MTCR is one of the four non-proliferation regimes that aim to curb missile technology that can be used for nuclear delivery systems. The other three are the Wassenaar Arrangement that deals with export control of dual use technologies and conventional arms. The Australia Group is related to export controls on technologies with regard to chemical and biological weapons. Lastly, the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) is a cartel of 48 countries that aims to curb proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The members participate in decision making and are expected to play their role in implementing the international standards for responsible non-proliferation behavior. It works with the International Code of Conduct against Ballistic missile proliferation (ICOC) in order to restraint the production and spread of delivery systems capable of delivering WMD.

India gained candidacy to MTCR which sets guidelines to control the production and delivery of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles capable of mass destruction. The MTCR restricts its members to export missile or missile-related technology and systems capable of carrying a payload of at least 500 kg to a distance of at least 300 km. The decisions made in MTCR are consensus based. In past, the regime has been successful in convincing Argentina, Iraq and Egypt to give up their ballistic missile programs.

• Related: Forthcoming NSG-Plenary Meeting: Prospects For Pakistan-India Candidacy – OpEd

However, India’s entry in MTCR is being proved beneficial not only for India’s space and missiles program but it is also reinforcing its import export with other states possessing sensitive technologies without any vulnerability of facing sanctions. The significant improvement is the recognition of India’s nuclear legitimacy that will strengthen its credentials. It has been the quest of Indian strategic planners to be the members of elite nuclear clubs; therefore the candidacy to MTCR may help India in its ambition to join NSG and get the permanent seat in United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The 37th Plenary meeting of NSG will be held in June this year and this is yet to see if India would bargain for its inclusion in NSG with China, which has been rejected for MTCR’s membership in 2004. As now India will be in position to help China’s inclusion in MTCR. Last year, China protested India’s membership in NSG as non-NPT state but at that time India was not the member of MTCR.

MTCR Membership Helping India’s Missile Program

The MTCR membership is profoundly helping in India’s missile program. Previously India was denied sophisticated missile technology due to MTCR provisions standards or sanctions. Now when all these limitations have been removed, India is extending its missile’s ranges to improve its defense and striking capabilities. Other than missiles, India is now importing surveillance drones from US, before denied due to MTCR restrictions. On the other hand, Indian approval for acquiring Arrow II theatre missile defense interceptor from Israel was facing constant delay because the acquisition was subject to US approval. The US was bound to abide by the MTCR guidelines thus despite the willingness of Israel this technology transfer could not take place. But recently, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) announced the biggest security contact ever to supply long range air and missile defense systems.

Moreover, India’s space program was also facing setback because it was unable to export cryogenic technology from Russia. The technology was also required to expedite India’s Agni’s program and ICBM pursuit. In the next year after India joined MTCR, it successfully tested Agni-V which ranked India among few states possessing Inter Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). India also developed capability to launch manned space missions. However the field of drone technology is being benefitted in the absence of confines after this regime’s membership and now India is looking forward to export drone’s technology from US.

• Related: India’s NSG trials And Trump – Analysis

To conclude, the admission to MTCR largely proved beneficial to India in order to improve its offensive-defensive capabilities. The country is now extending its missile ranges which are helping the rationale of missile proliferation. Most of these capabilities might not be directly aimed at Pakistan yet the trend to develop variety of capabilities can allow India to adopt an aggressive strategy towards Pakistan in future. The fearsome aspect is that a debate has already been stirred up in strategic and policy circles about India reviewing its no-first policy. The signs of internal debate to reconsider nuclear posture and the acquisition of diverse along with missile proliferation will adversely impact the South Asian strategic stability.

*Maimuna Ashraf is a member of an Islamabad based think tank, Strategic Vision Institute (SVI). She works on issues related to nuclear non-proliferation and South Asian nuclear equation. Furthermore, she regularly writes for national and international dailies.

The post What Recent Tests Reveal About India’s Missile Proliferation? – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

A US nationwide analysis of water use over the past 30 years finds that there is a disconnect between rural and urban areas, with most urban areas becoming more water efficient and most rural areas becoming less and less efficient over time.

“Understanding water use is becoming increasingly important, given that climate change is likely to have a profound impact on the availability of water supplies,” said Sankar Arumugam, lead author of a paper on the work. “This research helps us identify those areas that need the most help, and highlights the types of action that may be best suited to helping those areas.” Arumugam is a University Faculty Scholar and professor of civil, construction and environmental engineering at North Carolina State University.

The new paper stems from a National Science Foundation-funded, interuniversity research project which focuses on understanding how water sustainability in the United States has changed over the past 30 years as a result of climate change and population growth.

• Related: Latest Weapons Against Climate Change: Beavers, Oysters And Cold Water

For this paper, researchers evaluated water use data at the state and county level for the 48 contiguous states. Specifically, the researchers looked at water-use efficiency, measured as per capita consumption, in 5-year increments, from 1985 to 2010.

“This is the first systematic evaluation of water use across the continental U.S.,” Arumugam said. “And we found that some states – including Washington, Pennsylvania and Wyoming – were becoming more efficient every five years. Meanwhile, other states – such as South Carolina, Oklahoma and Mississippi – have gotten worse every five years.”

Urban Counties More Efficient With Water Use

But a look at the county-level data reveals what may be the most important finding: most rural counties are getting less efficient, while most urban counties are getting more efficient.

“In other words, as we are facing a more uncertain future regarding water resources, rural counties are being left behind,” Arumugam said.

• Related: North America’s Freshwater Lakes Getting Saltier

The researchers found that investment in new water-efficiency technologies, and retrofitting existing water infrastructure, are big reasons for the improvement in urban areas.

“Rural counties appear to lack the resources, the political will, or both, to keep pace,” Arumugam said.

Another important finding is that technologies and strategies focused on efficiency – as opposed to large-scale projects, such as building new reservoirs – have been extremely successful. These efforts have allowed urban areas to avoid sharp increases in water use, even as their populations have grown significantly.

“There may be a role for huge infrastructure projects at some point, but these findings underscore the value of focusing on efficiency measures – and the need to pursue those measures in rural counties,” Arumugam said.

The post Water Efficiency In US Rural Areas Is Getting Worse appeared first on Eurasia Review.

(RFE/RL) — Combined U.S. and Afghan forces have killed 750 Islamic State (IS) extremists in Afghanistan since early March, reducing the militants’ territory and fighting strength by two-thirds, the U.S. military says.

A statement on May 19 said joint “counterterrorism” forces of Afghan soldiers and U.S. Special Forces also destroyed “cave and tunnel complexes, command and control centers, and logistics nodes,” revealing the “full barbarity” of the militants’ operations.

The statement said “over a dozen” of the ISIS Khorasan forces’ top leadership had also been killed, using the name of the IS affiliate that operates in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

• Related: US Studying Force Size In Afghanistan

Using another widely known acronym for Islamic State, the statement added that “these operations will continue until ISIS Khorasan is defeated in 2017.”

U.S.-backed forces have been in Afghanistan since invading after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in the United States carried out by Al-Qaeda militants, whose leaders were being harbored by the Taliban-led government.

The coalition drove the Taliban from power, but the militant group has been resurgent in recent years and controls large portions of the country.

U.S. forces in Afghanistan have also been battling IS-linked fighters for more than a year, mainly in the eastern province of Nangarhar.

• Related: Lose Now Or Later: America’s Uneasy Choices In Afghanistan – Analysis

Nangarhar was the province where the U.S. military on April 13 dropped its most powerful nonnuclear weapon ever used in combat on what it said was a major militant command center, killing some 94 militants.

In early May, the U.S. military confirmed that the IS leader in Afghanistan was killed in a joint Afghan-U.S. operation in Nangarhar.

Abdul Hasib, who was appointed last year following the death of predecessor Hafiz Saeed in a U.S drone strike, was killed in a raid by 50 U.S. Special Forces and 40 Afghan commandos, the military said.

U.S. President Donald Trump is considering a request by the U.S. military to increase U.S. forces in Afghanistan by up to 5,000 troops, adding to the 8,400 U.S. troops now in the country.

The total international force in Afghanistan is about 13,000, down from around 100,000 during the peak of the 16-year U.S. military presence in the country that drove the Taliban from power.

The post US Says 750 IS-Linked Fighters Killed In Afghanistan Since Early March appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Last week, China unveiled President Xi’s One Belt One Road Initiative at a summit in Beijing. China’s prowess on the economic and trade landscape is increasing at an accelerated rate, but not something raising considerable security concerns other than activities in the South China Sea. However, strategic moves the Chinese Government initiated following President Xi’s announcement in 2014 regarding One Belt One Road should have raised alarms of just how serious he was. It’s obvious that President Xi went to great lengths to ensure his strategic vision will have long-term success.

The security maneuvers over the past two years address potential risks in China’s ability to have unfettered maritime access to Africa, Europe and the Middle East. It’s obvious that during the Obama Administration, considerable stock was put into the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) to serve as a check to One Belt One Road in Southeast Asia. Now that TPP has gone by the wayside and weakened the US in the ASEAN region, another issue has become crystal clear. Either the US was over confident or they were asleep at the wheel as China gained a considerable foothold in two of the most strategic areas of the Arabian Sea. Regardless, the strategic maneuvers by the Chinese Government in establishing two new naval installations at serious choke points with little fanfare raises concerns.

Chinese Naval Gulf Base Goes Unnoticed For Two Years

In February, the New York Times reported that the Chinese Military opened a new naval base just a few miles from a US base on the African Coast. In that report, it was revealed that China had reached an agreement with the Government of Djibouti for a new Chinese Naval Base just below the Red Sea on the Gulf of Aden. According to the report, ‘China is constructing its first overseas military base here — just a few miles from Camp Lemonnier, one of the Pentagon’s largest and most important foreign installations.’ However, this was the second port that the Chinese had established on the Arabian Sea in just two years. The revelation of the Djibouti port obviously caught the US by surprise particularly given such close proximity to Camp Lemonnier. Regardless, what should be more concerning is the lack of awareness by the US Military and policymakers concerning a Chinese Naval Port on the opposite side of the Arabian Sea, just south of the entrance to the Persian Gulf.

• Related: China’s Strategic Access To Gwadar Port: Pivotal Position In Belt And Road – Analysis

In 2014, Pakistan announced a 40-year lease was signed with the China Overseas Port Holding Company (COPHC), giving the Chinese a prime strategic foothold in the gulf region. The long-term lease granted China administrative construction and control of the new Gwadar Port in the Balochistan Province in Pakistan. This agreement was neither reported on in western media, nor did it garner any attention of United States officials or policymakers. The reason this is alarming is both the proximity to the Persian Gulf, as well as the location on the Pakistani coast. Additionally, the Gwadar Port gives the Chinese Navy a second deep-water port on the Pakistani Coast and much greater presence in the region.The Gwadar Port is located on the Arabian Sea just off the Straights of Hormuz, which leads into the Persian Gulf. When asking a senior defense official about the Gwadar port, the official indicated that policymakers were unaware of the Chinese presence in Gwadar and may not fully understand the long-term strategic impact given proximity to the Straits of Hormuz. When pressed if the US Military or policymakers were at least aware of the 40-year lease that was signed, the official stated, “frankly speaking this is the first time I’m seeing and hearing about Chinese control of Gwadar, and from a strategic point of view a bit unsettling.”

Given the Chinese just completed their first summit for its One Belt One Road Initiative, the establishment of these ports would indicate the Chinese are implementing a clear strategy with regards to supply chains, regional ports of access and a check of US maritime dominance in the region. Given the Chinese Military planners ability to gain access to two strategic choke points without the US taking notice until after the fact is rather troubling. One has to wonder if this is out of arrogance or is US intelligence asleep at the wheel and view China as just a regional power in Asia?

• Related: Gwadar And ‘The String Of Pearls’ – Analysis

It is astonishing the US was not aware of the Gwadar Port particularly after the November 2016 announcement of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Yes, the US Presidential election had just occurred, which was obviously a major distraction. However, CPEC is a key component of the OBOR Initiative, and now the Chinese have two deep-water ports in Pakistan with the Gwadar port, and in the South in Karachi. Even a surprising election event doesn’t excuse not having awareness about Chinese activities for two years. China’s chief rival in the region, India, also did not protest as vociferously as it did with the establishment of a Chinese port in Karachi. The Karachi Port continues to rankle the Indian Government, as Chinese Naval destroyers and subs are known to frequent in and out of Karachi. With direct access to the Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf, the Chinese now have a key strategic maritime presence in South Asia, the Middle East and the Northeast African Coast. With all of the focus on Chinese activities in the South China Sea and the unveiling of Chinese aircraft carriers and destroyer class ships, why did these moves have the ability to fly under the radar?

What these moves show is the determination and speed in which China wants to solidify its presence as a global player. In just two years the Chinese have essentially bookended the Arabian Sea, continued construction of islands in the South China Sea and launched its bold One Belt One Road Initiative with a rail line running from China to Europe. With all of these moves on the global chess board, it’s obvious the Chinese are far more interested in firmly establishing itself as a serious challenger to the United States. And yet, the United States plodded forward with the status quo, and now must attempt to react to a new global China, while dealing with its own internal distractions.

The maritime disputes in the S. China Sea are very well known. It’s considered one of the most volatile flash points outside of the Persian Gulf. The S. China Sea is one of the busiest throughways to the Pacific and the Chinese Navy has routinely shown itself to be a nuisance to regional states and military vessels. This is why the US being caught flatfooted by these two new naval ports is causing even greater concern. One Belt One Road was obviously a coming out party as for President Xi’s desire to move China to a place of global prominence. The brilliant part now seems to be the way President Xi was able to strategically do so without drawing the attention of its greatest competitor.

*David Wolfe is a specialist on Asian Security, economics and political risk, particularly regarding trade, investment and human security. He has previously written for the Denmark based Riskline, the Foreign Policy Journal, The Journal of Political Risk and Tokyo based Ai-Eye Magazine.

The post China’s Builds Up One Belt One Road Initiative, As US Sleeps At Wheel – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The grammar of regionalization of equitable development demands a continuum of cooperation and co-existence that subsumes the horizontal hiatus and vertical vagaries of geo-strategic and lego-political nature which establish peace, progress and prosperity in this part of the world. The most important challenge for SAARC lies in moving from the gamut of ideas to the executable roadmap in realizing the vision of the grouping while maintaining an unprecedented regional momentum in commensurate with the changing scenario.

This regional momentum must be spontaneous spurt paving the way of the peoples to be capable enough to harness the full potential of the South Asian region and to join the worldwide quest for economic growth and optimum development. However, SAARC should clinch its own rightful place among the comity of nations with its South Asian-ness and regional consciousness approach that aspires to emulate the national standards, accountability, transparency-oriented policies reflected in the collectivity of state action.

Suarez and Vattel—the prominent protagonists of international law—propounded their understanding of normativity of societal and organizational architecture founded upon the premise i.e. unity in diversity. The Vattelian paradigm of worldview advocated and articulated that the international, inter-state or inter-governmental systems are made of individual states. An individual state constituted single geo-political entity which was independent and sovereign identity. Therefore, sovereign nation-states were capable of making federations and autocracies and in order to establish a federal republic, sovereign states make unity for permanent confederations while maintaining their autonomy but having regard to common policies and obligations agreed upon under such arrangements.

However, Vattel pragmatically argued that sovereign states confronted with insurmountable impediments in establishing viable and vibrant international and regional cooperation within the gamut of international law. Whereas it has been made possible by the few federal states who got along with nascent organization to create confederation in other parts of the world with separation of powers through autonomy module and that makes a prima facie case for drafting SAARC into a Commonwealth of Sovereign States (CSS) reflecting and envisioning common will and common agenda.

• Related: An Impasse In SAARC – Analysis

Therefore, the time of making euphemistic averments by the SAARC leaderships under a simmering cauldron of mutual distrust and divagation has gone rather an era of promising political commitment and deeper multi-dimensional engagement on the part of the all member states has dawned and destined. A plausible and pragmatic new normative framework and functional performativity consistent with regional realities and institutional imperatives in a cooperative culture of South Asian-ness and Regional Consciousness is needed to make the SAARC workable, responsive and efficacious at regional and trans-regional boundaries.

Education And Sustainability Key

The idea of South Asian-ness and Regional Consciousness in the SAARC at its crescendo has recently been approbated by successfully establishing the South Asian University in New Delhi in terms of international comparability and compatibility that has been proving a resounding success since its inception in 2010 whereunder a new generation of academicians, democrats, economists, politicians, lawyers, judges, social scientists, technocrats is destined to emerge with South Asian vision and values.

Poised at the threshold of the twenty first century, comity of nations recognized in the Millennium Declaration the significance of achieving progress on the compendium of sustainable development where under economic growth; social development and environmental protection have been integrated as common goal of the international fraternity to free the entire humanity from every kind of want and misery by making Right to Development a reality for present and posterity.

The blueprint envisaged in the UN Declaration identified a set of quantified and monitorable goals, called the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with the new set of UN Global Goals (17 Goals). These goals have got special importance to South Asia and same to be achieved within the stipulated time frame. Whereas, the propensity of development and potentiality of each developing country and a region is inevitably propelled by the conducive circumstances and enabling environment for mobilizing the required resources generally made available through aid, investment, trade, debt moratorium, transfer of technology, technical know-how, reciprocal training programmes and global economic management premised on the approbation that without durable peace and good governance in South Asia, the MDGs and UN Global Goals part thereof shall remain a distant dream. The Constitutionalization of values like peace, stability, democracy and development are inclusive and mutually reinforcing and must, therefore, be pursued collectively by the SAARC countries.

• Related: SAARC Falling Prey To Bilateral Disputes – Analysis

The South Asian agenda of macro-economic stability (MES), market access capacity (MAC), debt relief, capital flows inter-alia fair and just treatment by international financial and monetary institutions and non-banking financial agencies are of immense importance to the capacity-building as the principal mechanism of poverty eradication and sustainable development.

Moreover, the South Asia is a powerful pool of natural and human resources, technological expertise and educational avenues. But there is not sufficient space to harness this collectivity of resources and to bank upon multi-dimensional propensities and potentialities through regional cooperation wedded with reciprocal benefits. This is what SAARC countries require to pursue as a general principle of regional economic cooperation by identifying the common potential areas.

Therefore, there is a need to consider proactively institutionalizing a borderless South Asia by establishing having duly been debated multiple institutions of regional utility such as South Asia Development Bank in addition to SAFTA to serve as a catalyst in the socio-economic and services sector development of the region as India and Pakistan are not the most important markets vis-à-vis each other, South Asian Treaty Organization (SATO) for common defense, South Asian Energy Generation and Distribution Authority for making Right to Energy a reality as a human right that require awareness, attention and associated action to facilitate oil and gas pipelines and other energy resources with access to international markets should be pursued in commensurate with the region‘s interests deviant to succumbing to external pressures. On the people to people interaction and integration the lasting arrangements such as:

1. South Asian Convention on Fundamental Rights,
2. South Asian Convention on Protection and Promotion of Cultural Expressions,
3. South Asian Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women,
4. South Asian Convention Against Caste and Racial Discrimination,
5. South Asian Convention on Forced Disappearances of Persons,
6. South Asian Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities,
7. South Asian Convention on the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
8. South Asian Convention on the Protection of Refugees, Stateless and Internally Displaced Persons,
9. South Asian Convention on the Protection of National Minorities,
10. South Asian Convention on the Protection and Preservation of Regional or Minority Languages,
11. South Asian Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples,
12. South Asian Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level,
13. South Asian Convention against Children’s Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Exercise of Children’s Rights,
14. South Asian Convention on the Action against Trafficking in Human Beings,
15. South Asian Convention on Nationality and Citizenship,
16. South Asian Convention on Access to Official Documents and South Asian Convention on the Protection, Promotion and Preservation of Democracy, Good Governance, Secularism and Institutional Accountability as the SAARC has become a collective project for a common destiny.

Whereas in the fields of environment, labour, oceanic exploration and technology many more acceptable arrangements are required to institutionalize the SAARC vision in 21st century depending on their feasibility and mutuality in addition to other priority areas including enhanced engagement of non-governmental stakeholders and NGOs, civil society institutions and individuals and the private sector in accomplishing SAARC goals and objectives will not only help bridge the psychological divide, created by governmental policies and propaganda, between the peoples of the region but will also give an added impetus to the process of regional cooperation.

• Related: Does SAARC Have A Future? – OpEd

PPP model of development should be encouraged in the regional cooperation projects and measures be taken to promote mutually beneficial joint ventures in the region. However, freedom of movement including right to leave and right to return should be allowed for more people to people contacts across the SAARC borders and the visa regime in South Asia must be more flexible and open. Besides simplifying and facilitating travel within the region, national governments must also promote and patronize business and cultural exchanges, and cooperative linkages among educational institutions in the region to build on our common civilizational assets, historical heritage, cultural affluence and mutuality of values, vision and vitality.

The present information revolution comes with ample opportunities for cross-border public connectivity and if it is propelled with increased people-to-people contacts under the majesty of SAARC, it can make a discernible difference in decimating the origins of precarity, distrust, suspicion and hatred embedded in the psychological frameworks of the South Asian Nations which ensue bilateral brawls, cross-border terrorism, proxy war, mutual distrust and volatile stability in the region. Thus, SAARC may not be equated with the success of EU (Brexit as an aberration) or African Union or ASEAN as each region has got its own distinction, importance, and peculiarities and same applies to South Asia. But SAARC bestow upon a historical opportunity for our national leaderships, policy-makers, and civil societies to meet, move and create a Commonwealth of Sovereign States (CSS) of SAARC with its own Grand Regional Constitution reflecting therein democracy of multiculturalism, rule of law of institutionalism and human rights of liberalism of unmatchable, indomitable and unprecedented orientation for the posterity.

About the author:
*Dr. Nafees Ahmad, LL.M, Ph. D, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Legal Studies-South Asian University-New Delhi [An International University established by the SAARC Nations]. Dr. Nafees Ahmad is an Indian national who holds a Doctorate (Ph.D.) in International Refugee Law and Human Rights wherein he concentrated on International Forced Migrations, Climate Change Refugees & Human Displacement Refugee, Policy, Asylum, Durable Solutions and Extradition Issus. He conducted research on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) from Jammu & Kashmir and North-East Region in India and has worked with several research scholars from US, UK and India and consulted with several research institutions and NGO’s in the area of human displacement and forced migration. He has introduced a new Program called Comparative Constitutional Law of SAARC Nations for LLM along with International Human Rights, International Humanitarian Law and International Refugee Law. He has been serving since 2010 as Senior Visiting Faculty to World Learning (WL)-India under the India-Health and Human Rights Program organized by the World Learning, 1 Kipling Road, Brattleboro VT-05302, USA for Fall & Spring Semesters Batches of US Students by its School for International Training (SIT Study Abroad) in New Delhi-INDIA nafeestarana@gmail.com, drnafeesahmad@sau.ac.in

The post SAARC: Towards Exploring Idea Of ‘South Asian-Ness’ And Regional Consciousness – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The presidential candidates for Iran’s elections have garnered their support from their voters for the upcoming results. This event comes at a critical time where the world is watching, especially for the United States. In a region where not many citizens have the right to vote, Iran’s elections have a meaning for their people to politically participate in Iranian society. City council and local elections are also taking place in Iran. The Islamic Republic has been successful because it is one of the most stable countries in the Middle East, and it has successfully secured its citizens from the ongoing violence abroad.

The Iranians will go to the polls to decide the future of their country. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has hailed the country’s elections in the run up to the final vote. In addition, massive voter turnout will be expected when the voters head to the polls, but the elections symbolize something more than political participation. The Iranian election also symbolizes the Islamic Republic’s determination to hold onto the traditional values that derived from the 1979 Islamic Revolution, as well as to demonstrate their faith and trust in Islam. The United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and others are closely monitoring the election results, and Iran’s elections have stirred up envy coming from regional countries like the Gulf states. Iran has had the distinction of being able to hold fair and transparent elections with a high voter turnout in a secure atmosphere. Many experts expect Iran’s elections to be an example of democracy and the people’s respect to decide their future in such a volatile region.

Why Should the World Watch Iran’s Election?

This election is not only important for Iran and the region, but for the world. We have to take into consideration that we live in an extremely hostile geopolitical world, and we are also seeing the rise of populism. Populism has caused a lot of instability in the United States and Europe, but people are watching because they want to see if this populism could carry forward in Iran, especially with the rise of Ebrahim Raisi, one of the hard core conservative candidates in the running.

• Related: A Post-Nuclear Deal Iran Prepares For Elections – Analysis

Essentially, Iran’s election will boil down to the political ramifications of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the economy, and the policies promised by President Rouhani to decide the direction of the Persian powerhouse. Voters will decide on either Ebrahim Raisi or Hassan Rouhani on their promises for the economy, domestic affairs, and most importantly, Iran’s interaction in the Middle East and around the world.

Is Iran a Democracy?

In the West, we view Iran as an authoritarian regime, and we also view Iran from the latter days of the Cold War. The long hostile history between the West and Iran still exists today, but we don’t see Iranian society through the eyes of Western society. Iran is a vibrant democracy, it may not be perfect, Iran has an ugly human rights profile, they have been responsible for arming Shia militias, but the Iranian people do care about the direction of their country and they can politically participate so then their vote means something. There is a lack of understanding from the West towards Iran.

It is also interesting to point out that there is a great deal of hope and wisdom that Iran can manage despite the fact that they have been under so much international pressure, being under the weight of international sanctions and the great deal of political prejudice has strived Iran to become more independent from the rest of the world. The elections also carry out the values of the 1979 Islamic Revolution that represents the interests of the people to stay within the peripheries of a religious and a modern society. The fact that Iran is a religious and modern society represents the Islamic Republic as an independent democracy that is quite different from western democracies.

The United States has throughout history tried many times to undermine Iran. But at the same time, the U.S does not want Iran to follow their own democracy. In the Middle East, there are many regimes where citizens do not have the right to vote and everything is done by family consensus. Since the 1979 Revolution, which was over thirty years ago, Iran has been a beacon for stability and regional security.

If you look at former President Obama, he said that Iran’s influence in the region is increasing and other countries should come together to come into terms with it. However, Iran has shown some significant restraint when it comes to the war of words that are coming from the West.

The Health of the System

The most important issue that many of us are concerned about is the health of the current Iranian system. Ayatollah Khamenei is aging and there is a concern that if he passes away, what would be next? We don’t know the answer to this question. The Islamic Republic is the health of the system and it is not necessarily in the hands of Raisi or Rouhani, but the future of the system is in the hands of the voters who will determine the turnout of the election. The Supreme Leader has focused more on the macropolitical issues of allowing the people to decide the fate of their country and avoid the distractions going on near their western borders. At the end of the day, the winner of the Iranian elections will be the Iranian people. This election will determine what the Iranian people want and the country should focus on itself, its own domestic issues.

• Related: Iran: Ayatollah Khamenei Warns Against Damaging National Interests In Vote

During the previous election, voter turnout in 2013 was roughly 73% with Hassan Rouhani winning a whopping 51% of the vote over Tehran Mayor Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf. People are coming out and voting which is in fact a reflection of democracy within a country with so many restrictions on human rights. When it comes down to the Middle East, there is so much violence, the region is plagued with wars, and instability exists, but Iranian voters come out with no sweat and go to the polls to vote. This is quite significant because anywhere you look, there is always something going on such as wars and instability near Iran.

For Iran to face such significant international pressure through sanctions, and face the pressures of the economy, it is remarkable how Iran can still conduct its own foreign policy. Elections go beyond religion and politics, but people have some sort of voice and their vote counts and means something for political determination. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini even called the Islamic Revolution a revolution of values, a revolution of universality for the Iranian people to have a united identity that brings people together, and people aspire to be free. In Iran, people are dignified, there are no standoffs, there are no personal attacks, but elections are done in a respectable way that we don’t normally see in the West. Iran’s democracy not only works, but it can inspire others and it empowers the people to protect the sovereignty of the nation. Iran’s elections can also be a lesson for all of us where democracy not only works, but it can inspire people and they can determine their own future.

The JCPOA: The Shining Star of Rouhani’s Foreign Policy

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action will be one of the key issues that Iranians will be voting on in these upcoming presidential elections. So far, the JCPOA has been good for Iran’s economy and they have obeyed the obligations that were listed in the deal. Rouhani has said that the JCPOA is a way for Iran to engage with the West and it will take time for there to be a final settlement.

Raisi on the other hand, has said that the JCPOA has not really worked in favor of Iran as promised. Regardless of who wins, the JCPOA issue is not going to be on the foreign policy side, but on the side of the Iranian economy. Rouhani promised the Iranian people that the JCPOA will revive Iran’s economy by adding more jobs, more economic growth, more foreign investment will pour into Iran (right now we’re seeing this from the Europeans), and build on Iran’s internal capacity to increase production.

Iran can become less dependent on the West and focus on domestic production. How will Rouhani or Raisi do this? We don’t know. The survival of the JCPOA depends on the vision of Rouhani or Raisi to give diplomacy a chance, and revive small businesses in Iran.

What to Expect

This election will not necessarily come down to foreign policy, but for the future of Iran’s economy. We can talk about how good or bad the nuclear deal was, but this election will come down to Iran’s economy! Iran must deal with the domestic issues when it comes down to economic stability. These include employment, economic growth, education for the younger generations, and domestic growth.

But if the economy can get better, how will Iran engage with the world? From the past decades, the United States has sought to undermine Iran going all the way back to 1953 when the U.S overthrew a democratically elected Mohammad Mosasadegh that restored the Pahlavi Dynasty to power. The problem the U.S has in understanding Iran is that it is already a superpower. To some extent, the U.S can influence Iran to prevent and slow down its rise and increasing presence in the region, but you cannot prevent Iran from being Iran. Another misunderstanding is that Iran historically, is a civilization that dates back 3,000 years ago while the United States came out of the Age of the Enlightenment. Iran is a very old country with a rich history and they have promoted democracy inside an authoritarian government. Iran has also remained independent from western imperialism while most of the countries in the Middle East were under the occupation of the British and the French. The Middle East was also one of the regions that broke out of the decolonization movement after the Second World War.

Let’s face it, Washington cannot contain Iran, but there needs to be an engagement policy coming from the United States to resolve their differences with Iran and move forward towards normalizing relations which will take some time. The way Iran was able to grow economically and politically with the sanctions in place is remarkable and the Islamic Republic has been able to develop an independent economy. Since Iran is independent, its foreign policy is not something we would perceive it to be in the West, but it is to help other nations such as Yemen (one of the world’s poorest countries) become independent as well.

The turnout for these elections will be huge, possibly larger than the turnout in 2013. The vote is basically about the economy, transparency, calm elections, and candidates Raisi and Rouhani will follow their voters promises as well. This election is important for Iran, but it is also important that the entire Middle East is watching this election not only because of foreign policy concerns, but because of the large turnout that will be expected for this election that can provide a demonstration for stability in such a complicated region. The Iranian election will not only be about transparency, but it will also be a signal for Iran’s domestic and foreign policies moving forward in the next four years till 2021 which will impact the broader region for geopolitical means.

*Vincent Lofaso, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

The post Iran’s 2017 Elections: The World Is Watching – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

NASA inducted on Friday two veteran astronauts into the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame..

Ellen Ochoa, the first Hispanic woman to travel to space and current director of the agency’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, and Michael Foale, the only U.S. astronaut to serve on both the International Space Station and Russian space station Mir, bring the total number of space explorers honored in the hall of fame to 95.

Bob Cabana, 2008 hall of famer and current director of NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, presided over the ceremony at Kennedy’s visitor complex to welcome the new inductees.

Ochoa joined NASA in 1988 as a research engineer at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California after earning a doctorate in electrical engineering from Stanford University. She joined Johnson in 1990, when she was selected as an astronaut candidate. After completing astronaut training, she served on the nine-day STS-56 mission aboard the space shuttle Discovery in 1993, conducting atmospheric studies to better understand the effect of solar activity on Earth’s climate and environment.

• Related: NASA Astronaut Whitson Breaks Record For Cumulative Time Spent In Space By US Astronaut

Ochoa has flown in space four times, including the STS-66, STS-96 and STS-110 missions, logging nearly 1,000 hours in orbit. She is Johnson’s first Hispanic director and its second female director. She also has served as the center’s deputy director and director of Flight Crew Operations.

Foale, whose hometown is Cambridge, England, earned a doctorate in laboratory astrophysics from the University of Cambridge, Queens’ College. A naturalized U.S. citizen, Foale was selected as an astronaut candidate in June 1987. Before his first spaceflight, he tested shuttle flight software in the Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory simulator. Foale was a crew member on six space missions, including STS-45, STS-56, STS-63, STS-84, STS-103 and Soyuz TMA-3. During STS-84, he helped reestablish the Russian Space Station Mir after it was degraded by a collision and depressurization. Foale logged more than 374 days in space, including four spacewalks totaling 22 hours and 44 minutes.

Foale also served as chief of the Astronaut Office Expedition Corps, assistant director (technical) of Johnson, and deputy associate administrator for exploration operations at NASA Headquarters in Washington. His last assignment at Johnson was as chief of the Soyuz Branch, Astronaut Office, supporting Soyuz and International Space Station operations and space suit development. Foale retired from NASA in 2013.

The post Two NASA Astronauts Inducted Into US Astronaut Hall Of Fame appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Advocates for religious freedom are looking to the new Trump Administration to end the uncertainty surrounding two key positions within the State Department.

As of now, the US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (SEAS) and the US Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom remain vacant. The Trump Administration has offered loose assurances that the post of SEAS and other related roles will be filled, but has yet to give an estimated date for the appointments.

Initially created in 2004 by President George W. Bush as part of his Global Anti-Semitism review, the envoy is tasked with documenting Anti-Semitism across the globe as well as building relationships with Jewish communities in foreign nations. The envoy also provides input into the State Department’s annual report on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom.

• Related: Why Spike In Religious Hate Crimes Should Worry All Of Us

Coupled with this, the vacant Office of International Religious Freedom has a broad mandate to promote religious freedom within US foreign policy. This includes stated aims to:

• Promote freedom of religion and conscience throughout the world as a fundamental human right and as a source of stability for all countries;
• Assist emerging democracies in implementing freedom of religion and conscience;
• Assist religious and human rights NGOs in promoting religious freedom;
• Identify and denounce regimes that are severe persecutors on the basis of religious belief.

These missing appointments are conspicuous in their absence at a time when questions of religious freedom and persecution are taking centre stage in US policy forums. Just two weeks ago, the University of Notre Dame’s centre for Ethics and Culture held a large symposium on religious persecution worldwide. A letter penned by the Wilberforce Initiative, signed by over 700 religious leaders and activists, further called for the President to fill the vacant positions. In addition, the Religious Freedom Institute’s report on ‘US Foreign Policy and International Religious Freedom’ concluded that:

Despite increased attention to religion in U.S. foreign policy in recent years, global levels of religious persecution, violent religious extremism, and religion-related conflict remain dangerously high. U.S. International Religious Freedom (IRF) policy could be far more effective in addressing these threats to minorities, to regional stability, and to American national security. The Trump administration and Congress have an extraordinary opportunity, at low cost, to forge a successful U.S. IRF policy.

The need for urgency is self-evident. The Pew Research Centre has determined that 74 per cent of the world’s population live within nations with high or very high restriction – or even hostility – to religion. This leads not only to harrowing scenes of persecution but also mass violence, terrorist recruitment, economic instability and civil unrest. In the case of anti-semitism, this cancer having been left to fester continues to manifests itself as a very real geopolitical crisis, with an entire nation-state being threatened with extinction by hostile forces.

Yet despite being subjected to repeated threats and aggression, the tenacious nation-state of Israel has flourished into a vibrant democracy as well as a technological and scientific powerhouse. David Harris, CEO of the American Jewish Committee, has highlighted how miraculous it is that the small nation in the Levant has managed to survive to 69 years of existence:

When one adds the key element, namely, that all this took place not in the Middle West but in the Middle East, where Israel’s neighbours determined from day one to destroy it through any means available to them – from full-scale wars to wars of attrition; from diplomatic isolation to international delegitimation; from primary to secondary to even tertiary economic boycotts; from terrorism to the spread of anti-Semitism, often thinly veiled as anti-Zionism – the story of Israel’s first 69 years becomes all the more remarkable.

From 4-6 June Washington DC will host the AJC Global Forum. The world’s largest Jewish conference, attended by global leaders, religious figures and citizens from over seventy nations. It would be a clear statement of intent from the White House to have their newly nominated Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism at that conference. On several occasions, President Trump has spoken of his concern for the unchecked advance of religious persecution abroad. The President should act swiftly, appoint his envoy to combat anti-semitism, appoint his Ambassador for International Religious Freedom and set out his vision of how these two roles will be meaningfully incorporated into US Foreign Policy.

*The Dignitatis Humanae Institute aims to uphold human dignity based on the anthropological truth that man is born in the image and likeness of God and therefore has an innate human dignity of infinite worth to be upheld. The Institute promotes this understanding by supporting Christians in public life, assisting them to present effective and coherent responses to increasing efforts to silence the Christian voice in the public square.

The post White House Needs To Nominate New Anti-Semitism Envoy Without Delay -OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Undoubtedly, US-Arab relations, in particular US-Saudi ties, have been strained for quite some time  because of unilateral operations by Washington and its military allies in West Asia. Though Saudi Arabia is considered as a strategic partner by official America, the western media does not appreciate what they see as an “illogical civilizational link” between the USA and Saudi Arabia,  given what they say the “profound” difference in values. For them, the USA  leads NATO in invading energy rich Muslim nations for their cash, gold, petrol, as well as blood and flesh of Arab Muslims to mainly to appease the Jews in USA and Israel, more than to showcase its military prowess to the world.

Saudi Arabia – which is home to Islam’s holiest sites – will be the first stop on Trump’s first foreign trip since becoming president in January. The four-day trip will also include Israel, a NATO summit in Belgium and a visit to Italy and the Vatican. Trump’s aides described his decision to visit Saudi Arabia as an effort to reset relations with the Muslim world. The Trump government is currently appealing rulings against an executive order Trump issued in March that tried to halt new visas from six Muslim-majority countries and suspend refugee resettlement in the US, sparking widespread protests.

Presidents Bush and Obama diluted the intensity and depth of traditional bilateral ties with Saudi Arabia as well as GCC by their terror wars in Mideast with Israeli backing. . Since Obama’s term came to an end in 2016, relations with Saudi Arabia have changed. During Obama’s last visit to Riyadh, ties were at their lowest in more than half a century. With Trump in power, Americans are hoping to witness changes in all aspects: Syria, Iran, Yemen, Israel-Palestine conflict and bilateral relations. First lady Melania Trump will “will accompany her husband for the entire trip,” an East Wing spokeswoman told CNN.

• Related: Trump’s Visit To Saudi Arabia: An Opportunity That Must Not Be Wasted – OpEd

On 17th May King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud extended an invitation to the US President to visit the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This came during a phone call which was held last night between the two leaders who reviewed the historic relations between the two friendly countries and the latest developments in the region and the world. The president also invited the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques to visit the United States. They discussed the strategic partnership of the 21st century between the two countries and the importance of improving the economic, security and military cooperation between them. The Saudi King and President Trump emphasized the depth and strength of the strategic relations between the two countries.

President Donald Trump has decided to choose Saudi Arabia, an ally and partner with both secret and open agendas as on one of his foreign destinations on assuming power at White House three months ago. The White House announcement that US President would carry out his first foreign visit and that Saudi Arabia will be a major stop is a message on a major shift in his foreign policy priorities.

On May 4 President Donald Trump confirmed that his first foreign trip later this month will include visits to the Vatican, Saudi Arabia and Israel. The stops that his top aides hope will both combat views of the President abroad and build toward Middle East peace. The stops will come before Trump attends a NATO meeting in Brussels on May 25 and a G7 meeting in Italy on May 26. “Saudi Arabia is the custodian of the two holiest sites in Islam, and it is there that we will begin to construct a new foundation of cooperation and support with our Muslim allies to combat extremism, terrorism and violence, and to embrace a more just and hopeful future for young Muslims in their countries,” Trump said in announcing his trip during a Rose Garden ceremony where the he signed a religious liberty executive order. “Our task is not to dictate to others how to live, but to build a coalition of friends and partners who share the goal of fighting terrorism and bringing safety, opportunity and stability to the Middle East,” Trump said.

Trump will also meet with Pope Francis at the Vatican during his trip. According to a senior administration official, Trump feels like accomplishing Middle East peace by establishing a soverign Palestine state is “one of the things that he has to try to do” during his presidency and has been “very involved” with “a lot of ideas” during the trip’s planning.

To date, Trump has left the foreign travel to his top aides and Cabinet members, including Vice President Mike Pence, who has been on two international trips so far, national security adviser H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. He will visit Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Jerusalem, Israel, according to a senior administration official.

Besides meeting with Saudi officials, Trump will also meet with leaders of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and have lunch with leaders of more than 50 Muslim countries. In March, Trump hosted Saudi Arabia’s powerful Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House, aiming to rolling back Iranian influence in the region. Saudi Arabia hailed a “historical turning point” in U.S.-Saudi relations. “This meeting is considered a historical turning point in relations between both countries and which had passed through a period of divergence of views on many issues,” a senior adviser to Prince Mohammed said in a statement.

There is also a clear interest among top aides in the White House to counter the view Trump has cultivated abroad. “Saudi Arabia is going to convene a lot of the leaders from the Muslim world, and you will see that there is a lot of objectives they share with America,” one senior administration official said.

Trump’s election has provided the USA with opportunities to “re-engage the world,” the officials said, given Trump’s perceived unpredictability and that he is “not dogmatic to one school of thought, (rather) open-minded, flexible and opportunistic.” With a view to gain Christian and Jewish voters, Trump ran on a ban of Muslims entering America, proposing the in a December 2015 announcement a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” until American officials could get a handle on terror. While his campaign slowly backed away from that pledge, one of Trump’s first actions in the White House was to push a travel ban for seven – and eventually six – Muslim majority countries.

The senior officials said it’s a time when the Trump government can pursue policies that “strengthen our hand and weaken our enemies.” “Certain things will be formalized and announced in the time leading up to the visit,” one senior administration official said.

A senior official said that a recent visit to Saudi Arabia revealed open-mindedness to stepping up and leading in a way the official had not seen in the country since right after 9/11 hoax engineered to generate global sympathy for the subsequent US invasion of an Islamizing Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, among others. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan remain destabilized but the USA or NATO rogue states refuse to take responsibility.

A Whitehouse spokesperson says: “Saudi Arabia realizes the challenges it , according to Israel, stems from the Obama government’s nuclear deal with Iran, which they view as providing a path to a nuclear weapon for the country, as well as Iran’s continued funding of terrorism throughout the region. The officials add USA has been working hard to produce a “meaningful set of deliverables” to be announced around the trip.

Trump’s top advisers insist the President is focused on making deals with foreign leaders in a bid to create a more secure planet, despite the lack of foreign travel. They point to frequent visits from foreign leaders — including the most recent visit of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas — as proof that Trump has influence on foreign affairs from the White House.

• Related: US Close To Sealing $100 Billion Arms Deals With Saudi Arabia

The televised interview of Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz clarified the stances from these issues that are expected to be part of the discussions in Riyadh. Regarding Syria, Riyadh eased its stance to reach a political solution that satisfies Russia and doesn’t grant the regime and its allies a free hand. In the Astana talks, there were two prime developments – approval to differentiate national factions from terrorists and readiness to establish safe zones, two of Trump’s pledges while campaigning for the presidency. On the Yemeni war, the deputy crown prince was persuasive when he boldly admitted that the rush in liberating Sana’a and other cities might cause huge losses on both sides of the conflict. “Time is in our favor and we are not in a rush. We can liberate it in two days with a costly human price or liberate it slowly with fewer losses,” he said.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a unified group from Gulf, Egyptian, Sudanese, Tunisian and other nationalities. The Arab “permanent” rulers are scared of the MB and made a united front to defeat it and they have thrown and defeated the first ever elected government of Egypt Mohamad Morsi by staging a military coup as Morse could not foresee the military plans. The group tried to besiege the government in Egypt and by guiding the Egyptians against it as well as urging the region’s people to cut ties with it. Trump reversed the foreign policy of Obama who had boycotted the government of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. The Egyptian government claims to be stronger than when President Mohamed Morsi’s government was ousted more than three years ago.

Riyadh will be looking for assurances that the Trump administration will continue its notably harsher tone toward Iran and keep up pressure, through both rhetoric and action, to stop what Saudi Arabia sees as Tehran’s destabilizing activities in the region. Iran is a huge concern for Riyadh and the USA as well as other Sunni governments in the region. The Trump government has called the nuclear agreement with Iran “the worst deal ever negotiated,” and senior officials have repeatedly criticized Iran’s behavior for its support for Assad, its ballistic missile activities and its support for militant groups in the region.

Iran, which has been accused of exposing sectarian fault lines in the region, especially in Yemen, Syria and Iraq, tried to soften its rhetoric as Rouhani said there should be greater unity between Shiites and Sunnis and that they had coexisted side by side peacefully for hundreds of years. The main motivation behind the visit seems to be Trump’s policies and his eagerness to better relations with Saudi Arabia, which was abandoned in the era of former US President Obama. The deputy crown prince said President Trump has already delivered clear messages against the policies of the Tehran regime in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and the Gulf waters.

The Mideast trip is meant to show that Trump’s “America First” motto is “fully compatible with American leadership in the world,” another official said. White House press secretary Sean Spicer said the President’s first trip came after King Salman bin Abd Al-Aziz of Saudi Arabia, President Reuven Rivlin and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority extended invites to Trump.

Trump’s first foreign trip is coming later in his presidency than any president since Lyndon B. Johnson, who waited over 10 months after President John F. Kennedy was killed to travel abroad. He is also the first president since Carter to not make his first trip to Mexico or Canada.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has received an invitation from King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud to attend an upcoming summit in Riyadh between Muslim leaders and US President Donald Trump. King Salman said the Arab-Islamic-American Summit on 20-21 May aimed to address the challenges facing the Arab and Muslim worlds and to forge a new partnership to fight extremism and tolerance. “The summit will aim to strengthen our peoples’ security, stability and cooperation in the present and in the future by spreading the values of tolerance and peaceful co-habitation,” read the letter. Abbas was visiting Jordan on the first leg of a three-nation trip that also takes in Russia and India. He met Trump in Washington earlier this month and was among the first ten foreign leaders to do so.

• Related: Saudi Arabia’s King Salman Optimistic About ‘Historic’ US Summit

Separate meetings will also take place in Riyadh between monarchs of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council and Trump, as well as bilateral talks between the Saudi and US leaders, according to Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir.

Observation

President Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia is the first stop on his maiden international trip since taking office in January. U.S. and Saudi officials are eager to highlight the powerful symbolism of an American president choosing to visit the birthplace of Islam as his first stop rather than to neighbors Canada or Mexico.

After turbulent years, President Trump meets Saudi princes in Riyadh as he can expect a warmer welcome than the one given a year ago to his predecessor Barack Obama, who Riyadh considered soft on arch foe Iran and cool toward a bilateral relationship that is a mainstay of the Middle East’s security balance.

Trump’s visit “sends a clear message that the U.S. is standing with its close allies in the region and that they’re not abandoning them,” a senior Saudi official told Reuters, reflecting the view many Gulf leaders had of Obama, who they considered had made securing a nuclear deal with Iran a higher priority than the U.S.-Gulf alliance.

The post Trump’s Visit To Saudi Arabia Sends Clear Message To Region’s Allies – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Beijing threatened the Philippines with war if Manila pressed its claims over the disputed South China Sea islets and drilled for oil in the area, according to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.

Duterte produced his seemingly sensational comments while delivering a speech at the National Convention of the Philippine Coast Guard Auxiliary in Davao City. The Philippine president recalled Monday conversation with China’s President Xi Jinping regarding the disputed areas of the South China Sea and explained why he abstained from pressing the claims.

I really said, ‘It’s ours. I’d like you to listen for a while.’ I said, ‘Mr. Xi Jinping, I would insist that that is ours and I will drill oil there,’” Duterte said.

The Chinese leader, however, allegedly threatened Duterte with an all-out conflict if the latter greenlighted drilling.

• Related: South China Sea Dispute Heats Up: Philippines And China Eye Spratly Oil

“[Xi Jinping] replied to me, ‘We are friends. We do not want to quarrel with you… We want to maintain the present warm relationship. But if you force the issue, we’ll go to war,’” Duterte said.

“What more could I say?” added Duterte.

The Philippine strongman allegedly insisted in his claims, citing the July 2016 Hague arbitral ruling, which did not find the Chinese claims to be strong enough and ruled in favor of the Philippines.

The Chinese government replied that its claims were “historical,” according to Duterte.

Beijing, however, did not rule out discussion of the arbitral decision at some point in the future.

“China said if we remain friends, it said, ‘We will talk about the arbitral ruling. But it cannot be now. You know why? You are not the only claimant. Vietnam is also a virulent claimant,’” Duterte told the audience.

Duterte then claimed that if it was solely up to him, he would go to war anyway, but China’s military superiority would turn the conflict into “massacre and it will destroy everything.”

• Related: The South China Sea Disputes: The Energy Dimensions – Analysis

Several groups of islets in the South China Sea have been a source of contention between various states in the region, including China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and the others. Taiwan, which Beijing considers part of China, has also laid claims on some of the islands.

Similarly to the situation with the disputed islands in the East China Sea, primarily contested by China and Japan, the dispute escalated when supposedly rich oil and gas reserves were discovered in the area.

The post Duterte Claims China Threatened War In South China Sea If Philippines Drills For Oil appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Aisha Fareed

American brands stand tall in the Saudi market against international counterparts. Apple and Microsoft reign supreme in technology, and Ford, GMC and Jeep are at the forefront among car brands.

In fashion there is Calvin Klein, Michael Kors, Nike, Gap, Coach and American Eagle.

Maybelline and MAC have a strong presence in cosmetics. As for food, McDonald’s, like anywhere else in the world, is widely popular among Saudi millennials.

“What I like about American brands is that they go viral around the world,” said Nada Al-Shehri, a Saudi student pursuing her master’s degree in the US.

“I think the reason behind that phenomenon is the way American brands represent the US in terms of diversity, independence and affordability. Those brands advocate for the American dream, which is still a widely accepted theme of the 21st century.”

A recent Arab News/YouGov poll found that eight in 10 Americans are unable to point out the Arab world on a map. But Saudis are quite knowledgeable about American culture via movies, music and products.

• Related: Trump’s Visit To Saudi Arabia Sends Clear Message To Region’s Allies – OpEd

According to the YouGov Brand Index, the Apple iPhone ranked fifth in Saudi Arabia in 2016, while its South Korean rival Samsung was seventh.

Sameeh Qasem, managing director at the TIMA digital advertising agency, said American companies and brands know that the Saudi market is vital, massive and fiercely competitive.

“Brands need to always… prove their presence in the market to maintain their status in light of many international brands,” Qasem said, adding that big US brands should engage more with local influencers in the Kingdom.

“Many companies we deal with ask us to recommend local influencers to promote their products.”
Among several US brands that have used local influencers in their campaigns is Nike. In February, it launched a campaign that featured five Arab influencers, including Fatima Al-Banawi, a Saudi social researcher, artist and actress.

The post Why American Brands Rule Hearts Of Saudis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

The unprecedented outbreak of famine early this year in Africa and the Middle East can be traced to conflict as the root cause. Can China step in to help mitigate the calamity through its Belt and Road initiative?

By Stella Liu*

Famine broke out in South Sudan in March 2017. At around the same time, the United Nations announced that Nigeria, Somalia and Yemen were also on the verge of being hit by long draught, putting around 20 million at risk of starvation. The UN described this as an unprecedented humanitarian crisis and appealed to the international community to donate US$4.4 billion — with little success.

Conflict, the root cause of these famines, will need to be resolved. China’s increasing involvement in the Middle East and Africa gives the country the incentive and the capacity to effectively deliver both short and long term food security interventions that can enable peacebuilding and economic growth.

Unprecedented Humanitarian Tragedy

These famines have no precedence in both need and scale. According to FAO Assistant Director-General Kostas Stamoulis, the UN has never before experienced four threats of famine in multiple countries simultaneously. Stephen O’Brien, the UN humanitarian chief, stated that this is the largest humanitarian crisis since the creation of the world body.

• Related: How War On Terror Brought China And Africa Closer – OpEd

With countries contributing millions of dollars of aid and loans to Africa and the Middle East, the threat of famine seems contradictory. However, the conflicts in these countries have stalled economic growth and exacerbated food insecurity by displacing farmers from their livelihoods. Continued distribution of aid and hefty loan packages will have limited success if the countries cannot solve the root of their problems and receive long term investments.

China, an active aid contributor and investor in the Middle East and Africa, stands to gain the most if the countries can break the linkages between food insecurity, conflict and poverty. Given China’s long-standing aversion to military intervention, food security interventions through humanitarian efforts are more aligned to its foreign policy principles and they can be levers that the country can pull both in the short and long term to aid peacebuilding and economic development.

China’s Strategic Interests in Mideast and Africa

In recent years, Nigeria, South Sudan and Yemen have become strategic locations for China’s long-term geostrategic plans. For instance, in Yemen, the country stands in the way of China’s Belt One Road Initiative (BRI). The new Silk Road passes through the Bab al-Mandab strait, controlled by Yemen, to the Red Sea.

South Sudan, holding most of the region’s oil, is important for China’s strategy to secure new energy resources. China imports almost 46% of South Sudanese oil through Port Sudan. Since January 2014, oil production has averaged 163,000 barrels per day, with oil revenue equalling roughly US$20 million per month.

• Related: China’s Relentless African Expansion – Analysis

Nigeria has been the flagship of China’s overall Africa strategy, seen through the amount of investment China has made in this country. Earlier this year, Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi visited his Nigerian counterpart Geoffrey Onyeama and stated that China would be investing $40 billion into the Nigerian economy with a focus on energy infrastructure and transportation.

Violence Trap

Unfortunately, war has hindered the countries’ ability to break out of poverty and move toward a future of peaceful economic development. If conflict is not directly resolved, China’s initiatives and investments are at risk. The World Bank’s World Development Report in 2011 established that the constraint on development is not a poverty trap but a violence trap.

One case study used in the report looked at two African states: Burundi and Burkina Faso. Until 1990, both countries had similar levels of income and growth rates. But in the late 1993, a civil war overtook Burundi and 300,000 people died in the upcoming years. Burkina Faso remained at peace and is now two and a half times richer.

One can see this on the global scale; low GDP per capita is robustly associated with both large-scale political conflict and high rates of homicide. The key to the economic development lies in addressing conflict first.

• Related: Is China Building Africa? – Analysis

In the short term, the World Development Report recommended restoring people’s confidence in government as a critical initial step. If administered correctly, food assistance can play an important role. While food aid has been criticised for prolonging conflict, China’s role as a key investor could help address the main driver of aid-related conflict: misappropriation of food by the powerful.

A recent widely read research article from Yale University studied the effects of US food aid on recipient countries and discovered that on average, food aid increased the duration of conflict because parties in power would steal aid or use it for their own benefit. For instance, in Afghanistan, aid organisations had to give over one-third of the food aid to the Taliban.

Twin-Track Approach

However, China’s strong relationships with the countries’ governments as a significant stakeholder would help provide the leverage needed to ensure that food aid gets to the populations in need. When food aid is distributed correctly, there are case studies that demonstrate its ability to restore confidence among communities.

In war-torn Liberia, an evaluation of a relief and recovery operation found that 90 percent of the 1,200 participants interviewed believed that the short-term jobs provided through the food-for-work programme helped reconciliation and the re-building of the community. There is no silver bullet to end conflict, but delivering relief for communities can provide the much-needed foundation to enable peacebuilding.

In the long term, investments into the agricultural sector will need to complement food aid to make communities more resilient and for the country to increase economic growth. The FAO calls this the twin-track approach. Hunger needs to be eradicated first to increase people’s capacity for productivity. Once they are able to work, investments into agricultural technology and knowledge can help people become self-sufficient.

For long-term economic gains, the agricultural sector is an important entry point. Investment in the agricultural sector, according to the World Bank, is two to four times more effective in raising incomes among the very poor than growth in other sectors. When both tracks are invested into for the long term, the linkages between hunger and poverty can be broken.

Short and long-term food security interventions can therefore help China’s strategic initiatives and investments bear fruit. The country’s increasing role as an investor and aid contributor to Africa and the Middle East gives China special leverage and incentive to ensure that the interventions are done correctly. With the rest of the international community staying silent, China could be the countries’ last hope.

*Stella Liu is a visiting US Fulbright Research Fellow at the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore.

The post Africa And Middle East Famines: How China Can Do More – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.

By Mariya Cheresheva

Bulgaria’s Deputy Prime Minister Valeri Simeonov has refused to bow to multiple calls for his resignation over Nazi rows involving both him and other members of his nationalist United Patriots.

Valery Simeonov, a deputy to Bulgaria’s Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, overseeing the economy and demography, on Friday said he will not accept demands for his resignation from three opposition parties – the Bulgarian Socialist Party, the ethnic-Turkish Movement for Rights and Freedoms, and Volya, led by the businessman Vesselin Mareshki.

“There is no way that I will resign, I do not see any reason for that,” Simenov told NOVA TV.

• Related: Once Shunned, Bulgaria’s United Patriots Joins Governing Coalition – Analysis

Demands for his head follow a row over photos of two Patriotic Front colleagues giving Nazi salutes and over another expressing hate rhetoric, as well as his own alleged confession to a newspaper that he had taken joke photos at the Nazi-run Buchenwald concentration camp back in the 1970s.

Simeonov has asince denied making the statements about Buchenwald to Sega newspaper, which he has promised to take to court.

On Friday he dismissed making the controversial comment while admitting he spoke to a Sega reporter, having on Wednesday told BIRN that no such conversation with the paper had taken place.

On Wednesday, Pavel Tenev, a deputy minister for regional development from the “Patriots” quota in government, resigned after the media released a picture taken from his Facebook profile, showing him giving a Nazi salute in a museum in Paris nine years ago.

On Thursday, Borissov then demanded the resignation of Ivo Antonov, a defence ministry official, over another photo – this one of him giving a Nazi salute in front of a German tank.

This photo had first circulated in the media three years ago – and prevented him from becoming the defence minister in 2014.

Antonov has not been sacked yet, however, because, Simeonov explained on Friday, the official – also a member of the Patriots – had since been taken to hospital with a heart condition.

• Related: Bulgaria: Ultra-Nationalists Set To Enter Government

Meanwhile, on Thursday, the media revealed screenshots of Facebook posts of Deputy Interior Minister Stefan Balabanov, later removed, in which he called Roma and refugees “scum” and “apes” and supported the beatings of Roma and other political opponents.

On Thursday, Bulgaria’s largest Jewish organization “Shalom” called Simeonov’s reported words an “ugly demonstration of disrespect to the millions victims of the concentration camps”.

The Belgian leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group in the European Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt, has meanwhile urged Bulgaria not to allow extremists into its government.

“The future of Bulgaria must not be left in the hands of extreme nationalists. I am very concerned that the participation of the United Patriots in this government undermines European values,” he said in statement.

Verhofstadt said Borisov “should reassess his coalition relations and demonstrate that he will have zero tolerance towards extremist and nationalist attitudes by members of his government”, adding that Borissov bears responsibility for Bulgaria’s future and for its forthcoming Presidency of the EU in 2018.

On Wednesday, leader of the Party of the European Socialists in Strasbourg, Sergey Stanishev, also slammed the cabinet over the row.

The centre-right European People’s Party, EPP, in Strasbourg has so far remained silent about the controversy involving Borissov’s GERB party, which is a member of the EPP.

But in an attempt to calm the storms which have errupted just two weeks after the cabinet took office, GERB’s Vice-President Tsvetan Tsvetanov apologized on behalf of the coalition and condemned the controversial acts of members of the United Patriots.

“We will not tolerate such photos, such statements. Prime Minister Boyko Borissov will not allow such people as members of the team of the current government. We apologize for the inconvenience. GERB guarantees the European values,” he said on Thurday.

The post Bulgaria: Nazi Storms Shake New Government appeared first on Eurasia Review.

New research presented at this year’s European Congress on Obesity (ECO) in Porto, Portugal (17-20 May) suggests that overweight boys may be at greater risk of colon (bowel) cancer when they grow up than their slimmer friends.

However, overweight boys who shed the pounds and achieve a healthy weight by young adulthood do not appear to be at increased risk of colon cancer as adults. The findings underline how important it is for children to be a healthy weight.

Colon cancer is the 4th most common cancer in adults, with around 41,000 cases diagnosed each year in the UK. Previous research shows that overweight children are at higher risk of colon cancer as adults, but it is unclear whether changes in body mass index (BMI) between childhood and young adulthood alter this risk.

In this study, Dr Britt Wang Jensen and Associate Professor Jennifer Baker from Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark and colleagues analysed the health records of over 61,000 Danish school boys born between 1939 and 1959, to examine how changes in BMI in childhood and young adulthood are associated with colon cancer risk in adulthood. Participants’ weight and height were measured at age 7 years and in young adulthood (age 17-26 years) and BMI was calculated.

• Related: Children With Asthma Could Be At Higher Obesity Risk

These young men were then linked with the Danish Cancer Register and followed from the age of 40 years to identify cases of colon cancer.

During an average (median) 25-year follow-up, more than 700 boys went on to develop colon cancer. Analyses showed that boys who were overweight (BMI greater than 17.88 kg/m2) at age 7 years but normal weight (BMI under 25.0 kg/m2) as young men had similar risk of adult colon cancer as those who maintained a stable, healthy weight throughout. In contrast, overweight boys who remained overweight as young men had twice the colon cancer risk. The study took educational level into account but not lifestyle factors that might contribute to a person’s risk of developing cancer.

The authors conclude: “Overweight boys that lose weight and achieve a normal-weight status by young adulthood do not carry an increased risk of adult colon cancer compared with boys who remain normal-weight as young men. However, overweight boys who remain overweight as young men have an increased risk of adult colon cancer. These results highlight the importance of weight management in childhood.”

They add: “Our next steps are to expand our focus and examine other forms of cancer along with other non-communicable diseases to create a full picture of how a man’s weight development across his life, even from birth, is associated with his risk of disease.”

The post Overweight Boys At Greater Risk Of Colon Cancer As Adults appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Plant life on Antarctica is growing rapidly due to climate change, scientists have found.

Few plants live on the continent, but scientists studying moss have found a sharp increase in biological activity in the last 50 years. A team including scientists from the University of Exeter used moss bank cores — which are well preserved in Antarctica’s cold conditions — from an area spanning about 400 miles.

They tested five cores from three sites and found major biological changes had occurred over the past 50 years right across the Antarctic Peninsula.

“Temperature increases over roughly the past half century on the Antarctic Peninsula have had a dramatic effect on moss banks growing in the region,” said Dr Matt Amesbury, of the University of Exeter.

• Related: Water Is Streaming Across Antarctica

“If this continues, and with increasing amounts of ice-free land from continued glacier retreat, the Antarctic Peninsula will be a much greener place in the future.”

Recent climate change on the Antarctic Peninsula is well documented, with warming and other changes such as increased precipitation and wind strength.

Weather records mostly began in the 1950s, but biological records preserved in moss bank cores can provide a longer-term context about climate change.

The scientists analysed data for the last 150 years, and found clear evidence of “changepoints” – points in time after which biological activity clearly increased — in the past half century.

“The sensitivity of moss growth to past temperature rises suggests that ecosystems will alter rapidly under future warming, leading to major changes in the biology and landscape of this iconic region,” said Professor Dan Charman, who led the research project in Exeter. “In short, we could see Antarctic greening to parallel well-established observations in the Arctic.

“Although there was variability within our data, the consistency of what we found across different sites was striking.” The research team, which included scientists from the University of Cambridge and British Antarctic Survey, say their data indicate that plants and soils will change substantially even with only modest further warming.

• Related: Antarctic’s Ice Sheet Has Been Stable Even During Milder Times

The same group of researchers published a study focussing on one site in 2013, and the new research confirms that their unprecedented finding can be applied to a much larger region.

Plant life only exists on about 0.3% of Antarctica, but the findings provide one way of measuring the extent and effects of warming on the continent.

The paper, published in the journal Current Biology, is entitled: “Widespread biological response to rapid warming on the Antarctic Peninsula.”

The research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).

The researchers now plan to examine core records dating back over thousands of years to test how much climate change affected ecosystems before human activity started causing global warming.

The post Antarctica ‘Greening’ Due To Climate Change appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Ignoring US calls for isolating North Korea in order to force Pyongyang to rein in its nuclear program, Russia and North Korea yesterday opened a new shipping route between Vladivostok and the North Korean port of Rajin that will carry both passengers and cargo (interfax.ru/world/562791).

A 193-passenger 1500 ton North Korean ship will make weekly trips between the two countries, and Russian commentators are already celebrating this action as the latest Russian challenge to American pretensions in the region and Washington’s calls to isolate North Korea (svegienovosti.mirtesen.ru/blog/43298332494/Rossiya-demonstrativno-proignorirovala-zapret-SSHA).

In the words of Nil Protasov, “the opening of this new route between Russia and North Korea is in fact a challenge to Washington whose [Congressional] legislators broadened the authority of the US to include monitoring” of Russian ports as part of the West’s sanctions regime against Pyongyang.

• Related: Thinking Beyond China When Dealing With North Korea: Is There A Role For Russia? – Analysis

According to him, “Russia warned the Americans about the inevitability of armed conflict if any efforts are made to control Russian ports. The launching of a new route is a clear signal from Moscow: no one has the right to dictate its will to a sovereign country.”

Russian officials have called for talks with North Korea rather than additional sanctions of efforts at isolation (svpressa.ru/politic/news/172692/), and new polls show that a significant share of the Russian population backs the right of countries like North Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons despite what the West and non-proilferation accords say.

A VTsIOM poll released earlier this week showed that 41 percent of Russians take that position (rbc.ru/society/16/05/2017/591a90ba9a7947334e200a74?from=main).

The post Russia Opens Passenger And Cargo Shipping Service With North Korea – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Why is it a “conspiracy theory” to think that a disgruntled Democratic National Committee staffer gave WikiLeaks the DNC emails, but not a conspiracy theory to think the emails were provided by Russia?

Why?

Which is the more likely scenario: That a frustrated employee leaked damaging emails to embarrass his bosses or a that foreign government hacked DNC computers for some still-unknown reason?

That’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?

Former-DNC employee, Seth Rich, not only had access to the emails, but also a motive. He was pissed about the way the Clinton crowd was “sandbagging” Bernie Sanders. In contrast, there’s neither evidence nor motive connecting Russia to the emails.

On top of that,  WikiLeaks founder, Julien Assange (a man of impeccable integrity) has repeatedly denied that Russia gave him the emails which suggests the government investigation is completely misdirected. The logical course of action, would be to pursue the leads that are most likely to bear fruit, not those that originate from one’s own political bias. But, of course, logic has nothing to do with the current investigation, it’s all about politics and geopolitics.

We don’t know who killed Seth Rich and we’re not going to speculate on the matter here.  But we find it very strange that neither the media nor the FBI have pursued leads in the case that challenge the prevailing narrative on the Russia hacking issue. Why is that? Why is the media so eager to blame Russia when Rich looks like the much more probable suspect?

And why have the mainstream news organizations put so much energy into discrediting the latest Fox News report, when– for the last 10 months– they’ve showed absolutely zero interest in Rich’s death at all?

According to Fox News:

“The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.

A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich’s computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time….

Rod Wheeler, a retired Washington homicide detective and Fox News contributor investigating the case on behalf of the Rich family, made the WikiLeaks claim, which was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News….

“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and Wikileaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.” (“Family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich blasts detective over report of WikiLeaks link”, Fox News)

Okay, so where’s the computer? Who’s got Rich’s computer? Let’s do the forensic work and get on with it.

But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren’t interested in such matters because it doesn’t fit with their political agenda. They’d rather take pot-shots at Fox for running an article that doesn’t square with their goofy Russia hacking story. This is a statement on the abysmal condition of journalism today. Headline news has become the province of perception mandarins who use the venue to shape information to their own malign specifications, and any facts that conflict with their dubious storyline, are savagely attacked and discredited. Journalists are no longer investigators that keep the public informed, but paid assassins who liquidate views that veer from the party-line.

• Related: WikiLeaks’ Latest CIA Data Dump Undermines Case Against Russia Election Hack – OpEd

WikiLeaks never divulges the names of the people who provide them with information. Even so, Assange has not only shown an active interest in the Seth Rich case, but also offered a $20,000 reward for anyone providing information leading to the arrest and conviction of Rich’s murder. Why? And why did he post a link to the Fox News article on his Twitter account on Tuesday?

I don’t know, but if I worked for the FBI or the Washington Post, I’d sure as hell be beating the bushes to find out. And not just because it might help in Rich’s murder investigation, but also, because it could shed light on the Russia fiasco which is being used to lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings. So any information that challenges the government version of events, could actually change the course of history.

Have you ever heard of Craig Murray?

Murray should be the government’s star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even knows who he is. But if we trust what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking story is baloney. The emails were “leaked” by insiders not “hacked” by a foreign government. Here’s the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:

“Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a “disgruntled” Democrat upset with the DNC’s sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community….He (Murray) appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University. ….

Though Murray has declined to say exactly what the meeting in the woods was about, he may have been passing along messages about ways to protect the source from possible retaliation, maybe even an extraction plan if the source was in some legal or physical danger…Murray also suggested that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak came from two different sources, neither of them the Russian government.

“The Podesta emails and the DNC emails are, of course, two separate things and we shouldn’t conclude that they both have the same source,” Murray said. “In both cases we’re talking of a leak, not a hack, in that the person who was responsible for getting that information out had legal access to that information…

Scott Horton then asked, “Is it fair to say that you’re saying that the Podesta leak came from inside the intelligence services, NSA [the electronic spying National Security Agency] or another agency?”

“I think what I said was certainly compatible with that kind of interpretation, yeah,” Murray responded. “In both cases they are leaks by Americans.”

(“A Spy Coup in America?”, Robert Parry, Consortium News)

With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you’d think that Murray’s eyewitness account would be headline news, but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from the front page as humanly possible.

Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far, they’ve showed no interest in his testimony at all.  Doesn’t that strike you as a bit weird?

Did you know that after a 10 month-long investigation, there’s still no hard evidence that Russia hacked the 2016 elections?  In fact, when the Intelligence agencies were pressed on the matter, they promised to release a report that would provide iron-clad proof of Russian meddling.  On January 6, 2017, theDirector of National Intelligence, James Clapper, released that report. It was called The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA).  Unfortunately, the report fell far-short of the public’s expectations. Instead of a smoking gun, Clapper produced a tedious 25-page compilation of speculation, hearsay, innuendo and gobbledygook.  Here’s how veteran journalist Robert Parry summed it up:

“The report contained no direct evidence that Russia delivered hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta to WikiLeaks….The DNI report…as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual proof. Further, the continued use of the word “assesses”….suggests that the underlying classified information also may be less than conclusive because, in intelligence-world-speak, “assesses” often means “guesses.” (“US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia ‘Hack’”, Robert Parry, Consortium News)

Repeat: “the report contained no direct evidence”, no “actual proof”, and a heckuva a lot of “guessing”. That’s some “smoking gun”, eh?

If this ‘thin gruel’ sounds like insufficient grounds for removing a sitting president and his administration, that’s because it is.  But the situation is even worse than it looks,  mainly because the information in the assessment is not reliable. The ICA was corrupted by higher-ups in the Intel food-chain who selected particular analysts who could be trusted to produce a document that served their broader political agenda. Think I’m kidding? Take a look at this excerpt from an article at Fox News:

“On January 6, 2017, the U.S. Intelligence Community issued an “Intelligence Community Assessment” (ICA) that found Russia deliberately interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump’s candidacy…  (but) there are compelling reasons to believe this ICA was actually a politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments…… to ensure this one reached the bottom line conclusion that the Obama administration was looking for. …

….Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his testimony that two dozen or so “seasoned experts” were “handpicked” from the contributing agencies” and drafted the ICA “under the aegis of his former office” …  While Clapper claimed these analysts were given “complete independence” to reach their findings, he added that their conclusions “were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me.”

This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community’s normal procedures.  Hand-picking a handful of analysts from just three intelligence agencies to write such a controversial assessment went against standing rules to vet such analyses throughout the Intelligence Community within its existing structure.  The idea of using hand-picked intelligence analysts selected through some unknown process to write an assessment on such a politically sensitive topic carries a strong stench of politicization….

A major problem with this process is that it gave John Brennan, CIA’s hyper-partisan former director, enormous influence over the drafting of the ICA.  Given Brennan’s scathing criticism of Mr. Trump before and after the election, he should have had no role whatsoever in the drafting of this assessment.  Instead, Brennan probably selected the CIA analysts who worked on the ICA and reviewed and approved their conclusions….

The unusual way that the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was drafted raises major questions as to whether it was rigged by the Obama administration to produce conclusions that would discredit the election outcome and Mr. Trump’s presidency.”

(“More indications Intel assessment of Russian interference in election was rigged”, Fox News)

Repeat: “A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments.” That says it all, doesn’t it?

Let’s take a minute and review the main points in the article:

1–Was the Intelligence Community Assessment the summary work of all 17 US Intelligence Agencies?

No, it was not. “In his May 8 testimony to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Clapper confirmed …(that) the ICA reflected the views of only three intelligence agencies — CIA, NSA and FBI – not all 17.”

2–Did any of the analysts challenge the findings in the ICA?

No, the document failed to acknowledge any dissenting views, which suggests that the analysts were screened in order to create consensus.

3– Were particular analysts chosen to produce the ICA?

Yes, they were “handpicked from the contributing agencies” and drafted the ICA “under the aegis of his former office” (the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.)

4– Was their collaborative work released to the public in its original form?

No,  their conclusions “were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me.” (Clapper) This of course suggests that the document was political in nature and crafted to deliver a particular message.

5–Were Clapper’s methods “normal” by Intelligence agency standards?

Definitely not. “This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community’s normal procedures.”

6–Are Clapper and Brennan partisans who have expressed their opposition to Trump many times in the past calling into question their ability to be objective in executing their duties as heads of their respective agencies?

Absolutely. Check out this clip from Monday’s Arkansas online:

“I think, in many ways, our institutions are under assault, both externally — and that’s the big news here, is the Russian interference in our election system,” said James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence. “I think as well our institutions are under assault internally.”

When he was asked, “Internally, from the president?” Clapper said, “Exactly.” (Clapper calls Trump democracy assailant”, arkansasonline)

Brennan has made numerous similar statements. (Note: It is particularly jarring that Clapper– who oversaw the implementation of the modern surveillance police state– feels free to talk about “the assault on our institutions.”)

7–Does the ICA prove that anyone on the Trump campaign colluded with Russia or that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections?

No, it doesn’t.  What it shows is that –even while Clapper and Brennan may have been trying to produce an assessment that would ‘kill two birds with one stone’, (incriminate Russia and smear Trump at the same time) the ICA achieved neither. So far, there’s no proof of anything.   Now take a look at this list I found in an article at The American Thinker:

“12 prominent public statements by those on both sides of the aisle who reviewed the evidence or been briefed on it confirmed there was no evidence of Russia trying to help Trump in the election or colluding with him:

The New York Times (Nov 1, 2016);
House Speaker Paul Ryan (Feb, 26, 2017);
Former DNI James Clapper , March 5, 2017);
Devin Nunes Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017);
James Comey, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Chris Stewart, House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017;
Rep. Adam Schiff, House Intelligence committee, April 2, 2017);
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate Intelligence Committee, May 3, 2017);
Sen. Joe Manchin  Senate Intelligence Committee, May 8, 2017;
James Clapper (again) (May 8, 2017);
Rep. Maxine Waters, May 9, 2017);
President Donald Trump,(May 9, 2017).
Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, indicated that his briefing confirmed Dianne Feinstein’s view that the President was not under investigation for colluding with the Russians.”
(“Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table”, American Thinker)

Keep in mind, this is a list of the people who actually “reviewed the evidence”, and even they are not convinced. It just goes to show that the media blitz is not based on any compelling proof, but on the determination of  behind-the-scenes elites who want to destroy their political rivals. Isn’t that what’s really going on?

How does former FBI Director James Comey fit into all this?

First of all, we need to set the record straight on Comey so readers don’t get the impression that he’s the devoted civil servant and all-around stand-up guy he’s made out to be in the media. Here’s a short clip from an article by Human Rights First that will help to put things into perspective:

“Five former FBI agents…raised concerns about his (Comey’s) support for a legal memorandum justifying torture and his defense of holding an American citizen indefinitely without charge. They note that Comey concurred with a May 10, 2005, Office of Legal Counsel opinion that authorized torture. While the agents credited Comey for opposing torture tactics in combination and on policy grounds, they note that Comey still approved the legal basis for use of specific torture tactics.

“These techniques include cramped confinement, wall-standing, water dousing, extended sleep deprivation, and waterboarding, all of which constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in contravention of domestic and international law,” the letter states.

Those signing the letter to the committee also objected to Comey’s defense of detaining Americans without charge or trial and observed, “Further, Mr. Comey vigorously defended the Bush administration’s decision to hold Jose Padilla, a United States citizen apprehended on U.S. soil, indefinitely without charge or trial for years in a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina.” (“FBI Agents Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Question Comey on Torture, Indefinite Detention”, Human Rights First)

Get the picture?

Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn’t mind breaking a few legs if it’ll advance his career plans. I wouldn’t trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn’t far.

American Thinker’s Clarice  Feldman explains why Comey launched his counter-intel investigation in July 2016 but failed to notify Congress until March 2017, a full eight months later. Here’s what she said:

“There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes — wittingly, or unwittingly.” (“Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table”, American Thinker)

Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving the way for impeachment  proceedings?

Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA’s 50-or-so other oustings in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These things are only suppose to happen in those “other” countries.

Does this analysis make me a Donald Trump supporter?

Never.  The idea is ridiculous. Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole flap suggests that there’s an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public’s radar and has the elected-government in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of  Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently,  they have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We’ll see.)

And what’s more surprising, is that the Democrats have aligned themselves with these deep state puppetmasters.  They’ve cast their lot with the sinister stewards of the national security state and hopped on the impeachment bandwagon. But is that a wise choice for the Dems?

Author Michael J. Glennon doesn’t think so. Here’s what he says in the May edition of Harper’s Magazine:

“Those who would counter the illiberalism of Trump with the illiberalism of unfettered bureaucrats would do well to contemplate the precedent their victory would set. …

American history is not silent about the proclivities of unchecked security forces, a short list of which includes the Palmer Raids, the FBI’s blackmailing of civil rights leaders, Army surveillance of the antiwar movement, the NSA’s watch lists, and the CIA’s waterboarding. …. Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard against future repression?”

(“Security Breach– Trump’s tussle with the bureaucratic state”, Michael J. Glennon, Harper’s Magazine)

“Who?”

The Democrats, that’s who.

The post Seth Rich, Craig Murray And Sinister Stewards Of National Security State – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Newspapers are expected to print news, but that was most certainly not the case today with the New York Times.

It ran a story of almost 800 words on the compensation program of the New York Archdiocese for victims of sexual abuse. There was nothing new in the article: The names of the six priests, who committed their offenses in the 1970s and 1980s, had already been made public. So what was the point? None of the priests are in ministry and five were booted.

It could be argued that the New York Times has an obligation to cover everything and anything about the sexual abuse of minors. But that is simply not true, and I will prove it.

Two days ago, the media reported on the arrest of the executive director of a Queens music school for children. Oliver Sohngen, the founder of the Long Island City Academy of Music, was charged with sex trafficking and attempted sex trafficking of girls 8 to 17. After he got a pimp to supply him with the 8-year-old, he dropped her off at Chuck E. Cheese’s so her parents wouldn’t think anything was wrong.

The following news outlets covered this story this week:

Daily News
New York Post
TimesLedger Newspapers
US Official News
Associated Press
CBS News New York
MailOnline (England)
NBC News New York
Pix11 New York
States News Service
US Federal News
WABC News New York
WFIN (Finlay, Ohio)

The New York Times did not cover this story.

Why did the New York Times run a story about sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of New York that took place a generation ago—containing  not a single item of news—but failed to report on a breaking-news story about a public school official who was arrested for recently abusing little girls?

The bias is palpable. It is also indefensible.

Contact the public editor: public@nytimes.com

The post New York Times Shows Bias In Abuse Reporting – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

May 15th is Nakba Day, the Day of Catastrophe for the Palestinians. In 1948, that was the date when the Israeli State began to emerge and three quarters of a million Palestinians were ejected from their land. The term Nakba was coined by the Syrian historian Constantine Zurayk, who was the Acting President of the American University of Beirut (Lebanon) in 1952.

Part of the expelled Palestinian nation had fled to Gaza, where – from the first – they lived in refugee camps under the care of the fledgling United Nations. War between Israel and Egypt across Gaza drew a UN response in 1956, when the United Nations Emergency Force arrived to guard the Armistice Demarcation Lines. Amongst the blue helmets to make their way to Gaza were a significant detachment of Indian troops. Indian troops had been in Gaza during what was known as the First Battle of Gaza in 1917 that pitted the British imperial forces against the Ottoman imperial forces. They had fought across Iraq and Egypt, including up the Levant into Jerusalem. Their story is largely forgotten. I was glad to see it reprised in Leila Tarazi Fawaz’s monumental history, A Land of Aching Hearts: The Middle East in the Great War (2014) in a chapter entitled ‘South Asians in the War’.

• Related: When Einstein Tried To Convince Nehru To Support Israel, But Failed – Analysis

General Indar Jit Rikhye served in Gaza as part of the initial deployment and then returned in 1966 to lead it till the 1967 Six Day War. India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru came to visit the Indian and other UN troops in Gaza in 1960. After his visit, he boarded a UN aircraft to fly him to Beirut. As his aircraft took off, two Israeli fighter jets came alongside and began aggressive maneuvers against the UN plane. Nehru told the Indian Parliament part of the story on 1 August 1960. He said that the Israeli action was ‘unwarranted’ and that the Israeli authorities had ‘prior knowledge of his intended visit to Gaza’. Fortunately for Nehru, his UN pilot held his nerve and got the Prime Minister to Beirut.

In Beirut, Nehru visited the American University, where he was received with open arms. When I taught at the AUB in 2013-14, I went to the archives and found many wonderful pictures of the visit, including one of Nehru walking past the AUB President’s house (see above) and another of students sitting in the windows of the chapel to listen to his speech,

At AUB, Nehru didn’t say anything about what had happened over the skies of Gaza. He held his tongue till he returned to the Indian Parliament. It was there that he made his official statement. You can read my story for Frontline on this visit, which was called ‘Nehru in Beirut’. It provides some more context and has some more photographs.

I was thinking about this story, about the ongoing Palestinian hunger Freedom & Dignity strike (see my report in English and my report in Turkish) and the visit by the current Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Israel. I doubt that Modi will ask the Israeli government to formally apologize for putting the life of a previous Indian head of government at stake. Israel has never acknowledged this incident. But Nehru put it in the record of the Indian parliament. I hope that the Indian opposition will raise this issue in the Monsoon Session.

Meanwhile, three Indian warships (Trishul, Mumbai and Aditya) have docked in Haifa (Israel) to hold a series of joint activities with the Israeli navy. This task force is commanded by Rear Admiral RB Pandit.

Unlike in the 1950s and 1960s, the Indian troops are not in a position to protect the vulnerable and the weak, but to strut their muscle alongside the powerful. The Indian troops who went to Gaza in the 1950s were part of Operation Shanti (Peace). No such word is applicable for the troops now. They are part of far more dangerous games.

Recommended Reading: From India to Palestine: Essays in Solidarity, edited by Githa Hariharan (LeftWord Books, 2015).

The post When Israeli Fighter Jets Almost Killed Nehru – OpEd appeared first on Eurasia Review.

Massive Chinese infrastructure investments across the Eurasian landmass and Africa, together with the influx of Chinese personnel, are targeted by insurgents, rebels, and militants. The uncertainty in Ethiopia undermines China’s efforts to boost economic links with the African continent via the One Belt One Road Initiative.

By Alessandro Arduino*

Ethiopia, situated in the Horn of Africa and next to Djibouti where China is building its first ever foreign military base, is a key node along the proposed route of the One Belt One Road, now known as the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI). This ambitious project to reshape the world through infrastructure connectivity, however, is hampered by domestic conflicts and local opposition.

Early this year, Chinese state-owned companies (SOEs) scored a success when they completed the construction of a 750 km Addis Ababa-Djibouti electrical railway. The railway has prompted Ethiopia to engage China in its efforts to maintain economic growth at eight per cent a year.

Ethiopia’s Economic Plan and China’s Role

In 2015, Addis Ababa inked an agreement with Beijing to develop a 550 km refined petroleum pipeline. A US$4 billion natural gas project connecting Ethiopia with neighbouring Djibouti is next in line. Poly GCL Petroleum Group Holding Ltd is in charge of the project. It includes a liquefaction plant, a 770 km natural gas pipeline, and an export terminal in Djibouti with an expected capacity of 12 billion m3 of natural gas per year. Poly CGL is the energy arm of China Poly Group which includes Poly Technologies, one of the most sophisticated defence manufacturers among Chinese companies.

• Related: Ethiopia On The Brink? Politics And Protest In Horn Of Africa – Analysis

Ethiopia’s instability and risks faced by Chinese investors originate from its government’s aggressive economic policy of farmland expropriation. In a country whose 80 per cent of GDP is generated by agriculture, opposition against farmland expropriation fuels ethnic tensions, independence movements, and militant actions such as neighbouring Somalia’s al-Shabab’s cross-border incursions.

On 15 March 2017, armed militia from South Sudan killed 28 people and kidnapped 43 children in neighbouring Ethiopia. On 23 March SITE Intelligence Group announced that al-Shabab claimed the killing of 17 soldiers in an attack in the coastal city of Barawe in southwestern Somalia.

Ethiopia is not only affected by the spillover of the South Sudan civil war but also by latent belligerence along the Eritrean border and terrorist incursions from neighbouring Somalia. To complicate matters, Addis Ababa’s grip on independent ethnic movements from peripheral regions created a constant source of friction.

Insecurity along One Belt One Road

China’s footprint in Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa has, however, not gone unchallenged.

Nine Chinese oil and gas prospectors were killed in 2007 in south-eastern Ethiopia. Another seven were subsequently kidnapped and later released by the Ogaden National Liberation Front in a bid to force foreign oil companies to leave. Poly GCL is also likely to be vulnerable to politically and criminally-motivated attacks.

• Related: China And Climate Change: The Good, The Bad And The Ugly – Analysis

After the establishment of diplomatic relations with China in 1970, Ethiopia enacted a series of bilateral agreements to deepen economic and technological cooperation with Beijing. Despite long-standing ideological affinity during the Derg regime, whose revolutionary officers toppled Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974, trade between Ethiopia and China gained momentum only in 2006. By 2014, the cumulative value of Chinese-contracted projects exceeded $22 billion.

Chinese SOEs built the Tekeze Dam, highways, and roads. Chinese ICT companies such as ZTE and Huawei dominate the Ethiopian telecommunications sector. Chinese industrial parks have mushroomed with Chinese enterprises’ investment in industries ranging from textiles to electronics. At the same time, Poly GCL is not the first foreign company interested in Ethiopian natural gas resources as oil companies from Russia and Malaysia have already left the country empty-handed.

Controversy Sparks Instability

Structural reforms designed to move Ethiopia away from “agricultural dependence” to “development-driven by industry” have fuelled not only economic growth but also opposition and instability. Expropriation of huge tracts of farmland sparked protests that fed anti-Chinese sentiment.

Continued unrest could threaten China’s economic cooperation in the region. Ethiopia, like Pakistan, has promised to deploy its military to protect the pipeline projects. While Islamabad’s pledge includes positioning 15,000 soldiers along the Sino-Pakistan Economic Corridors, Addis Ababa is still evaluating options. At the same time, the ban on international private security corporation interested in providing armed contractors in Ethiopia is still in effect.

Military and private armed protection is unlikely to be all that is needed. Chinese insurance companies and private security companies are likely to be called in to assess threats, monitor local stakeholder attitudes towards Chinese personnel, and provide crisis management when required.

Reality Check to Come?

Yet, even that may not offer a sense of comfort and security. Chinese private security companies play different roles from Western operators in Iraq and Afghanistan. They face challenges whenever their Chinese clients underestimate threats, over-rely on security arrangements negotiated by their government, and ineffectively deal with the host country’s armed security.

In addition, they fail to take into account anti-Chinese sentiments fuelled by the influx of Chinese workers and companies and subsequent disruption of power arrangements and redistribution of wealth. It is a recurring pattern across Southeast and Central Asia. The Chinese SOEs’ ability to provide accurate on-going risk assessment and contingency planning does not match their ability to acquire preferential credit line from the Chinese banks and constructing macro infrastructural projects.

The BRI has yet fulfilled its promise of a win-win situation for all parties involved. Very likely, increasing numbers of Chinese workers drawn to the BRI massive projects will sooner than later provide a reality check and force governments to review policies.

*Alessandro Arduino is a Visiting Senior Fellow with the China Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is also Co-Director of the Security & Crisis Management Programme at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences – UNITO.

The post China’s Energy Security: Reality Roadblock In Ethiopia – Analysis appeared first on Eurasia Review.