Islamic State group militants carried out Friday’s killing of 29 Christians on a bus in central Egypt, its Amaq news agency claimed on Saturday.

The massacre took place in the central Egyptian province of Minya on Friday, as the Coptic Christians were travelling on a bus to a monastery.

It is the latest in a series of attacks by IS that have killed more than 100 Copts since December.

“A security detachment from the Islamic State carried out an attack yesterday in Minya,” the group’s self-styled Amaq news agency reported.

Reports say that militants in three pick-up trucks attacked the bus as it was heading for Saint Samuel monastery in Minya province, more than 200 kilometres (120 miles) south of Cairo, before fleeing, according to the interior ministry.

Egypt’s said it conducted retaliatory air strikes on jihadi camps in the eastern Libyan city of Derna later on Friday.

The bus attack followed two suicide bombings of churches in April that killed 45 Copts. In December, a suicide bomber struck a church in Cairo, killing 29 people during a service.

IS claimed all the bombings and threatened more attacks on the Copts, who make up about 10 percent of Egypt’s 90-million population.
Original article

British police have released a photo of the Manchester bomber on the night of attack, taken shortly before he blew himself up killing 22 people. Authorities also said they found a “highly relevant” flat, believed to be the “final assembly place” of the explosive device.

Greater Manchester Police have released stills from CCTV footage taken on Monday night, showing the Manchester Arena bomber, Salman Abedi, just before the deadly attack which killed 22 people and injured dozens others.

The pictures show the suicide bomber on his way to the arena wearing jeans and trainers, a black jacket, baseball cap, and a rucksack allegedly containing the bomb that he detonated following Ariana Grande’s concert.

“Today we are releasing an image of Salman Abedi taken from CCTV on the night he committed an attack. We are gathering a detailed picture of Abedi as the investigation develops and now need people to tell us if they have any information about his movements from 18 May when he returned to the UK through to Monday night,” the police said in a statement.

“We know one of the last places Abedi went was the city centre flat and from there he left to make his way to the Manchester Arena. The flat is highly relevant as a location which we believe may be the final assembly place for the device,” authorities added.

Police also urged residents to share any additional information they might have about the suspect’s movements since May 18, when he returned to the UK from Libya.

“In the past five days we have gathered significant information about Abedi, his associates, his finances, the places he had been, how the device was built and the wider conspiracy,” the statement reads.

Earlier on Saturday, Prime Minister Theresa May announced that the UK terrorism threat level has been scaled down from ‘critical’ to ‘severe,’ meaning, that an attack is “highly likely” but not “imminently” expected.

The investigation is making “good progress,” police said, with armed officers drafted in from across the country to help the Greater Manchester Police and over 1,000 others working around the clock.

“We have 14 locations that are still being searched and there are 13 people that have been arrested on suspicion of offenses contrary to the Terrorism Act,” police said, adding, that officers are continuing to raid flats they believe to be associated with potential terrorist activity.

Salman Abedi detonated a “highly sophisticated” nail bomb at the Manchester Arena on Monday night; at the end of a concert by US singer Ariana Grande, killing 22 people, including 7 children. The NHS England said 116 people had received inpatient care following the attack. At least 63 victims still remain in hospital, with 20 of them in critical condition.

Amid the hunt for Abedi’s possible accomplices in the UK, his father and one of his brother’s, Hashim, were arrested in Tripoli, Libya Wednesday. A third brother, Ismail, was arrested after police raids in the UK. While the father reportedly claimed his son to be “innocent,” Hashim allegedly told investigators that Salman wanted to “seek victory for the Islamic State.”

Both Salman Abedi and his father, Ramadan, reportedly had long-standing links to a violent jihadist group which may have had British backing for the 2011 Libyan war and the 1996 attempt to kill then-Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Abedi had been living with his family in Libya before returning to Britain days before the attack. Police are trying to establish whether he had undergone training at a jihadist camp in Libya, and whether he traveled to Syria.

By John Zaw

Ethnic armed groups from the Christian-stronghold states of Karen, Chin and Kachin are among 15 groups attending Myanmar’s latest round of 21st Century Panglong peace talks.

The five-day conference, May 24-28, is the second session under Aung San Suu Kyi’s government to bring peace to seven ethnic states that have experienced vast and bitter conflicts for nearly 70 years.

However, little progress to reach a deal has been made to date and the de-facto leader has fallen short in her attempt to bring all 20 militia groups to the table.

An alliance of seven ethnic armed groups known as the United Nationalities Federal Council (UNFC), who are yet to sign the nationwide ceasefire agreement (NCA), refused to attend as they were invited as special guests with “no equal status.”

“Time is precious and getting peace is very important for our country. We need to try bringing all militias to the conference,” Manam Tu Ja, a Catholic and chairman of Kachin State Democracy Party, told ucanews.com.

Rev. Saw Matthew Aye, a member of the Union Level Joint Monitoring Committee, who is attending the conference as a special guest, recognized the absence of some groups is not ideal, but retains hopes of an agreement.

“We can’t solve the decades-long disputes in just five days, but the discussions and agreement from the conference will help lay a foundation for upcoming peace talks towards lasting peace,” Aye told ucanews.com.

Palaung (Ta’ang National Liberation Army), the Arakan Army and Kokang (Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army) who didn’t attend the first peace conference last August, are attending as invited special guests. They are joined at the conference by a northern alliance, comprising the United Wa State Army, Kachin Independence Army (KIA) and National Democratic Alliance Army (NDAA-Mongla).

Suu Kyi reaffirmed her government’s commitment to achieving peace by laying out a policy of bringing all remaining non-signatories to sign the peace pact aimed at creating a federal democratic union.

“We will not resort to exerting pressure through populist politics to achieve our goals, but we will instead strive to reach an agreement acceptable to all with open, frank and inclusive dialogue,” Suu Kyi told the packed hall at the opening speech of the conference, May 24.

Lahpai Seng Raw, former director of Metta Foundation, a non-governmental organization that supports internally-displaced people through healthcare, agriculture, peace projects and humanitarian aid, is at the conference. An ethnic Kachin and a 2013 Ramon Magsaysay Award winner, Seng Raw said that there must be equal status among the ethnic armed groups who are signatories of NCA and non-signatories.

“From my point of view, the government needs to announce a unilateral ceasefire agreement in the country and then bring all ethnic armed groups to the negotiation table,” Seng Raw told ucanews.com.

Some 1,600 participants, including U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, attended the opening ceremony of the first session of peace talks in Naypyidaw, Aug. 31 to Sep. 4, 2016.

More than 700 participants, including government, military, parliament, political parties, ethnic armed groups, civil society groups and diplomats, joined the opening ceremony of the second session.

Military’s stance

Myanmar’s military chief Min Aung Hlaing has asserted its military stance on the NCA that is the only way to get peace in the country.

“Signing the NCA is not an accord to surrender the ethnic armed groups,” Min Aung Hlaing said in an opening speech on May 24.

Some non-signatories, such as the northern alliance led by the UWSA, are considering a new approach to the peace process.

“Ignoring this and pursuing other or the second way will be an attempt to loathe the establishment of a Union based on peace, democracy and federalism. As such, we have to assume that the attempt is tantamount to grabbing power and splitting from the Union through armed struggle line,” warns Min Aung Hlaing.

The military, in a classic demonstration that its political heft remains daunting, despite being rejected by voters at the ballot box, has escalated its offensive against Kachin, Shan, Palaung and Kokang groups in Kachin and northern Shan states.

Long-running conflicts in Myanmar’s smaller states with large Christian populations — Chin, Karen, and Kayah — have ended but forced more than 100,000 people across the Thai border and into refugee camps.

The six-year-old resumption of a fight that had been dormant for 17 years in 2011 resulted in more than 100,000 people forced into camps for internally displaced people in Kachin and northern Shan states.

Suu Kyi’s father, General Aung San, led the country to independence from Britain had reached an agreement regarding self-autonomy and federalism with the Kachin, Shan and Chin ethnic groups in 1947, but failed to secure several other ethnic groups.

Soon afterward, Aung San was assassinated and the deal was never fulfilled. In the aftermath, the ethnic groups took up arms against the central government.

By Diana Moukalled*

Lebanon’s Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil is a different person and in a different position after the Riyadh Summit.

Looking at Lebanon’s previous governments in the past years, we notice how Lebanon used to return from such meetings burdened with major internal and Arab crises.

The reason was Lebanon’s leaning toward parties allied with Iran, a position that was also held by Bassil. This Lebanese bias was the reason for many confrontations and rifts with other Arab states.

Undoubtedly, Bassil is not in an enviable position.

On the one hand, he wants to show that his father-in-law, President Michel Aoun, is in a strong position and has good connections in the Arab world. However, Aoun’s support for Hezbollah led to several reservations, which caused him not to be invited to the summit.

Instead the invitation was limited to the Prime Minister Saad Al-Hariri.

On the other hand, Bassil wants to appease his allies in Hezbollah and Iran and avoid any embarrassment with them, especially after he complied with the prime minister, who chose to follow the summit’s stance in confronting Iranian interventions in the region. During the summit, Al-Hariri fully endorsed this direction.

The dilemma for both Bassil and Aoun is that juggling these two directions is difficult — rather, impossible — and more now than ever.

This particular struggle is probably what led Bassil to say upon his return to Lebanon that he wasn’t aware that the Riyadh Declaration included a strong line on Iran, a comment that was widely ridiculed by the Lebanese people.

Yet, the statement in the government’s last session on avoiding Lebanon getting involved in any regional conflicts served as a ruling that allowed Lebanon to contain the fallout of the US-Arab-Islamic Summit.

It seems that all parties have agreed on overcoming a crisis that could have been caused by Lebanon’s harmony with the Arab consensus at the Riyadh Summit.

Despite Hezbollah ministers’ pressures to issue negative statements criticizing the Riyadh Summit, the government has avoided officially leading Lebanon into a confrontation with the Arab world and international community.

This position was in agreement between Al-Hariri and Aoun, as it is obvious that both want to spare Lebanon challenges in light of the summit’s main priority of combating Iran and its branches, particularly Hezbollah.

The question remains: How will Lebanon address the next phase? And how will it distance itself from Hezbollah’s involvement in more than one field, as the confrontation with Iran intensifies?

Lebanon will defiantly reach a moment of truth that could prove earthshaking if its leaders aren’t wise enough.

• Diana Moukalled is a veteran journalist with extensive experience in both traditional and new media. She is also a columnist and freelance documentary producer. She can be reached on Twitter @dianamoukalled.

The Ukrainian government continues to call its fight against the Russian invasion of the country “an anti-terrorist operation,” instead of declaring it to be a real war. According to Mykola Sungurovsky, this failure reflects the fact that Kyiv elites still “think in the categories of economic profit and electoral advantage.”

Calling Russian actions a war, the Ukrainian military analyst says, is a matter of principle for “both the domestic and foreign understanding of this conflict,” and failure to use the right term gives Vladimir Putin and his much-hyped notion of “hybrid” war an undeserved advantage (glavred.info/politika/principialnyy-vopros-pochemu-voynu-na-donbasse-do-sih-por-nazyvayut-ato-437963.html).

That is because, Sungurovsky continues, the words officials use determine “not only attitudes” toward what is going on “but also the behavior of both those who are directly participating in it and also third parties.” Indeed, “it is wrong to speak about the absence of war and yet demand from society mobilization.”

“From the very beginning of this conflict,” he says, “the Ukrainian authorities have violated national law” which requires “the introduction of martial law” if Ukraine is invaded. But so far, the government has been unwilling or unable to take that legally required step, one entirely justified by what Russia has done.

Repeated statements by senior officials that Ukraine would move in that direction “in the case of the intensification of the conflict” have not been followed by action. And “in many cases,” Sungurovsky says, “the role of the state was compensated by the role of civil society and its volunteer movements.”

But Ukrainian society cannot be mobilized unless the government declares the existence of a state of war. Indeed, without such a declaration, “the powers that be do not have the right to demand from society either trust or respect or even more that very much needed mobilization needed for victory over the enemy.”

The Ukrainian government says it can’t take this step lest the IMF refuse to extend it credits, but the Kyiv analyst points out that the IMF has not made such demands – and would be unlikely to if Ukraine declared martial law in one or another parts of the country or even for the country as a whole, given that Putin’s “hybrid” invasion touches the entire country.

The month of May remains very important in history Pakistan for its defense. The 28th of this month is a day when the defense of Pakistan was made invincible, as it was on this day that Pakistan conducted six nuclear tests in response to five nuclear tests conducted by India.

It is important to note that it was the second time that India was conducting nuclear tests, the first test being so called Smiling Buddha in May 1974. Soon after nuclear tests, sanctions were imposed by the UNSC both on India and Pakistan. The country maintained logical position that Pakistan was not the first to conduct nuclear test. Pakistan despite having developed the capability for over a decade avoided conducting hot testing of nuclear devices. Pakistan was left with no option but to conduct a test of its nuclear devices to become overt nuclear power to send the message to regional bully India that had been sending highly threatening and destabilizing signals to Pakistan.

At that time Indian political and military leadership after the tests was following aggressive posture towards Pakistan and was expecting surrender of Pakistan and the subservient role of Pakistan in South Asia in the wake of a nuclear test by India. Under these circumstances Pakistan was justified to conduct nuclear tests of its own. The conventional military imbalance that India had with Pakistan and its reflection in Indian policy towards Pakistan forced the Pakistani policy makers, both military and civilian, to consider the nuclear weapons option for security of Pakistan. The rationale of Pakistan’s military nuclear program remains countering the conventional military superiority of India. In the past India under different pretexts mobilized its military to exert pressure on Pakistan. It was Indian short-sighted behavior that made Indian conventional military superiority vis-a-vis Pakistan irrelevant after Pakistan became overt nuclear power.

In following decade after the nuclear tests, Pakistan developed different delivery systems and nuclear doctrine for defining the role of nuclear weapons in overall external security of the country. All weapons are means of extending the national interest of the country. The role of nuclear weapons in Pakistan is making unbearable the cost of any military option that India may consider against Pakistan. Hence the concept of strategic stability comes into play. Pakistan has degraded the military options for India to the point where they become irrational. Since the rationale of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program is countering Indian conventional military force, adopting first use doctrine is logical. It’s the balance of terror between India and Pakistan that discourages India from using conventional military force in any misadventure against Pakistan.

If Pakistan were to adopt “no first use” policy, such a doctrinal position might encourage India to believe that it can utilize its conventional military force against Pakistan in short war before nuclear weapons become relevant. Indian Cold Start doctrine is specifically structured under this false assumption that shift, swift and decisive victory over Pakistan was possible by rapid deployment of conventional military force in theatre of its own choosing. Though India initially denied the existence of any such doctrine, later statements from security elite of India have revealed that such doctrine does exist for all practical purposes. An Indian security elite mindset that conventional war with Pakistan was possible under nuclear overhang is highly destabilizing. By adopting the first use nuclear doctrinal posture, Pakistan has made it explicit that any conventional military attack on Pakistan will not remain restricted to this domain only. In such a scenario, the responsibility for the use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan will rest with India.

There is a lot of negative propaganda associated with the development of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) by Pakistan. It was aggressive behavior of India manifested in Cold Start doctrine that forced Pakistan to develop TNWs. As theatre level nuclear weapons, TNWs are for self-defense. The stability effect that TNWs have in South Asia is highly underrecognized.

Pakistan has developed robust command and control system for nuclear weapons. This structure is formalized in the form of National Command Authority (NCA) with the Prime Minister as its head. Like all other nuclear weapons states, the composition of NCA is reflective of consensus between civil and military leadership in this regard. Critics of military’s representation in the NCA are oblivious to the fact civil-military leadership work in tandem with the purpose of securing the country. The control over nuclear devices remains with the civilian leadership.

The utility of nuclear weapons can be checked from the fact that despite multiple escalations after overt nuclearization of South Asia, India has not dared to attack Pakistan from eastern border. Pakistan achieved major milestone in January 2017 and gained credible second strike capability, which has ensured durable peace and protection of any attack from India. Therefore, the development of credible second strike capability by Pakistan has enhanced the deterrence relationship and strategic stability in South Asia.

*Asma Khalid is a Research Associate at Strategic Vision Institute, a think-tank based in Islamabad. asmaakhalid_90@hotmail.com

This May, the two South Asian nuclear states mark the nineteenth anniversary to the first detonation of their nuclear devices. Pakistan and India celebrate national days in commemoration of Chagai and Pokhran-II, respectively, that established nuclear deterrence for both states.

The explosion of atomic bombs embarked ‘overt’ nuclearization of South Asia albeit the aspect of nuclear deterrence in the region can be traced back to the pre-nuclearization period when the debates raged with ambiguities regarding their nuclear capabilities. The strategic stability debate in South Asia had already taken a new dimension when India conducted its so called peaceful nuclear test in 1974.

After these tests Pakistan urged Western powers to establish a nuclear-free zone in South Asia, however all such efforts were opposed. In April 1998, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif addressed letters to world leaders, including President Clinton, drawing their intention to India’s pronouncements which “connote a giant leap towards fully operationalizing Indian nuclear capability”, but these requests were treated indifferently. India announced two sets of nuclear detonations on May 11 and 13.

It was a worrisome and shocking moment for the world especially for Pakistan. Notwithstanding it was the first explosion since the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) opened for signature in 1996 and Indian initiative of nuclear detonation had heavily tilted balance of power towards India in South Asia accompanied with the fear to start a destabilizing arms race between the neighboring states, there was no retaliatory action by the international community against India for violating the established norm of nuclear non-proliferation.

The change in the geostrategic situation of the region, after Indian nuclear tests, was evident in the seventeen days before Pakistan decided to exercise its nuclear option. The additional army divisions were sent into Indian-held Kashmir and Pakistan had been told ‘to realize the new realities on the ground’ by the then Indian home minister and former BJP president, Mr. Lal Krishan. He warned Pakistan about the government’s new pro-active approach to deal firmly with Pakistan in Kashmir.

India’s entrance in the nuclear club had been declared a decisive step by the Indian policy makers to bring a qualitatively new stage in Indo-Pak relations, particularly in finding a lasting solution to the Kashmir problem. These seventeen days were the most critical in the history of Pakistan. After deliberating various policy options and days of excruciating, Pakistan finally decided to carry out nuclear tests on May 28 and 30 in response to Indian nuclear explosions.

Finally, the agonizing clouds displaced and replaced with the mushroom-shaped smoke. Interestingly, the United Nations Security Council Resolution to condemn the nuclear detonation of two states and US sanctions were surfaced only after Pakistan conducted the nuclear tests.

After the nuclear tests by Pakistan and India, the debate on nuclear stability was divided into two groups: nuclear optimists and nuclear pessimists. The optimists maintained that the possession of nuclear weapons by both states would stabilize the region by ensuring nuclear parity and mutual fears of catastrophic destruction. Conversely, the pessimists argued that the miscalculations, misunderstandings and various organizational problems might lead to deterrence failure. In addition they highlighted the destabilizing consequence of nuclear proliferation.

Many critics believe that nuclearization had positive impact on the crisis behavior and defends the argument that post nuclearization conflicts between India and Pakistan took place as result of regional tiffs and not as an effect of nuclearization. Moreover, these conflicts did not escalate due to the deterrence effects, potential nuclear escalation and danger of nuclear war.

Recounting to the realities of South Asia, pragmatically the presence of nuclear weapons influenced the strategic decisions in post nuclearization conflicts; Kargil, Operation Prakram and Mumbai attacks. The conventional asymmetry between the two arch rivals, can persuade the conventionally strong to adopt destabilizing measures even in the nuclearized environment. The threat to be retaliated by nuclear weapons prevents the conventionally stronger opponent from using its force and thus prevents the other nuclear power, with less conventional force, from full-scale conventional conquest.

Furthermore, the existence of nuclear weapons internationalizes any confrontation between the two states, thus ensures a better resolution than what could be in absence of nuclear weapons. In recent times, the growing disparity and asymmetry in South Asia is favorable to India but challenging for Pakistan. Nonetheless, the nuclear factor balances the strategic equation in South Asian landscape.

Deterrence, as precisely termed, is “the exploitation of a threat without implementing it, or exploiting the existence of weapons without activating them”. Consequently, nuclear weapons are essentially supposed to be the weapons of peace and not war. It is extensively believed that the existence of nuclear weapons restrained Pakistan and India to wage another war after 1971.

However the need of time is that both states should start strategic dialogues to consider Confidence Building Measures (CBM) in order to avoid any misfortune event in future. This would be significant move in a scenario when Pakistan in response to India is building up its nuclear capabilities to ensure the credibility of its nuclear deterrence. India’s doctrinal transformation and ballistic missile defense capabilities, which are rapidly maturing, had indulged Pakistan in miniaturization of warheads.

Lately, India’s evolving sea-based capabilities is coercing Pakistan to develop full spectrum credible minimum deterrence capability, by having each leg of nuclear triad, to deter all form of aggression.

After nineteen years of deterrence, 28th May reminds the “historic milestone” towards reinforcement and maintenance of Pakistan’s deterrence capability. This timely and successful response showed operational preparedness of the Strategic Forces and Pakistan’s capabilities to safeguard its security, which should not be undermined. Every year the day recalls that Pakistan’s decision to exercise the nuclear option had been taken in the interest of national self-defense, to deter aggression, whether nuclear or conventional. Thus, on 28th May Pakistan completed a landmark journey with triumph, which makes this a historical occasion for all the years to come.

Last week the City of New Orleans removed a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. This was the fourth, and final, Confederate monument the city has removed since late April. As usual in modern America, civil and intelligent discourse has been lacking in the debate about Confederate monuments. The Huffington Post states the removal of Lee’s monument marks the end of a “campaign to expel symbols of white supremacy from public property.” The Daily Kos has branded the Louisiana House of Representatives an organ of “white supremacy” for passing a bill to prevent any war memorial from being removed or altered. The majority supporting the bill were called “hideously racist.”

In America today, such rhetoric makes civil discussion of issues relating to the Civil War or War Between the States impossible.

This is sad. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Union and Confederate veterans regularly met in organized reunions. These men who had seen comrades suffer and die were able to put aside such ugly memories and reminisce about the shared experiences of being a combat solider. Old Yanks and old Rebs celebrated each other’s martial valor; they believed that the Grey and the Blue fought for equally honorable causes. (A good book discussing these reunions and other issues is David Blight’s Race and Reunion.) They could believe in the righteousness of their own causes without demonizing those who disagreed.

If these former combatants could fellowship together and avoid name-calling and imputing dark motives to the other, why can’t we do that in 2017? Can’t good and reasonable people hold different views of the monument question (or a host of other matters)?

Not from the perspective of the modern political left. Increasingly, those with whom the Left disagrees with are considered “deplorables” who should not be debated, but silenced. Recent examples are Ann Coulter at Berkeley and Charles Murray at Middlebury College. The story of Chadwick Morris and the Left turning on him also makes interesting reading. (See also this NYT story on Liberal Intolerance).

I’d just suggest that on the Monument issue, or any other hotly contested matter, let’s take a lesson from the Union and Confederate Vets. One should believe in the righteousness of his own cause; but don’t assume that those on the other side act from malicious motives because they have come to a different conclusion.

This article was published at The Beacon.

By Rene Zou

China has gone from the world’s largest polluter to, arguably, the number-one leader in clean energy, and in the process it is achieving a growing dominance in the field of renewable energy. China has surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter for a decade now, discharging twice as much as the U.S. as of this year. Now, witnessing the consequences of rapid industrialization, the Chinese government has shifted its priorities from maintaining economic growth to achieving a more sustainable development path. Moreover, this state-business collaboration looks beyond just protecting the environment, hoping to use diversification and investment to transform China from the “factory of the world” to its “innovation hub.”

China is a big investor in the renewables industry both at home and abroad. In 2015, China invested $103 billion in its domestic renewables market, which was two and a half times the amount spent by the U.S. and five times that of the UK. In 2016, Chinese firms invested a record $32 billion in renewable energy and electricity transmission assets abroad, representing a 60% year-on-year increase from 2015 (in deals exceeding $1 billion). This includes a $13 billion acquisition of Brazil’s CPFL Energia SA, an electricity generation and distribution company, by China’s State Grid Corp, as well as a $2.5 billion purchase of a 25% minority state in Chile’s Sociedad Quimica y Minera (SQM) by Tianqi Litihum.

Chinese producers also continue to dominate clean energy production and manufacturing. The country currently boasts five of the six largest solar panel makers in the world. Moreover, five of the top ten wind turbine markers are based in China, not to mention the world’s largest lithium ion manufacturer. According to Greenpeace estimates, China is installing a soccer field’s worth of solar panels every hour as well as one wind turbine in the same time frame. Moreover, a study published in the journal Nature Energy claims that China could generate a quarter to potentially a third of its electricity from wind power by 2030.

The renewables industry provides huge opportunities for investment, technology, manufacturing, and employment. Moreover, the next couple of years will be crucial for countries who want to gain market share in this expanding industry. As such, China’s most recent five-year development plan has incorporated sustainable development into the core of its economic strategy of raising the quality of life for all citizens. According to Tim Buckley, the author of a recent report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis: “At the moment, China is leaving everyone behind and has a real first-mover and scale advantage.” This gap will only be exacerbated if countries such as the U.S., UK, Australia or the EU continue to pump the breaks on clean energy.

To grasp China’s path to dominance in renewables, one must consider the changing dynamics of the market, state, as well as international and civil society:

The Rise of the Renewable Energy Market

Global trends reveal an increasing shift towards renewable energy sources, not simply for electricity usage, but also electric vehicles and efficiency technology. Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecasts that global investment in renewable power will grow to $7.8 trillion in the next 25 years, compared to just $2.1 trillion in fossil-fuels over the same period. Last fall, the International Energy Agency (IEA) increased its latest five-year growth forecast for the renewables market by 13% in light of policy support in key countries and sharp cost reductions, particularly in wind and solar energy. Over the forecast period, costs are expected to drop by 25% in solar PV and 15% for onshore wind.

While all countries stand to profit from the declining costs of renewable energy technology, China stands to benefit in particular thanks to its large economies of scale and competitiveness on the global market. As Christopher Dent (2015) notes: “China’s [renewable energy] business across different industry value-chains is characterized by dynamic entrepreneurism, inter-sectoral connections, and a dense mix of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private sector companies.” Hence, renewables represent a competitive—and at times overcrowded but optimistic—market, which leads to high levels of productivity and efficiency growth. Moreover, the nature of China’s export-oriented manufacturing sector also helps lower costs of production thanks to big projects supported by government policy and high economic demand.

Worldwide renewable energy power capacity has grown 26% from 93GW in 2005 to 1473GW in 2012. Moreover, China has achieved the fastest growth in its power generation capacity for years, almost tripling its power generation capacity from 122GW in 2005 to 341GW by 2012. The U.S. ranks second at 164 GW, Germany comes in third at 76GW, followed by India at 67GW. Meanwhile, the IEA predicts that China alone will account for 40% of wind energy capacity growth as well as 36% of solar and hydroelectric increases between 2015-2021.

China’s electric vehicle market also overtook the U.S. in 2015 as the largest in the world, with over 200,000 new registrations. China-based BYD and CATL are challenging Tesla’s pre-eminence with the help of China’s Tiannqi Lithium, the largest manufacturer of lithium ion, an important input for electric vehicle batteries. Moreover, companies are also encouraged to develop cost-effective energy-saving technologies, as the state maintains robust national standards for renewable energy technologies to keep Chinese firms up-to-date technically.

The Top-Down Model: Chinese Government Efforts in the Renewables Field

China’s National Energy Administration has a clear strategy to dominate one of the world’s fastest growing industries. At the start of this year, the Chinese government declared its plan to spend more than $360 billion in renewable energy over the next 3 years, stating how the sector will help create more than 13 million jobs by 2020, curb greenhouse gas emissions and reduce smog in urban areas.

Three main reasons that the government has devoted attention to the renewable energy sector include the need to address energy security challenges, promote environmental and welfare imperatives as well as capture markets shares in strategic and expanding industries. There is high demand for energy in China due to its industrial-based development. As the largest importer of energy in the world, investing in renewables will help ameliorate supply and price risk, not to mention, environmental damage and the concomitant risk of social unrest.

China has instituted hydropower policies for many decades, but it wasn’t until the 1990s that the government started to pursue a multi-sector renewable energy policy. As the Chinese economy matured, new approaches to national economic and social development emerged. In particular, one of the core aims announced in the ‘scientific development concept’ established by President Hu Jintao was a resource-saving and environmentally friendly ‘harmonious society,’ thus shifting its attention from GDP growth to balanced growth. This vision was ratified into the national constitution at the 17^th Party Congress in October 2007, and has been featured prominently in the 12^th and 13^th five-year-plans.

The Chinese government uses a mixture of policy instruments to reach its renewable energy goals, including regulatory mandates, direct financial support, and market-based instruments. Moreover, the scale of China’s policies, strategies, and investments remains unrivalled. Beijing is set to implement the world’s largest emissions trading system, further expanding seven pilot carbon trading systems to the nation level. If prices are high enough, this program could create strong incentives worldwide. The government is also experimenting with innovative financial vehicles to finance low carbon transition, and its green bonds market could potentially deliver up to $230 billion in investment in renewables over the next five years.

Still, pollution as a result of the country’s expanding energy appetite is a tangible problem that the government faces. Coal is the known source of an estimated 40% of the most dangerous pollutant particle present in the country’s air, and the central leadership is taking this into serious consideration in response to public outcries (poor air quality is linked to 1.6 million deaths yearly). China recently set a target to limit coal to 58% of the energy mix by 2020, down from 64% in 2015. However, it has made no specific announcement of a target to curtail its coal consumption, which remains its largest source of energy (70%) and accounts for half of the world’s coal consumption.

Nevertheless, the country’s clean energy program sets the stage for a gradual shift away from coal dependence. Buckley contends that the global trend towards renewable energy sources is “a technological shift that is unstoppable,” but he believes that government policy can affect this pace of change. China’s coal use fell for a third straight year in 2016.

International Cooperation and Competition over Renewables

While addressing the United Nations in Geneva and the World Economic Forum to bolster China’s image as a dedicated and dependable climate leader, President Xi warned “there is only one Earth in the universe and we mankind have only one homeland,” he continued by reminding how the “Paris agreement is a milestone in the history of climate governance” and that “we must ensure this endeavor is not derailed.” For its part, China formally committed to halting the rise of its carbon emissions by 2030. Meanwhile, signatories of the Paris accord agreed to keep global warming to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels, as the agreement entered into force November last year.

However, President Trump’s shock election and threat to pull the U.S. out of the deal has thrown US climate change policy into doubt. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, is a known climate change skeptic. And if this trend persists, the U.S. will certainty continue to lose out to China in the global renewables industry. There’s another important fact to consider here: China’s increasing dominance in the renewables supply chain could create even further disincentives for the U.S. and other countries to invest in clean energy options down the road, as they will have lost any opportunity for competitive advantage and/or the positive employment outcomes of investing in renewables production.

Europe’s clean energy industry and policymakers who have made significant gains in the global green energy race over the first half of the decade are not only facing increasingly stiff competition, but also regional instability. Oliver Joy, a spokesman for the trade body WindEurope remarked how “global investment in renewables reached record levels last year and yet Europe saw a 21% decline.” As the region continues to recover from the Eurozone crisis, China has pulled ahead as a new leader in clean energy.

Still, China is reluctant to be the “sole leader” on climate change. As a developing country facing pollution issues and an economic recession of its own, China certainly isn’t eager to become the new designated protector of the global commons. That being said, the state has been an important instigator of huge increases in foreign investment last year. Moreover, the Asia Infrastructure & Investment Bank—a China-led international financial institution akin to the West-led World Banka and IMF—is a key facilitator in this process. And the BRIC’s New Development Bank made its first loans all in renewable energy. R&D funds are essential to improving technology and lowering costs and the Chinese government has welcomed diversification into developing countries.

Conclusion

In the past decade or so, China has transformed into the world’s largest manufacturer and exporter of clean energy products. Rising public and private sector interest has helped drive the burgeoning growth of the nation’s renewable energy production, making China one of the biggest investors in renewable energy development. By the numbers, China’s dominance stacks up in all sectors—wind, solar and hydro. Further, Beijing has a clear strategy to control the renewables industry, just as it did with the rare earth minerals market. In recognition of an alternative path for growth which is cleaner, more efficient, and innovative, China has not only helped augment its economic position but can now also be recognized as a climate champion.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

References:
Dent, C. (2015). China’s renewable energy development: policy, industry and business perspectives. Asia Pacific Business Review 21 (1): 26-43.

Liu, J. & Goldstein D. (2013). Understanding China’s renewable energy technology exports. Energy Policy 52: 417-428.

The retirement age should rise to at least 70 in rich countries by 2050 as life expectancy rises above 100, according to a new report, BBC News reveals.

The World Economic Forum said that employees should continue working until 70 in nations such as the UK, US, Japan and Canada.

The increase will be needed, as the number of people over 65 will more than triple to 2.1 billion by 2050. By then, the number of workers per retiree will have halved to just four.

Michael Drexler, head of financial and infrastructure systems at the World Economic Forum, said the expected rise in longevity was the financial equivalent of climate change.

“We must address it now or accept that its adverse consequences will haunt future generations, putting an impossible strain on our children and grandchildren,” he said.

In the UK the state pension age is due to rise from 65 in 2018 to 68 by 2046.

A report for the Department for Work and Pensions earlier this year has suggested that workers under 30 may not get a state pension until they are 70.

The Forum’s report, We’ll Live to 100 – How Can We Afford It, said that governments need to make it easier for workers to save for their retirement and praised recent reforms in the UK.

The auto-enrolment scheme means more than six million British workers have now been signed up automatically to a pension savings scheme, but fears remain over how much is being set aside.

The WEF said the retirement savings gap was forecast to rise from $70tn to $400tn by 2050 in the eight countries studied: Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, Netherlands, the UK and the US.

The gap is the amount of money required in each country to ensure a retirement income equal to 70% of a person’s pre-retirement income.

Jacques Goulet, president of health and Wealth at Mercer, which worked with the Forum to produce the report, said the issue was at a crisis point.

The Forum also says that countries should aggregate and combine pensions data to give workers a full picture of their financial position.

It cites Denmark, where an online dashboard collates pension information to give individuals details of their different pension savings accounts.

A team of scientists led by the University of Bristol has provided new insights into the origins of the Archaea, the group of simple cellular organisms that are the ancestors of all complex life.

The Archaea are one of the Earth’s most genetically and ecologically diverse groups of micro-organisms.

They thrive in a bewildering variety of habitats, from the familiar – soils and oceans – to the inhospitable and bizarre, such as the boiling acid pools of Yellowstone National Park.

The research provides a new evolutionary tree for the Archaea that will help to make sense of their biodiversity, and provides a new window into the early history of life on Earth that is not preserved in the fossil record.

The work is published in PNAS.

With the development of new technologies for sequencing genomes directly from the environment, many new groups of Archaea have been discovered.

Dr Tom Williams from the School of Earth Sciences, said: “But while these genomes have greatly improved our understanding of the diversity of Archaea, they have so far failed to bring clarity to the evolutionary history of the group.

“This is because, like other micro-organisms, Archaea frequently obtain DNA from distantly related organisms by lateral gene transfer, which can greatly complicate the reconstruction of evolutionary history.”

However, in their new work, Dr Williams and colleagues use a new statistical approach that combines information from thousands of genes found in many different archaeal genomes to show that events of lateral gene transfer can actually be used to orient the tree in time, resolving the deepest relationships in the evolutionary tree.

By determining which genes appeared first during the evolution of the Archaea, the new tree makes clear predictions about the basic biochemistry of the earliest Archaea, cells which may have lived over 3.5 billion years ago: these cells likely made energy using the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway, a biochemical pathway that today is found not only in Archaea but also in Bacteria, another major group of micro-organisms.

A former top detective turned University of Huddersfield researcher has published his findings that coroners in England and Wales are seemingly unable to agree on what caused a person’s death or whether it merits an inquest, even when faced with identical case information.

There is therefore an urgent need for a new consensus, which could save lives, argues Dr Maxwell Mclean. Now an Affiliate of the University’s Secure Societies Institute, he is a former Detective Chief Superintendent and Head of West Yorkshire’s CID and Homicide Team. After his years investigating death and serious crime, he decided to conduct PhD research into inconsistency among coroners, a topic in which he developed an interest during his police career.

He was awarded his PhD in 2015 and his latest publication is the article titled Contradictory coroners? Decision-making in death investigations, in the Journal of Clinical Pathology.

Dr Mclean argues that the wide variability in decision-making and practice has important implications for bereaved families and for the prevention of avoidable deaths. He calls for a national coroner consensus as a matter of urgency.

Around 507,000 people die in England and Wales every year. Nearly half (45%) of these deaths are reported to coroners, who investigate those believed to be violent, unnatural, or of unknown cause, to find out the identity of the deceased and the circumstances of his or her death.

But national data show differences in the rates at which coroners choose to investigate deaths and how often they record certain conclusions. And it is unclear why there are so many inconsistencies in coroners’ decision-making and practice.

So Maxwell Mclean invited all 96 senior coroners in England and Wales to take part in an online task and reach a verdict on three fictitious scenarios that were typical of reported deaths coming to inquest.

The scenarios included a complication arising after surgery (scenario 1): a combination of trauma and natural disease (scenario 2); and an infectious disease (scenario 3).

Every participant was given the same information, but it was randomly displayed so that it appeared differently for each of them. This was to find out if there were any differences in the way in which the coroners accessed the case information, as assessed by sequence, frequency, and how difficulty in reaching a decision.

There was little consensus on the conclusions reached among the 35 coroners who completed the task, despite the fact that they had been given identical information for all three scenarios.

Eight different conclusions were reached for scenario 3, including death from natural causes, death by accident/misadventure, death by drug misuse and an open verdict.

Coroners would sometimes adopt polar opposites in their interpretation of the facts.

For example, comments for scenario 2 included: “The osteoporosis was the underlying natural disease which resulted in the fracture and set in motion the train of events that led to the death” (natural causes); “even though there is osteoporosis, there is still the trauma which caused the fracture” (accidental death).

Analysis of the software data on access showed that the coroners approached the case information in a similar way, tended to agree on what was important, did not differ by gender or experience, and found little difficulty in reaching a decision.

But they still arrived at widely different outcomes, a disparity that seems to arise from coroners’ personal interpretation of facts, suggests Dr Mclean.

“If coroners cannot agree on what caused a person’s death, or whether the death was even reportable or not, then the desired prevention of future deaths becomes a difficult task. This is how we keep people alive,” he asserts. “A national coroner consensus to achieve a shared inference from available evidence is urgently needed.

By Dr. Sudhanshu Tripathi*

Adding a fresh chapter in the traditionally rich cultural heritage ever-evolving as mutual friendship between India and Sri Lanka even prior to independence, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 12 May warned the international community against the growing “arc of violence”, that has emerged in the South Asian region.

He further said that the biggest challenge to sustainable world peace is rooted in such mindsets as being reflected in the shape of vicious hate and macabre violence propelling terrorism and religious fundamentalism of all hues and forms in the entire world, and not necessarily from the on-going conflicts between the nation states. Speaking as the chief guest at the International Vesak Day celebrations in Colombo, Modi said that the ideologies of hate and violence and their proponents in the region are going against the spirit of mutual dialogue and debate and, therefore, continuing to cause violent deaths and horrible destruction of unimaginable magnitude.

“The menace of terrorism in our region is a concrete manifestation of this destructive emotion. Sadly, these ideologies of hate and their proponents in our region are not open to dialogue and hence only open to causing death and destruction”, PM Modi said.

Fortunately, the South Asian region is blessed to have given to the world the invaluable gift of Buddha and his sacred teachings. Bodh Gaya in India, where Prince Siddhartha became the Buddha, is the sacred core of the Buddhist universe. Lord Buddha’s first sermon in Varanasi set in motion the wheel of Dhamma. Indeed, India’s key national symbols have taken inspiration from Buddhism. Buddhism and its various sects are deep seated in the country’s governance, culture and philosophy. The divine lessons of Buddhism spread from India to all over the world. The worthy children of King Ashoka, Mahindra and Sanghamitra toured from India to Sri Lanka as the noble messenger of Dhamma to spread the biggest gift of the Buddhist treasure i.e. peace and non-violence.

In fact, Vesak is one of the most sacred of days and is, indeed, one of the biggest days of the year and is celebrated by Buddhists all over the world. It is a religious and cultural festival in Sri Lanka; a day for humanity to revere the birth, the enlightenment and the Parinibbana of Lord Buddha, the “Tathagatha”. It is celebrated on the day of the full moon in the month of May. Buddhists commemorate the important events that took place in the life of Lord Buddha on this day. The first is about birth of Siddhartha Gautama in Lumbini in Nepal which took place under the arbor of Sat trees where queen Mahamaya gave birth to him. The second event relates to Siddharta Gautam’s supreme attainment as the Buddha, the Enlightened One. Finally, the third event is concerned with Lord Buddha’s salvation or Parinibbana over 2500 years ago at Kushinagar. Thus the Vesak is the day to rejoice in Buddha; a day to reflect on the supreme truth and timeless relevance of Dhamma, and the four noble truths which constitute the eternal truths to be overcome by all human beings and that runs in the form of persistent struggle of human survival against all odds.

Taking positive points of strength as enshrine in Lord Buddha’s Dhamma, PM Modi expressed his firm belief that Buddhism’s message of peace and non-violence is the only answer “to growing arc of violence all over the world. And, not just a negative notion of peace defined by the absence of conflict. But, a positive peace where we all work to promote dialogue, harmony and justice, based on compassion and wisdom. As Buddha said, nattisantiparansukham there is no higher bliss than peace.”

On Vesak, PM Modi also hoped that India and Sri Lanka will work together to uphold the ideals of Lord Buddha and promote values of peace, accommodation, inclusiveness, and compassion in the policies and conduct of both the governments. Indeed, this is the true path to free individuals, families, societies, nations and the world at large from the three poisons of greed, hatred and ignorance.

On this blessed day of Vesak, PM Modi exhorted the people of Sri Lanka to further consolidate India’s age-old cultural relations with Colombo, which may light the lamps of knowledge, and bring out all humans beings out of darkness, over-swept with ignorance, penury, commotion, violence and restlessness. And, ultimately, uphold the truth and further dedicate one’s self towards sincere efforts to follow the path of Lord Buddha, whose divine blessings are showering upon all as divine light and sweet fragrance all over the whole world.

*Dr. Sudhanshu Tripathi, Professor, Political Science, UP Rajarshi Tandon Open University, Allahabad (UP).

By Jim Garamone

US President Donald J. Trump told service members today at Naval Air Station Sigonella, Italy, that they are the greatest force for peace and justice the world has ever seen.

The president spoke to service members and their families at the end of his first overseas trip as president, and he detailed the trip to them.

“Our travels took us to some of the holiest sites in the three Abrahamic religions, and to gatherings of both America’s oldest and newest friends,” he said. “We traveled the world to strengthen longstanding alliances, and to form a new partnership among nations devoted to the task of eradicating the terrorism that plagues our planet.”

Trump said he is more confident than ever that the will exists for nations to work together against the terrorists that launched recent attacks in Manchester, England, and in Egypt.

“Together, civilized nations will crush the terrorists, block their funding, strip them of their territory, and drive them out of this Earth,” he told the service members.

A Pledge of Cooperation, Security

The president believes he has “paved the way for a new era of cooperation among the nations of the world to defeat the common enemy of terrorism and provide our children with a much more hopeful future.”

And American service members provide much of the security and strength that will be needed against the terrorists. “I want you to know that you have a commander in chief who will never, ever forget,” he said. “Never, ever.”

“My pledge to you is that we will always protect those who protect us,” he continued. “You are protecting us, and we will always remember that, and we will always, always protect you.”

President Donald Trump had an eventful week visiting Saudi Arabia, Israel and some European cities including the Vatican City where he met with the Pope. He was bestowed with the highest civilian/national award in the Kingdom. There, as brilliantly noted by the veteran journalist Robert Fisk, Trump said he was not in Saudi Arabia to “lecture” – but then told the world’s Islamic preachers what to say, condemned “Islamist terrorism” as if violence was a solely Muslim phenomenon and then announced like an Old Testament prophet that he was in “a battle between good and evil”. There were no words of empathy, none of sympathy, absolutely not a word of apology for his racist, anti-Muslim speeches of last year, let alone the ‘Muslim-ban.

As expected, the Saudi invitation of Muslim leaders/rulers did not include some of the Shi’ite majority countries, thus allowing Trump to blame Shi’ite Iran – rather than the Sunni extremist Daesh – for “fuelling sectarian violence”. He pitied the Iranian people for their “despair” a day after they had freely elected a liberal reformer – Dr. Hassan Rouhani – as their president, something that is unthinkable in his host country. He demanded further isolation of Iran, as if decades of failed policy and experience to isolate Iran had not taught any practical lesson to learn from. He painted the Iranian regime as being responsible for “so much instability” in that part of the world. The Shi’ite Hizbullah of Lebanon was condemned, and so were the Shi’ite Yemenis fighting the Saudis and their coalition.

There is no doubt that Iranian regime deserves blame for its support of the murderous Ba’athist Nusayri regime in Syria, but to blame it for the carnage in Yemen where according to human rights observers the Saudis are committing crimes against humanity is hogwash.

As I have repeatedly stated extremism of any kind is a threat to our entire humanity and our planet. Such must be defeated. But trying to defeat it without addressing the root causes behind such extremism is simply insane. Unfortunately, that insanity has become the norm in many parts of the world, including the UK, where a suicide bomber was able to attack and kill many music lovers in a crowded Manchester stadium when Trump was visiting the Zionist state of Israel. [Many analysts opine that the Manchester bombing was a classic “blowback” action. “The bomber is guilty, but so are those who endorsed the policies creating conditions for people like him to flourish, writes Daniel McAdams in the www.antiwar.com.]

Trump signed $110 billion arms deals with the kingdom, and declared future sale of “a lot of beautiful military equipment” to Qatar, promising jobs to many, esp. in the USA, which are, supposedly, to secure peace in that part of the world. What an illusion when the wrong priorities are set!

On the flip side, Trump prides himself as a deal maker, and he delivered on that promise to bring more jobs to the USA. Who cares who is killing whom in that ‘nasty’ part of the world using American weapons as long the USA can sell arms! Forgotten in those deals, however, was also the joint statement of the Sheikh of Al Azhar University and the Pope (whom Trump was to meet in just two days) in Cairo two weeks ago against the evil of arms dealers. When the stuffs that kill and maim innocent people are called ‘beautiful’ toys by the president of the most powerful state in our planet, we have something to worry about big!

In his maiden speech to other NATO leaders in Brussels he berated them on sharing the cost of keeping that alliance suggesting that many of them “owe massive amounts of money” to the alliance. “Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined,” he declared as the leaders of other NATO member countries looked on uncomfortably. If his European hosts were looking for public support of Article 5 and hoping for a change in their guest who had earlier called NATO obsolete they got a nasty jab and were surely embarrassed. He declined to confirm the U.S. commitment to Article 5 of the treaty, which guarantees the U.S. would back a treaty partner in the event of a conflict with a foreign power.

Trump said in a Twitter post on Saturday that “Many NATO countries have agreed to step up payments considerably, as they should. Money is beginning to pour in- NATO will be much stronger.” Although there is no evidence that money has begun to “pour in” if Trump’s claim is true, he must be happy with the outcome of his tough talk.

In a separate tweet, Trump wrote that he would make a decision on whether to support a landmark international agreement on climate change next week. “I will make my final decision on the Paris Accord next week!” he tweeted on the final day of a Group of Seven (G7), a group of some of the world’s wealthiest nations, summit in Sicily, Italy at which he refused to bow to pressure from allies to back the landmark 2015 agreement. [In a much earlier, 2012 tweet citizen Trump famously wrote, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”]

Trump’s surprise tweet on the final day of his lengthy international trip came after his decline to commit to staying in a sweeping climate deal, refusing to give into intense international pressure. Earlier Saturday, the other six members of the G7 voted to abide by the Paris climate agreement.
Trump will return to the White House under a cloud of scandal, bringing to an end a nine-day trip that started in Saudi Arabia and Israel before moving on to three European stops.

A newly-appointed special counsel is beginning his investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and close adviser, has become a focus of the probe, according to The Washington Post. the Washington Post has learned that Kushner reportedly discussed setting up a backchannel between the Trump transition team and the Kremlin during his meeting in December with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak. According to intelligence officials, during a meeting at Trump Tower that included Michael Flynn, Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities for a secret and secure channel with the Kremlin that would shield discussions between the two sides from U.S. monitoring.

The White House disclosed in March that this meeting had taken place, but only after media reports surfaced and has so far played down its significance. However, after the U.S. intercepted Russian intel discussing the meeting, eyebrows were raised.

James Comey, the former FBI director leading the Russian probe until Trump abruptly fired him, is still expected to testify before Congress about the memos he kept on conversations with the president that involved the investigation.

It is also reported by the CNN that Comey allegedly acted on information in the Hillary Clinton email probe he knew was false and had been created by the Russians. The issue at hand was that Russian intelligence officials reportedly made it look like former Attorney General Loretta Lynch had been compromised in the Clinton investigation.

Not only that, but the report suggests Comey feared the revelation would undermine the probe and the Justice Department. So instead of revealing the Russian disinformation, he announced the investigation was over and called Clinton “careless.”

The way in which Comey is said to have covered up this information shows how Russian influence has affected the highest levels of US officials.

U.S. officials have also told CNN that Russia is still attempting to spread false information to cloud ongoing investigations.

Before heading home, President Trump told the U.S troops stationed in Sicily, Italy that “It was a tremendously productive meeting where I strengthen American bonds,” said Trump. “We have great bonds with other countries and, with some of our closest allies, we concluded a truly historic week.”

Only the coming months would show how successful Trump’s trip was to strengthen U.S. position not just outside but his own position within the USA.

As the new US administration marched into White House under Trump, Pakistan launched a fresh offensive in Washington. The short-term goal is to use the Administration’s leverage to block a bill that seeks to declare Pakistan as a state that sponsors terrorism, while the broader strategy is to get the Administration to to push India on the backfoot with regard to Kashmir.

Nevertheless, the problem is more complex than it seems. No US administration, including the current one, can grant Pakistan more relevancy in South Asia than a transactional relationship that currently exists. This is because, the alignments and balances of power in the region that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran and China are changing fast and Pakistan unfortunately has already made bad choices in this geo-strategic chess-board.

Pakistan under its military leadership has already pivoted toward China that has made the US, Iran, Afghanistan and India jittery about the current developments. India seriously fears that Beijing and Islamabad are colluding to encircle India to breakaway from the maritime noose that the US has built around China in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. China is striving hard to make Sri Lanka its strategic ally in this equation to keep the Indian Ocean friendly for Chinese vessels and Pakistan is trying to benefit from the situation by having a foothold on what India considers its back-water.

The United States navy is obviously watching this development with unease. Any change in status quo in Indian ocean and the Persian Gulf would seriously damage the US influence in the Middle East and Washington and Delhi are on the same page as far as the supremacy of Indian ocean lines are concerned.

If China has to shake-off the stranglehold, the Gwadar port is key to its aspirations as it would connect China to the world’s busiest energy route through land and if pipelines and other infrastructure could be built. As such, Beijing could outmanoeuvre the US maritime grip not only in South China Sea but in the Indian ocean as well. Thus the importance of CPEC.

By joining the Islamic countries military alliance under Saudi Arabia and awarding control of the Gawadar port to China, Pakistan has already made its choices clear.

For the first time in the entire Pak-US relations history, Pakistan and the US have little in common with respect to their national interests. Through the prism of the US, Pakistan now is only good for delivering intelligence on the Haqqani network and to lure the Pashtun Taliban to the negotiating table. If these deliverables can’t be granted then from Washington’s point of view there is little difference between Pakistan and Iran.

Also disengaging from Washington at this time is fraught with ending the military relationship with Pakistan, which is worth $750 million annually in Coalition Support Fund.

Another stick is that dangling overhead as well is a bill to declare Pakistan as a state that sponsors terrorism. If that is approved , Pakistan would find it extremely hard to trade with the Western world and its isolation would cripple it economically.

Additionally, if that is bill is passed China would be unable to help Pakistan. As opposed to the US, China wouldn’t be able to give that much aid to the Pakistan military. While, Pakistan’s army could ask for security funds for the Chinese working on projects in Pakistan and also the security of the Chinese installation from Gwadar to Kashgir, it won’t be enough for the military that has regional ambitions.

In the long term, in the absence of any strategic relationship with Islamabad, Pakistan would still like to maintain a friendly conversation with the US. This is because Islamabad has known that all roads leading to Kashmir go through Washington. Even if and when a solution to the Kashmir problem is mooted in the world capitals it would be the US and the West who could broker a deal and not Beijing that is seen by Delhi a rival instead of a broker.

Putting all eggs in the basket of Beijing and in the process making Iran and Afghanistan enemies on top of India, Pakistan is soon going to have its hands burnt. Making three out of four bordering countries hostile is going to be a classic recipe for disaster in coming years. The best course would have been to get together with both China and India and carve a respectable partnership with Iran and Afghanistan. Islamabad could even act as a bridge between Delhi and Beijing as it once played bridge between the US and China in the 1970s.

If China and the US get caught in a hot swirl in Persian gulf and South Indian Ocean, then Gwadar and Balochistan could become a battleground for many powers including Russia and as such Pakistan could become another Balkan state. In this scenario, the only question on the minds of the worried world would be what to do with the nukes?

By Giancarlo Elia Valori*

The outgoing President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, won re-election in the first round by garnering over 56% of the vote. Rouhani won with 14,619,848 votes on a total number of voters equal to 25,966,729 accounting for 53,6% of total votes.

The difference between the two figures is related to the so-called panachage, namely voting for candidates from different parties instead of those from the set list of a party, and the votes cast for his regional lists.

However, the main loser is Ebrahim Raisi, an eminent cleric of the Shiite clergy.

In addition to Raisi, the other challengers – initially 1,636 candidates had decided to run for election, but they were soon reduced to six, after the vetting and approval of the Guardian Council – were Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the mayor of Tehran who dropped out of the race before the opening of the polling stations; the former Minister of Culture, Mostafa Agha Mirsalim; the former vice-President of the Republic, Mostafa Hashemitaba, and the current vice-President, Eshaq Jahangiri.

They are complex and, anyway, remarkable figures: besides being mayor of Tehran, Ghalibaf was Chief of Police from 2000 to 2005 and formerly Commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ Air Force from 1997 to 2000.

Qalibaf holds a Ph. D. in political geography and was also Managing-Director of Khatam al-Anbia, an engineering firm directly owned and controlled by the Pasdaran, namely the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

He had run also in the previous presidential elections, but his project – today as at that time – was to federate all conservative oppositions under his leadership and propose the creation of the Ministry for Foreign Trade.

Proposing a new Ministry to solve a problem is never the right solution.

Subjecting foreign policy to the economy is his most common trait, even in the propaganda of his group, namely the “Progress and Justice Population of Islamic Iran”.

Mostafa Mirsalim got only 1.17% of the votes.

He studied and had a long professional career as an engineer in France. He returned to Iran at the outbreak of Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution, thus becoming Chief of the National Police in 1979. He was proposed by the then President Banisadr as a candidate for Prime Minister as a compromise candidate acceptable to both Banisadr and the Majilis, namely the Parliament, dominated by the Islamic Republican Party.

A political story halfway between the pro-Western “Shiite Republic”, the offspring of Banisadr and the nationalistic-modernizing thrusts present in the 1979 revolution, and the identity-based and Shiite restoration – all the more so that Mirsalim was later adviser to Ali Khamenei for long time.

He served as Minister of Culture and Islamic Guide from 1994 to 1998. His tenure was characterized by a strongly conservative Islamist direction, aiming to stave off the “cultural onslaught of Western culture” in Iran. He was later appointed to the Expediency Discernment Council, a body set up to resolve differences or conflicts between the Council of Experts and the Parliament.

Besides being vice-President, Hashemitaba is Minister of Industries and Head of the Iranian Olympic Committee.

He is described as having “centrist” views – as we would say in the West – and he is co-founder of the “Executives of Construction Party”, a grouping linked to Rafsanjani.

During the election campaign Hashemitaba focused mainly on environmental protection and agricultural reform.

Jahangiri was the first vice-President of Rouhani’s government and also served as Minister of Industries and Mines between 1997 and 2005 under President Khatami. Formerly he had been Governor of Isfahan Province and a member of Parliament for two terms.

He graduated in physics and later also acquired a Ph. D. in Business Management.

Having garnered many reformist votes in the 2013 elections, he decided to run again for Presidency, in connection with the area close to Rafsanjani, Khatami and to the current winner of the election.

Raisi is a Shiite cleric, as well as custodian and Chairman of the Astan Quds Razavi foundation, the Bonyad or autonomous charitable foundation managing the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad – a foundation worth 210 billion US dollars a year.

Raisi served in several positions in Iran’s judicial system and is also a member of the Assembly of Experts from South Khorasan Province.

He run for Presidency in the 2017 elections as leader of the “Popular Front of Islamic Revolution Forces”, a recent alliance founded in 2016 by twenty-five groups of the conservative spectrum.

Since 1979, however, all Iran’s Presidents have been re-elected and Rouhani can boast two clear successes: inflation, which has fallen from 40% to 10%, and the GDP growth, which is currently equal to + 4.6%.

For the re-elected President the current problematic issues are above all the P5 + 1 agreement, which has been implemented only partially and with the old sanctions still largely in place, as well as the new tension with President Trump, who aims at playing the Sunnis off against the Shiites for a possible new conflict marginalizing Iran. Finally another problematic issue is Iran’s strategic stability, with conflicts in Khuzestan and attacks on Pakistan’s border.

Hence the cards Raisi could play during the electoral campaign were precisely security, the Shiite national and religious unity, as well as the sense of defeat looming large on Iran considering the probable future failure of the P5 + 1 nuclear agreement.

Hence, in a country where the average age is 31 and over 50% the population was born after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, young voters have not chosen the identity-based, nationalistic and anti-Western platform of Raisi, a man of Khamenei and his likely successor as Supreme Leader.

At electoral level, the struggle was between the front supporting continuity of relations with the West and the front of close-mindedness, which is witnessing Trump’s new policy in the Middle East.

An old-fashioned policy aiming at confrontation with Iran managed by the Sunnis and Israel, with a likely “small war” between Israel and Hezbollah in the coming months and a major clash between Iran and Saudi Arabia in the coming years.

It is no coincidence that during the electoral campaign Raisi criticized the cutting down to size of the Iranian nuclear system and pointed an accusing finger at “Westerners’ untrustworthiness”.

As already said, however, Rouhani can boast his economic achievements: in addition to the data and statistics already reported, the “reformist” presidential system (indeed, we still use these silly definitions) has led economic growth to 12.5% and has reduced youth unemployment to 30%.

The outgoing President showed some signs of weakness last Sunday when the presidential car was stoned by angry miners due to an accident that had killed 42 of their workmates. However, one-third of the Iranian voters live in cities where Rouhani is still very popular and where the electoral turnover is 40%.

In smaller cities, where the Shiite clergy is still very powerful, the electoral turnover rises to 90% and tends to favour the religious and conservative right parties.

The Revolutionary Guards, which are partly a group of conscripts, have certainly favoured Raisi, but this does not necessarily mean that the policy line, based on anti-Western and revolutionary purity and opposed to the JCPOA nuclear agreement, is fully shared by the Pasdaran.

On their press they have already defined Raisi as “Ayatollah” and there are pictures of Iranian soldiers in Syria who praise the cleric of Mashhad. Meanwhile, however, Rouhani has included many members of the intelligence services in his staff and has “purged” many elements coming from the Pasdaran.

Khamenei has strongly favoured Raisi, also during the election campaign, but here the real issue is another: what is the electoral and economic value of the JCPOA and can it solve Iran’s productive and hence political crisis?

The Conservatives, who, in some of their regions – like it or not – have accepted the P5 + 1 and the JCPOA agreement are posing one single question: while it largely solves our economic problems, what is the cost of the lack of security resulting therefrom?

Moreover, if the agreement had no decisive impact on the Iranian economy, only the geopolitical and strategic damage to its security would remain.

Nevertheless, apart from the fact that paradoxically the Revolutionary Guards’ companies have much benefited from the JCPOA, the real problem is the natural and obvious low pace of its effects on the Iranian economy.

In the six months following the signature of the nuclear agreement, Iran regained access to 4.2 billion US dollars of frozen funds abroad and increased its exports by approximately 7 billion US dollars.

Again in the period following the JCPOA agreement, oil exports increased by 400,000 barrels/day, with 5 billion US dollars of revenue gains.

Moreover the government’s economic plan, voted early this year, envisages 30 billion new foreign investment, as well as other foreign direct investment and domestic investment, while it is worth noting that only 4 billion US dollars were available for investment at the time of sanctions.

It should also be recalled that Iran has acquired a 2.8% shareholding of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Banks, however, are the real weak point of Iran’s economic system.

The central bank’s scarce liquidity – for obvious anti-inflationary reasons – many non-performing loans, non-homogeneous banking practices, corruption and, in short, a banking system which remained isolated from the rest of the world for many years and currently has no longer the faintest idea of the extent to which finance and banking have changed.

Just think that in 2012 all the thirty Iranian banks were disconnected from SWIFT, and still today, after the partial lifting of sanctions, many Iranian credit institutions face difficulties in using the system of the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications.

Furthermore, for the sole purpose of upgrading the extractive industry, Iranian experts deem it necessary to invest over 100 billion US dollars.

Hence, if it goes on like this, amidst objective difficulties and the Saudi and Sunni rearmament, the Iranian population who, according to opinion polls, initially strongly supported the JCPOA (42.7%) will see its enthusiasm dampen, as is currently the case (22.3%).

27% of the Iranian population thinks that Rouhani’s bad management is one of the causes of the economic crisis, while 45% of the Iranian population blames the external conditions that are not under the new President’s direct control.

Furthermore, the increase in oil exports has been largely neutralised by the fall in the oil barrel price.

The non-oil Iranian product, however, will rise by less than 3% a year, while Rouhani’s primary goal is to cut inflation – hence he will not support the State’s deficit spending, which is largely direct or hidden welfare.

Hence, at mass level, the psychological and propaganda mechanism which has emerged in the presidential election is increasing pessimism about the JCPOA economic effects and the feeling of strategic weakness in the face of new threats to Iran’s security, over and above mistrust of the way in which the West seems to want to do everything to destabilize, marginalize and impoverish the Iranian people.

Rouhani has found the Iranian masses still relatively optimistic about economic growth and Iran’s opening to the rest of the world, but if this did not happen the Conservatives would regain power quickly.

The question is rhetorical: hence, what is in our interest, both in Italy and in Europe?

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

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

By Siraj Wahab

A Lebanese man, accused of trying to use his ties to Hezbollah as part of a scheme to launder drug money, pleaded guilty on Friday in a Brooklyn, New York, federal court to a US money laundering and conspiracy charge.

US prosecutors said Joseph Asmar, 43, of Beirut, entered his plea at a hearing before US District Judge Eric Vitaliano.

Asmar was arrested in Paris in October 2015, and was extradited to the US 14 months later. He also faced a money laundering charge.

Aaron Altman, a lawyer for Asmar, said in an e-mail: “Joseph Asmar has taken responsibility for his actions and is anxious to move forward with his life. More than anything, he misses his family and prays that they will be reunited in the near future.”

Hezbollah is a Shiite militia that the US Department of State has designated a foreign terrorist organization. Human rights organizations have accused Hezbollah, along with Bashar Assad’s men, of carrying out crimes against humanity.

Asmar was charged following what prosecutors said was a two-year sting operation in which he and a Lebanese businesswoman, Iman Kobeissi, had meetings with an undercover US Drug Enforcement Administration agent posing as a trafficker.

Prosecutors said Asmar claimed to be an attorney who boasted that his connections in European and Middle Eastern banks enabled him to launder money, and that he could use his Hezbollah connections to provide security for drug shipments.

Undercover agents provided $400,000 in alleged drug proceeds to Asmar and his co-conspirators, who laundered the money in exchange for a commission, prosecutors said.

Asmar faces up to 20 years in prison. A sentencing date has not been set. Kobeissi’s case is still pending.

The US federal court’s decison was welcomed by Dr. Hamdan Al-Shehri, a Riyadh-based Saudi political analyst and international relations scholar, who described it as a step in the right direction.”This is Hezbollah’s modus operandi,” he told Arab News from Riyadh on Sunday. “They have been using drug money to finance their terror operations.”

He claims that in Lebanon, Hezbollah cultivates hashish and then smuggles it into different countries in order to make money.

“They have factories in South America, in Colombia and Venezuela to process this stuff,” he said. Al-Shehri said Hezbollah operatives find it easy to procure passports in South America in order to facilitate their entry into the US and other countries where they launder drug money. “(Joseph Asmar’s conviction) proves what was known about Hezbollah terror operations,” he said.

He said since the South American countries have good ties with Iran, “they leverage those connections to their advantage in carrying out their dirty work.”He appealed to the international community, especially the US, to continue to follow Hezbollah’s money trail in order to stop their terrorist operations.

“We need to drain the swamp with a view to stopping their terrorist activities,” he said. “This case will hopefully lead to more exposes and reveal all cartels linked with Hezbollah.”

By Jim Garamone

Nothing keeps Defense Secretary Jim Mattis awake at night. “I keep other people awake,” he told CBS reporter John Dickerson.

The secretary sat down Sunday for his first television interview with Face the Nation. He spoke about the threats facing the United States and the department’s response to those threats.

Mattis said the defeat-ISIS coalition must “annihilate” the terror group, and that the strategy to do so is working. “Our strategy right now is to accelerate the campaign against ISIS,” the secretary said. “It is a threat to all civilized nations. And the bottom line is we are going to move in an accelerated and reinforced manner, throw them on their back foot.”

The campaign against the group in Iraq and Syria has shifted from attrition tactics to annihilation tactics. “Our intention is that the foreign fighters do not survive the fight to return home to North Africa, to Europe, to America, to Asia, to Africa,” he said. “We’re not going to allow them to do so. We’re going to stop them there and take apart the caliphate.”

Decision-Making at the Right Level

Iraqi forces have surrounded the cities of Mosul and Tal Afar to ensure ISIS is annihilated. The same is happening in Raqqa — the Syrian city ISIS styled as the capital of the so-called caliphate.

The secretary said that decisions on the campaign are being made at the appropriate level. He has delegated execution to “the level where people are trained and equipped to make decisions so we move swiftly against the enemy,” Mattis said.

He stressed that there has been no changes to the rules of engagement in Iraq or Syria. “There is no relaxation of our attention to protect the innocent,” he said.

There is also no lessening of the whole-of-government effort against the terror group, he said. ISIS is a terror philosophy as much as it is a terror group. “[ISIS] is more than just an army. It’s also a fight about ideas,” Mattis said. “And we have got to dry up their recruiting. We have got to dry up their fundraising. The way we intend to do it is to humiliate them, to divorce them from any nation giving them protection, and humiliating their message of hatred, of violence. Anyone who kills women and children is not devout. They … cannot dress themselves up in false religious garb and say that somehow this message has dignity.”

The strategy of working by, with and through other nations will continue and the counter-ISIS fight will be a long one, Mattis said.

War With North Korea Would Be ‘Catastrophic’

The secretary shirted to the threat posed by North Korea saying a war on the peninsula “would be probably the worst kind of fighting in most people’s lifetimes.”

Seoul, the capital of South Korea with a population of 25 million, is within rage of North Korean artillery and missiles. And the North Koreans are building a nuclear arsenal. “We are working with the international community to deal with this issue,” Mattis said. “This regime is a threat to the region, to Japan, to South Korea. And in the event of war, they would bring danger to China and to Russia as well. But the bottom line is it would be a catastrophic war if this turns into a combat if we’re not able to resolve this situation through diplomatic means.”

He said North Korea is a direct threat to the United States and said he was encouraged by Chinese help in seeking to rein in the rogue regime.

Mattis is a strong supporter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, saying it represents the West’s values and supports democracy. He said has no idea why Russia sees NATO as a threat. “Right now, Russia’s future should be wedded to Europe,” he said. “Why they see NATO as a threat is beyond me. Clearly, NATO is not a threat.”

Russia has chosen to be a strategic competitor and the United States is “attempting to deal with Russia, under President Trump’s direction, in a diplomatic manner,” Mattis said. “At the same time while willing to engage diplomatically, we are going to have to confront Russia when it comes to areas where they attack us, whether it be with cyber, or they try to change borders using armed force.”

The US President Donald Trump left many analysts mystified after his 27-hour trip to Israel. It was as if he had been transformed into a master politician overnight.

Mitchell Barak, an Israeli pollster and former political adviser, was quoted by the New York Times as referring to Trump as the “Liberace of world leaders,” in reference to flamboyant piano player Władziu Valentino Liberace. The latter, known as “Mr. Showmanship,” was once the highest paid entertainer in the world, in a successful career that spanned four decades.

Dan Shapiro, the former US ambassador to Israel, was also left trying to decipher the supposedly complicated persona of Trump.

“Either Trump’s visit was substance-free — or he ‘is being uncharacteristically subtle’ in planting the seeds for new round of peace negotiations,” stated New York Magazine, quoting and paraphrasing Shapiro’s tweets.

The “liberal” US media outlets, which previously stooped to many lows in attacking Trump — including criticisms of his family, mannerisms, choice of words, even mere body language — became much more sober and quite respectful in the way they attempted to analyze his short trip to Israel, and the very brief detour to Bethlehem, where he met Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority leader.

“Mr. Trump’s speech at the Israel Museum was so friendly and considerate of Israeli emotions,” reported the New York Times, “that one right-wing Israeli legislator described it as deeply expressive of the ‘Zionist narrative.’”

Palestinian emotions, however, were of no consequence to the Trump entourage, the New York Times or others in mainstream media.

The Washington Post found faults with Trump’s visit — but certainly not because of his lack of balance or failure to deride Israel’s occupation and mistreatment of Palestinians.

Despite the fact that Trump has, indeed, fully embraced a “Zionist narrative,” and a rightwing version of it — for example, he made no reference to a Palestinian state — it was his performance at Israel’s national Holocaust memorial (Yad Vashem) that did not impress one writer.

Max Bearak wrote in the Post: “Trump’s entry in the guest book at Israel’s national Holocaust memorial was strangely upbeat, self-referential and written in his signature all-caps: ‘IT IS A GREAT HONOR TO BE HERE WITH ALL OF MY FRIENDS — SO AMAZING & WILL NEVER FORGET!’”

Bearak found such choice of words and the style in which the message was written sort of offensive, especially when compared with the supposed thoughtfulness of former President Barack Obama’s entry in the guest book on an earlier visit.

In contrast, Obama wrote a significantly longer note, which partly read: “At a time of great peril and promise, war and strife, we are blessed to have such a powerful reminder of man’s potential for great evil, but also our capacity to rise up from tragedy and remake our world.”

Neither then, nor now, did the Washington Post bother to examine the historical context in which this particular sentence was written and find the hypocrisy of the whole endeavor.

If they bothered to ask Palestinians, they would have found a whole different interpretation of Obama’s words.

Indeed, wherever occupied Palestinians look, they find “man’s potential for great evil”: A 400-mile Israeli wall being mostly built over their land; hundreds of military checkpoints dotting their landscape; and a suffocating military occupation controlling every aspect of their lives. They see the holiest of their cities, Bethlehem and Al-Quds — occupied East Jerusalem — subdued by a massive military force, and thousands of their leaders thrown into prison, many without charge or trial. They see siege, an endless war, daily deaths and senseless destruction.

But since none of this matters to the “Zionist narrative,” it subsequently matters so very little to mainstream American media, as well.

Trump’s trip to Israel, however short, was indeed a master stroke by the ever-unpredictable Liberace of world politics — although it takes no particular genius to figure out why.

From an American mainstream media perspective, to be judged “presidential” enough, all US presidents would have to commit to three main policies. They are, in no particular order: Privileging the economic business elites, war at will and unconditionally supporting Israel.

Media channels in the US, which have been otherwise polarized based on political allegiances, have so far taken a break from their raging conflict over Trump’s presidency, and rallied behind him on two separate occasions: When he randomly bombed Syria and during his visit to Israel.

Ironically, Trump has been judged for lacking substance on numerous occasions in the past. But his trip to Israel was the most lacking and most divisive. However, the fact that he, time and again, reiterated Israeli priorities was all that the media needed to give the man a chance. Their collective verdict seems to rebrand his lack of substance as his unique “subtle” way of making politics.

Israeli media, which are often more critical of the Israeli government than their US counterparts dare, needed to keep up with the “democratic” tradition. But Trump’s groveling also gave them little room for criticism. The often-impulsive Trump this time stuck to the script and followed his repeatedly rehearsed speech and media comments to the letter.

But writer Josefin Dolsten insisted on finding ways to nitpick, composing for the Times of Israel the seven “awkward moments from Trump’s Israel trip.”

One of these awkward moments, Dolsten wrote, was a White House statement that listed Trump’s goals for the trip, and which “included a hilarious (and juicy!) typo: ‘Promote the possibility of lasting peach’ between Israel and the Palestinians. Yes, we get it — it meant to say peace, but who’s to say the two sides can’t bond over some delicious fruit?”

For Palestinians, it must not be easy to find the humor in these tough times. Hundreds of their prisoners, including the popular political figure Marwan Barghouti, were enduring a prolonged and life-threatening hunger strike in which they were making the most basic demands for better treatment, longer visitation hours with their families and ending of arbitrary detentions.

More telling is that, on the day Trump, along with right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lectured Palestinians on peace, 17-year-old Tuqua Hammad was shot for allegedly throwing stones at Israeli military vehicles at the entrance of her village of Silwad, near Ramallah.

Hammad “was shot in the lower extremities and Israeli troops prevented a Palestinian ambulance from accessing the victim to treat her,” Ma’an news agency reported.

Only a few miles away, Trump was writing his remarks after visiting Israel’s Holocaust memorial. Regrettably, he failed to meet the expectations of the Washington Post, for unlike Obama, he was not poignant enough in his language and style.

The irony of the whole story is inescapable. But American media cannot see this — for it, too, seems to follow a script in which Palestinian rights, dignity and freedom are hardly never mentioned.