, more than 90 percent of cases will stem from Sub-Saharan Africa–a region rife with the most dangerous of malaria pathogens and the mosquito most likely to transfer it. The young are particularly vulnerable to the disease with nearly 70 per cent of all deaths occurring in children under the age of five.

Malaria is a global killer and a world health concern. But while millions of dollars are spent each year searching for innovative health solutions, new research from the University of Alberta suggests part of the answer may begin with mothers in the classroom.

The study, published in the journal Pathogens and Global Health, found that maternal education can act as a ‘social vaccine’ for childhood malaria infection. Researchers from the U of A and the Université Catholique du Graben tested 647 children in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) between the ages of two months and five years of age.

The researchers also had the children’s parent or guardian fill out a survey related to demographics, socioeconomic status, maternal education, bed net use and recent illness involving fever. The team determined that among the participants, the higher a mother’s education, the lesser chance of their child being infected with malaria.

“This was not a small effect. Maternal education had an enormous effect–equivalent to or greater than the leading biomedical vaccine against malaria,” said Michael Hawkes, senior author and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Alberta.

One hundred and twenty-three out of the 647 children in the study tested positive for malaria. The prevalence of malaria in children of mothers with no education was 30 per cent. If mothers had received primary education, that rate dipped to 17 per cent. Mothers who had received education beyond primary school only had a 15 per cent prevalence of malaria in their young children.

“It doesn’t take a lot of education to teach a mom how to take simple precautions to prevent malaria in her child. All it takes is knowing the importance of using a bed net and knowing the importance of seeking care when your child has a fever,” said Cary Ma, a medical student at the U of A and a study co-author. “These are fairly straight forward, simple messages in the context of health and hygiene that can easily be conveyed, usually at an elementary or primary school level.”

“The World Health Organization is rolling out a new vaccine in countries across Africa that has an efficacy of about 30 per cent,” added Hawkes. “But children whose mothers are educated beyond the primary level have a 53 percent reduction in their malaria rates. So educating the mom has as profound an effect on childhood malaria as hundreds of millions of dollars spent on a vaccine.”

The researchers say their work builds upon previous studies that have shown the importance of maternal education in reducing child mortality and disease in other countries around the world. They believe it is particularly relevant in the DRC–a country beset by war since 1996. The Democratic Republic of Congo has been called the least feasible country for malaria elimination in the world, due to an entrenched malaria ecology and a prolonged military conflict which has severely damaged the nation’s health care and educational infrastructure.

“In that context, we’ve got an intervention here, educating the women, that I think no one will disagree with. It’s easy and it works,” said Hawkes.

While the researchers says maternal education isn’t a magic bullet by itself, they do believe it is part of the solution. They now hope the lessons learned can help lead policymakers to strengthen efforts to educate girls and women in the DRC and other malaria hotspots around the world.

Larger patches of tropical forest are being lost worldwide as governments and corporations clear more land to make way for industrial-scale agriculture, a Duke University study shows.

The newly published analysis reveals that clearings for large-scale agricultural expansion were responsible for an increasing proportion — in some places, more than half — of all observed forest loss across the tropics between 2000 and 2012.

The trend was most pronounced in Southeast Asia and South America.

“In South America, more than 60 percent of the increase in deforestation was due to a growing number of medium- and large-sized forest clearings typical of what you see with industrial-scale commercial agricultural activities,” said Jennifer J. Swenson, associate professor of the practice of geospatial analysis at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment.

“Brazil, which had stricter policies limiting agricultural expansion until 2012, was the only country showing a reverse trend — its average forest clearing size actually got smaller,” she said. “This unique trend may be short-lived, however, given Brazil’s relaxed forest policies of the last few years.”

The new findings underscore the growing need for policy interventions that target industrial-scale agricultural commodity producers in the tropics, the researchers say.

A small family farm that produces sustenance crops or food for local consumption typically causes less than 10 hectares — or just under 25 acres — of land to be cleared per year, said Ph.D. student Kemen G. Austin, who co-authored the report. These small clearings can have relatively modest impacts on biodiversity, habitat connectivity, carbon storage, water quality, erosion control and other vital ecosystem services the forest provides.

By comparison, an industrial-scale plantation — such as one that grows and processes palm oil or soybeans for the global market — can cause nearly 2,500 acres of land to be cleared annually.

“As the size of the cleared land increases, so do the scale and scope of the potential ecological impacts,” explained Ph.D. student Danica Schaffer-Smith.

The Duke team conducted their analysis using high-resolution, satellite-derived maps of forest cover produced by researchers at the University of Maryland.

“Using these invaluable maps, we were able to design a new computational approach that allowed us to analyze trends in clearing sizes across the globe,” said Schwantes, who programmed the computational analysis with González-Roglich.

After Emmanuel Macron won the presidential elections in France, the head of the country’s bishops urged the new leader to help alleviate local woes such as unemployment and political division.

“Macron’s election was significant…we have to wish him success for the good of our country,” Archbishop Georges Pontier of Marseilles said.

“Tensions are such…the changes, the uncertainties are such that he must succeed.”

On May 7, 39-year-old centrist Macron beat Marine Le Pen, the far right candidate of the National Front party with 66 percent of the vote.

Macron will take office May 14 and will have to deal with a slate of difficulties for the country such as unemployment, terrorist threats and political division.

Speaking to Vatican Radio, Archbishop Pontier said one of the priorities for Macron’s government to fight unemployment, as “this is certainly most destructive for persons, families, for prospects, projects, and especially for young people who see nothing on the horizon.”

“In these circumstances there is a confidence that is destroyed and it is a matter of regaining this confidence and people will regain this confidence by actions that produce fruits,” the archbishop said.

Archbishop Pontier noted that the upcoming legislative elections held June 11 and 18 “will determine the makeup of the new parliament.”

“We would need to recover a certain wisdom, that’s for sure. And then we are aware our country must not be put in an ungovernable situation. So the president and his government have to work,” he said.

He added that “the fight over ideas often divides while initiative in action brings us together, and it is certainly that course that we must look to.”

Archbishop Pontiers reflected that the election represented “a change in society,” given the amount of blank ballots. “More than usual, a lot more than usual,” he said, which “shows this dissatisfaction and shows this change.”

The prelate also voiced his opinion that France should stay in the European Union and “continue to give this Europe the means to manage the European entity such that each people is respected, of course, and at the same time in creating a coherent whole providing benefits for everyone.”

“We need to put in place confidence-building mechanisms and at the same time mechanisms addressing the issues such as taxation and wages, which have too great a gap between countries,” he said, “with the challenge as well of welcoming foreigners in view of the current world situation.”

By Die Morina

After the former head of the OSCE mission in Kosovo said he is working on a project to unite Albanians, Serbian leader Aleksandar Vucic accused him of lobbying for a ‘Greater Albania’.

Outgoing Prime Minister and incoming Serbian President Vucic reacted angrily on Tuesday after the former head of OSCE mission in Kosovo, William Walker, said he wanted to help Albanians in Kosovo and Albania to unite.

“The purpose of this project that I am working on is for all Albanians, in Kosovo in the diaspora, in Albania. I’m working on a joint project for their unification,” Walker said on Monday during a ceremony to mark the 17th anniversary of Kosovo politician Ramush Haradinaj’s Alliance for the Future of Kosovo party.

“After independence, now is the time for the final step, for all of you to come together and realise all those achievements,” Walker added, according to Kosovo online newspaper Koha.net.

Vucic responded by accusing Walker of working for the Albanian cause while he headed the OSCE mission.

“Everywhere and at every level, Serbia will present this as the ultimate proof that Walker’s goal was never to protect human rights in Kosovo but to fight against Serbia and for the creation of a ‘Greater Albania’,” Vucic told Russian news outlet Sputnik, according to a B92 report.

“He said that he has a project, that he has a plan for the unification of Albania, Kosovo and the so-called Albanian diaspora. So, de facto, he has a plan to create a ‘Greater Albania’,” Vucic added.

The row follows another eruption of anger last month in Serbia when Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama suggested the possible unification of Albania and Kosovo if both countries felt rejected by the European Union.

The US ambassador to Tirana, Donald Lu, responded to Rama’s comments by saying that “careless” calls for the unification of the two countries “undermines the stability of the region”.

William Walker is a respected figure among Kosovo Albanians because he was the first international official to report a massacre in the village of Recak/Racak during the war in 1999.

Last year, work started to build a statue of him at the memorial site in the village.

Walker, who at the time was the chief of the OSCE ceasefire verification mission to Kosovo, said the victims were civilians and their killings were a “crime against humanity”.

Slobodan Milosevic’s government insisted however that the massacre was staged by the Kosovo Liberation Army to put the blame on Belgrade.

Vucic reiterated these claims on Tuesday, saying that Walker’s statements about the massacre were “lies” told to ensure that NATO could carry out its “aggression against the Republic of Serbia”.