In 1986, Russian émigré writer Eduard Topol published a novel, Red Snow, in which he described how Moscow’s oppression of the Nentsy, one of the numerically small peoples of the North – this nation numbers approximately 45,000 — led some members of that nation to challenge Soviet power.

Now more than 30 years later, life is imitating art at least in the overheated imaginations of some Russian Orthodox and nationalist activists who say that Western Protestant missionaries are seeking to use Nenets shamans to spark a Maidan and detach the Russian North from Moscow’s rule (beregrus.ru/?p=9337 and pravoslavie-nord.ru/2007/1/16439).

The Bereg Rus portal, a Russian Orthodox and nationalist outlet in the Far East, reports on this in breathless tones: “The world community,” it says, is constantly trying to detach from Russia its territories in order to establish its own sodomite anti-order,” and it continues: “the most effective weapon in this regard is an anti-Russian ethno-cultural policy.”

“While in liberal academic circles false notions about various kinds of nations – from civic to political – continue to circulate, our geopolitical opponents confidently are rooting themselves in strategically important territories.” News from Arkhangelsk is clear evidence of this danger, the portal continues.

According to its authors, a conference in Arkhangelsk at the end of April by the Barents Secretariat, a body which they point out is “only partially controlled by the Russian Federation, featured speakers who repeatedly said that “there is no grater evil for civil rights, numerically small peoples and confessions than the Russian Orthodox Church.”

That is because, the speakers said, the local bishop since 2011 has conducted a massive and “aggressive” missionary effort to prompt members of local nations like the Nentsy to turn away from their traditional shamanist faiths and become members of the Russian Orthodox Church.

“Is Nenets shamanism a religious basis for extremism and separatism?” the portal asks, Unfortunately, it may be becoming so not because of the actions of the Russian church but rather because of missionary activity by Evangelical Protestants linked to and supported by Western governments.

These missionaries have promoted the idea about the Nentsy and other Northern peoples that “American sectarians are their friends, but the Russian bishop is their persecutor.” And from such attitudes to a Maidan and secession from Russia is only a small step.

“One must say,” the portal continues, “that at the beginning of the 20^th century, the charismatic movement played on the territory of historic Russia the same role that Quakers and independents played in mid-17^th century English. The social essence of their religious teaching is revolution.” And they played a similar role in Ukraine only a few years ago.

“Charismatics and other sectarians,” Bereg Rus continues, “became the worldview nucleus of the first and second Ukrainian Maidans.” And now this forces Russians to ask whether a similar scenario is possible in the Russian Arctic. That may seem absurd now but no more absurd than the Maidan appeared before it happened.

And just as the West wanted to pull Ukraine away from Russia so too it wants to take control of Russia’s northern territories in order to ensure that the West and not Moscow is in control of the Northern Sea Route between Europe and Asia. And consequently, the portal says, the West is using exactly the same technique in the north.

No one inside Russia needs “a new Yamal uprising or a new ‘Mandalala.’ But there are people in the West who do and who are quite prepared to use Evangelical Protestants to link up with shamans in order to bring one off. Russians must be vigilant agains this threat, Bereg Rus suggests.

By Kabir Taneja

President Donald Trump this past week initiated his debut foreign trip as the most powerful man in the world, making Saudi Arabia, Israel and Palestine the first stops of his travels, before continuing to Brussels for a NATO summit, Sicily, Italy for the G7 conclave and a stopover in The Vatican for an audience with the pope.

Despite Washington DC and the Trump administration engulfed in many political fires, the presidential visit to the Middle East displayed the continuing criticality of the region in American foreign policy. With Russia now playing a much heavier hand in the region, the US under Trump continues to come off as aloof as far as long-term policy thinking is concerned. On landing in Riyadh, Trump and his accompanying team of top officials, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Advisor Gen. H.R. McMaster, were greeted with pomp and applause, massaging the president’s ego with giant billboards across the town and his picture being projected on the giant façade of the glitzy Ritz Carlton hotel. “He (Trump) likes bling, that’s what he will get in Saudi Arabia,” a commentator said on a television news channel.

Trump has already hosted two of the three leaders he in Washington DC, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Mahmoud Abbas, president of Palestine, before making this trip, which was designed more on religious bridge building than political policy. Nonetheless, Trump’s visit had undertones of a potential plan to push for a scalable blueprint to bring one of the longest and most scarring conflicts in the region between Israel and Palestine. But the only viable policy tilt that was only covertly visible was Trump’s attempts to push Riyadh and Jerusalem to mend ties till a level where the Saudis could at some point have a strong card to play in a potential final settlement on the issue.

However, the president’s ideas on all-encompassing peace in the Middle East were overshadowed by the fact that he came bearing arms. Riyadh and Washington committed to over $100 billion in defense deals, strongly signaling that the US views the Saudis as the central orb of their regional Islamic diplomacy, as heads of state from a dozen other Muslim countries also attended in support for what is being termed as the ‘Arab NATO’ (also being termed as the ‘Sunni NATO’ by some). During his speech, Trump did not take much of a leaf from a talk given by former president Barack Obama on Muslim – US relations in Cairo, Egypt, in 2009. While Obama pointed his talk towards the people of the region, on fighting extremism and preserving human rights, Trump took his speech more towards addressing the governments instead. “A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out. Drive them out of your places of worship. Drive them out of your communities. Drive them out of your holy land and drive them out of this Earth,” he said addressing the Arab leadership and visiting heads of state, which included Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, and Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh, in an emboldened and rumbustious tone. Throughout his trip, there were no mentions of the across-the-board allegations against Saudi Arabia for spreading Wahabbi terrorism and having a poor record in upholding human rights. In fact, the topic of human rights itself, as a point of contention, seems to have been shelved from the Trump administration’s vocabulary.

Attempting to make Saudi Arabia the gravitational point of the Middle East, Trump also took aim at Iran, blaming the state for sponsoring terrorism and destabilising the region. On the face of it, such overtures come off as Washington looking to increase the ever-present Shia–Sunni divide in the Middle East. Trump may have made his peace with the fact that the P5+1 and Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA), one he threatened to ‘rip up’ during campaign speeches is not going anywhere, and may now target Iran in other ways. Tehran orchestrated a stinging reply to the Saudi led show of power, which Riyadh called a ‘turning point’ in US – Saudi ties. While Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani, who recently won his second term on back of his reformist agenda (only to hear Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal compare his democratic win to Hitler’s rise), called the Saudi conclave as a ‘mere show’, Javad Zarif, Iran’s Foreign Minister, advised Trump to discuss how to avoid another 9/11 with the Saudis.

Trump’s second leg of the trip to Israel, including stops at Jerusalem to meet Prime Minister Netanyahu and Ramallah in West Bank to meet President Mahmoud, was where many analysts were hoping for concrete policy offerings by the administration on what they hope to achieve. Here, Trump became the first sitting American president to visit the Western Wall, one of Judaism’s holiest sites. The president’s Israel policy, known to be heavily influenced by his Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner and his chief strategist Steve Bannon, had to make a balance. Despite reports of Trump not wanting to visit Ramallah, he did, possibly on pressure from the State Department and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

The problems of the Trump visit are not immediate, with much of his engagements being pleasantries, military deals and a more public beckoning of a new developing anti-Iran stance at the White House. However, the fact that such pacification of the House of Saud can lead to long term and long-standing sectarian divides, political vacuums where entities such as ISIS strive, was dangerously underplayed by the Trump administration. The US, observing both Israel and Saudi Arabia converge their interests against all odds to stand against the Iran nuclear deal now may be seeing this as an opportunity to what many in Riyadh and Jerusalem believe is Tehran’s imperialist policies, using tools such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), Hezbollah and other Shiite militias in Iraq. While Riyadh is worried over an imposing Shiite influence of Iran on their doorstop in Iraq, the Israelis are worried over Iranian militias and Hezbollah’s influence on its borders with Syria. Recent skirmishes in southern Syria have seen increased US bombings directly targeting Iranian backed groups rather than ISIS or the likes of Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (erstwhile Al Nusra Front) who are known to be associated with Al Qaeda. In some instances, indirectly, the US and Iran are now militarily engaging each other under the shade of the Syrian civil war.

The above optics that I have illustrated do not even begin to chalk out the political complexities currently being played out in the region. However, any lopsided moves against Iran such as return of across-the-board sanctions, or political and military strong-arming Tehran could lead to the Ayatollah and his conservative supporters to double down on the country’s reformist narrative. Such an event could undo years of work by the US and European allies to strengthen the presidential role in the country via economic upliftment, and handing over even more powers to the likes of the IRGC for controlling the state’s political and economic narratives.

Meanwhile, for India, which maintains good ties with Riyadh, Jerusalem and Tehran, preservation of stability is critical while maintaining a global narrative against terrorism and continuation of pressure against Pakistan’s state sponsored terrorism in South Asia. The fact that Trump did not meet Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on the sidelines in Riyadh, despite being the only nuclear-armed Muslim nation, has two views of interest for India. First, that Washington could take a tough stance against Islamabad, with reports suggesting of significant funding cuts to be announced for Pakistan’s logistical help in the war against terror, but only on its borders with Afghanistan. Second, of course, that the Trump administration does not have a take on Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism against India, as the White House continues to priorities fighting its own potentially existential political battles at home. On the other hand, the Pentagon, which continues to drive the narrative of Pakistan’s critical importance to the war on terror while ignoring its support of the same against India, now has a president that is much more available to its style of working. Under the Obama administration, the US military, according to multiple accounts, had a hard time selling anti-terror military operations to the White House. This now may change, making it harder for India to deal with the US over Pakistan.

With Prime Minister Narendra Modi looking to visit Washington for his first meeting with Trump in late June, along with the usual scroll of issues, stability in the Middle East should also be a prioritised discussion. With 8 million Indians working and living in the region, $50 billion of remittances at stake and volatile countries such as Iraq now becoming India’s largest supplier of oil, New Delhi has more stakes to consider in the Middle East than visible from its current foreign policy priorities.

The death toll in the Philippines city of Marawi has exceed 100 people, including at least 27 civilians and 61 terrorists. Some 2,000 people reportedly remain trapped as ISIS-linked Maute militants mercilessly kill “betrayers” who try to flee the city.

At least 27 civilians have been killed in Marawi since Maute fighters, aligned with Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), raided the city last Tuesday.

This figure includes the latest victims – eight males, whose bodies were discovered with gunshot wounds to their heads on a roadside in the outskirts of Marawi on Sunday. According to locals, the victims were civilians who worked at a rice mill and a medical college and had attempted to flee the city.

A signed note attached to one of the men indicated that the victims had “betrayed their faith,” police officer Jamail Mangadang told the Philippine Star.

n another discovery, the bodies of four men, three women and a child were found on Saturday near a university in the city.

“These are civilians, women. These terrorists are anti-people. We found their bodies while conducting rescue operations,” regional military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Jo-ar Herrera said, according to Manila Standard.

In addition to the civilian casualties, Military spokesman Brig. Gen. Restituto Padilla said a total of 11 soldiers and four police officers have been killed since the fierce fighting erupted last Tuesday.

The military says it has killed at least 61 Maute fighters, bringing the total death toll to over 100 people.

The militants seemed significantly weakened by the ongoing military operation and are showing less resistance, but still pose grave danger to locals, Padilla said.

“We believe they’re now low on ammunition and food,” he said. “Compared to the initial days, there has been increasingly less resistance from the militants within Marawi.”

In tandem to the military onslaught, the army was also carrying out rescues operations, freeing civilians trapped in jihadist-held areas and bringing them to safety.

“We have successfully rescued and assisted 124 trapped civilian residents since the start of the operations,” Padilla said.

President Rodrigo Duterte declared martial law across the southern part of the Philippines after IS-linked militants stormed the city last Tuesday.

Most of the predominantly Muslim city’s 200,000 residents have fled since the fighting began, but an estimated 2,000 people still remain cornered in areas controlled by the militants.

“They have been sending us text messages, calling our hotline, requesting us to send rescue teams but we cannot simply go to areas which are inaccessible to us,” said Zia Alonto Adiong, spokesman for the provincial crisis management committee.

“They want to leave. They are afraid for their safety. Some are running out of food to eat. They fear they will be hit by bullets, by airstrikes,” he added.

The military intensified its air campaign on parts of Marawi over the weekend as ground troops engaged in street battles with the militants.

When we think about terrorism we most often think about the horrors of a Manchester-like attack, where a radicalized suicide bomber went into a concert hall and killed dozens of innocent civilians. It was an inexcusable act of savagery and it certainly did terrorize the population.

What is less considered are attacks that leave far more civilians dead, happen nearly daily instead of rarely, and produce a constant feeling of terror and dread. These are the civilians on the receiving end of US and allied bombs in places like Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere.

Last week alone, US and “coalition” attacks on Syria left more than 200 civilians dead and many hundreds more injured. In fact, even though US intervention in Syria was supposed to protect the population from government attacks, US-led air strikes have killed more civilians over the past month than air strikes of the Assad government. That is like a doctor killing his patient to save him.

Do we really believe we are fighting terrorism by terrorizing innocent civilians overseas? How long until we accept that “collateral damage” is just another word for “murder”?

The one so-called success of the recent G7 summit in Sicily was a general agreement to join together to “fight terrorism.” Have we not been in a “war on terrorism” for the past 16 years? What this really means is more surveillance of innocent civilians, a crackdown on free speech and the Internet, and many more bombs dropped overseas. Will doing more of what we have been doing do the trick? Hardly! After 16 years fighting terrorism, it is even worse than before we started. This can hardly be considered success.

They claim that more government surveillance will keep us safe. But the UK is already the most intrusive surveillance state in the western world. The Manchester bomber was surely on the radar screen. According to press reports, he was known to the British intelligence services, he had traveled and possibly trained in bomb-making in Libya and Syria, his family members warned the authorities that he was dangerous, and he even flew terrorist flags over his house. What more did he need to do to signal that he may be a problem? Yet somehow even in Orwellian UK, the authorities missed all the clues.

But it is even worse than that. The British government actually granted permission for its citizens of Libyan background to travel to Libya and fight alongside al-Qaeda to overthrow Gaddafi. After months of battle and indoctrination, it then welcomed these radicalized citizens back to the UK. And we are supposed to be surprised and shocked that they attack?

The real problem is that both Washington and London are more interested in regime change overseas than any blowback that might come to the rest of us back home. They just do not care about the price we pay for their foreign policy actions. No grand announcement of new resolve to “fight terrorism” can be successful unless we understand what really causes terrorism. They do not hate us because we are rich and free. They hate us because we are over there, bombing them.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.

By Frederick B. Mills and William Camacaro*

One May 20th, the 21 year old vendor from the shanty town of Petare,  Orlando José Figueras, was beaten, stabbed, doused with gasoline and set on fire by opposition militants in the middle class neighborhood of Altamira during an anti-government demonstration reportedly because they took him for a Chavista or a thief. This atrocity has sent tremors throughout the popular barrios and raised the profile of terrorism from the right in Venezuela. The horrific scene was captured on video and by professional photographer, Marco Bello, and described in testimonies of the victim and his parents. Other demonstrators at the scene reportedly urged the attackers not to kill Figueras as he pleaded for his life.  What happened to Figueras, who has lived to tell his story, is impossible to ignore, and it casts light on the hatred and savagery of some radical and extremist supporters of the opposition in Venezuela.

This hostility did not emerge overnight. An intensifying rhetoric aimed at vilifying and stigmatizing  all Chavistas, often mixed with racism and bigotry, has motivated a growing number of hate crimes and assaults as well as the destruction of symbols of Chavismo. This destruction is manifest in recent vandalizing of government buildings; the Hospital Materno Infantil Hugo Chávez (Hugo Chavez Maternity Hospital); a fleet of buses, and the humble house of a Chavista artisan in the state of Merida. There have even been a number of cases recently where Chavistas, their family members, and perceived sympathizers have been harassed by opposition supporters in the U.S., Italy, Spain, and Australia.

Since some of the anti-government violence and road blocks occur in opposition governed municipalities, in too many cases with impunity, eight mayors have been served notice by Venezuela’s Supreme Court to restore order in accord with their legal obligations. There is also growing pressure on a reluctant Attorney General, Luisa Ortega Díaz, whose allegiance to the government appears to be wavering, to vigorously investigate, and where appropriate prosecute, all of these crimes.

Despite the political polarization that has gripped Venezuela, hatred and violence does not garner broad support in this Bolivarian Republic. According to an April 2017 Hinterlaces poll, 80% of Venezuelans are “in disagreement” with the violent demonstrations and guarimbas [street disturbances] as instruments of protest. Most Venezuelans want peace and support talks between the opposition and the government.

Generalizing about either the opposition or Chavismo will inevitably distort the complex political landscape in Venezuela. The opposition to the Maduro administration includes a diversity of political orientations, from extreme right to social democrat and many of the opposition parties come under the umbrella of the United Democratic Roundtable (MUD). There are also a number of dissident groups on the left, including ones that consider themselves Chavista, but unlike the MUD, none of those groups are appealing for U.S. intervention to advance their agendas.

Most anti-government demonstrators are expressing their dissent peacefully and have legitimate concerns and demands. Many in the opposition argue that the government is undemocratic and corrupt, and that the security forces repress lawful protest. The Maduro administration argues that it is fighting corruption; that there is a U.S. backed coup underway in Venezuela; and that security forces are dealing not only with lawful demonstrations, but also with various levels of anti-government violence, including hate crimes, sabotage, barricades, destruction of property, sniper fire, and armed attacks on police and Bolivarian National Guard (GNB), some of which have been lethal. In the midst of these challenges, Chavistas are still able to mobilize sizable peaceful demonstrations, such as the ones on Venezuelan Independence Day (April 19), and on May 1, to defend national sovereignty and the Bolivarian project.

Some of those in the front lines of anti-government street disturbances are minors, equipped with expensive gas masks and helmets, shields, and at times, Molotov cocktails and homemade weapons. In some middle class municipalities governed by MUD politicians, there is growing impatience among residents for having to suffer the indignity of being ruled by masked children and youth, while oftentimes police look the other way. In such communities these one time “heroes of the resistance” have worn out their welcome. The government has described  these children as victims and delivered a report to UNICEF on May 25th documenting violations of the laws that protect children from exploitation.

Government officials in Venezuela reported the arrests of six paramilitaries from Colombia in the state of Tachira last week, who are allegedly contracted by radical right-wing opponents of the government. These claims deserve some serious investigation by an independent body rather than being derisively dismissed as unworthy of consideration. This is critically important because these ultra right-wing elements arguably aim at terrorizing the general population, exacerbating the economic crisis, and ultimately creating sufficient chaos in Venezuela so as to legitimate a so called “humanitarian” intervention by the United States. If this is the case, the Venezuelan people ought to be commended, even at this late date, for not releasing the dogs of war on a large scale. Venezuelans want peace.

Venezuela Analysis (VA) keeps track, on a daily basis, of the causes of recent deaths in Venezuela.  In a recent summary, VA reports:

“The latest killing brings the death toll in seven weeks of anti-government protests to at least 55, including eight confirmed deaths at the hands of authorities and eighteen people killed by opposition violence. The Public Prosecution has confirmed that at least 972 people have been injured in the unrest to date.

The protests have likewise seen widespread attacks on public and private property, including 115 businesses looted nationwide, reports Últimas Noticias.

In the latest incident of public property destruction, Bolivar state Governor Francisco Rangel Gomez has confirmed that 54 public-operated TransBolivar buses were set on fire early Monday morning, leaving 51 of the units totally destroyed.” (Lucas Koerner, May 22, 2017; see update)

All such violence and killings, incontestably,  ought to draw indignation. A number of police and GNB personnel have been arrested and charged with crimes by Venezuelan authorities for violations of human rights, including homicide. These abuses are widely reported as should all violations of human rights, including those caused by opposition political violence.

With regard to the MUD’s bid to enter popular barrios to recruit for their cause, The MUD is not likely to get significant traction.  Despite the severe economic crisis, which has been exacerbated by an economic war reminiscent of the tactics used to bring down Salvador Allende, Chavistas and most social movements have not jumped on the MUD train and have defended their neighborhoods from the entrance of opposition militants. The image of Figueras on fire; the assassination of the young Chavista legislator Robert Serra and his wife (October 2014); and the historic memory of the Caracazo (February 1989) are all vivid reminders of the fate that could await Chavistas under a MUD “transition”.

Hate crimes, and the terrorist violence of paramilitaries and the ultra right, as well as the presence of so many children in the ranks of opposition militants at the barricades, is not just a problem for Venezuelans; it could soon pose a political problem for Washington and its allies in the OAS, which justify their blatant interventionism in the name of human rights and democratic values. As Patricio Zamorano points out, Secretary Luis Almagro’s extreme partisanship on behalf of the Venezuelan opposition has not only (deliberately or not)  given the green light to hard liners within the opposition camp;  it has also undermined talks being promoted by Pope Francis. Almagro now has the infamous distinction in the region of severely damaging the institutional legitimacy of the OAS in order to do Washington’s bidding.

The State Department views Venezuela as an obstacle to the rehabilitation of United States hegemony in the region and it sees the OAS as an instrument for imposing its agenda. There is no mystery over this. In an unusual display of candor,  the State Department, in its Congressional Budget Justification for FY 2018, states:

“The Organization of American States (OAS) promotes U.S. political and economic interests in the Western Hemisphere by countering the influence of anti-U.S. countries such as Venezuela and by promoting free and fair elections and building international support for the peace accord in Colombia and rebuilding efforts in Haiti.“ (p. 180)

The OAS ought to take issue with such a statement and insist that the organization should be promoting the “political and economic interests” of all the member states in the spirit of new regional organizations that have worked overtime to buttress the region against an excess of U.S. manipulation.

Such manipulation and meddling is obvious in the case of Venezuela. Obama’s executive order declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States”; targeted sanctions against the government; funding for opposition organizations; as well as recent meetings between opposition leaders and U.S. officials; have provided the opposition with the confidence to stay the course for nothing less than regime change without delay.  Ironically, the MUD rejects the regional elections scheduled for December 10, 2017 for which it previously had been clamoring; repudiates the constituent assembly process; demands the release of “political prisoners”; and refuses talks with the Maduro administration mediated by Pope Francis and supported by the UN, CARICOM and other regional partners, as well as the majority of Venezuelans.

It is urgently important to condemn not only abuses by security forces, but also the selective assassinations and hate crimes against Chavistas.  The MUD leadership’s failure so far to denounce all terrorist violence and to completely repudiate the use of children at the barricades, as well as the continued reluctance of some opposition mayors to act to restore public order in their municipalities, is not consistent with a principled stand on human rights.  Although so far anti-government violence is limited to a few parts of the country, attempts at plunging this South American nation into chaos in order to justify foreign intervention ought to set off alarm bells for all progressive forces.

*Frederick B. Mills, Guest Scholar at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, and William Camacaro, Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Timur Suleimenov, Kazakhstan’s minister of economy, has been quoted by media as saying that the EEU would conclude discussions with Iran over the country’s membership to the Union by the end of 2017.

“We believe we can come up with something substantial by the end of the year . . . finished talks,” Suleimenov told the Financial Times.

“We would like to have a framework signed then,” he added.

Suleimenov became minister in December after previously working as the minister in charge of economy and financial policy at the EEU Commission in Moscow.

Reaching a deal on free trade would represent a notable victory for the nascent EEU — a single market of Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia set up in 2015 — and mark a significant strengthening of relations between Iran and the former Soviet republics, the report added.

The EEU’s prime ministers resolved in March to make talks with Tehran a priority, scenting an opportunity to expand beyond the bloc’s combined market of 183 million people.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said last August that Moscow wanted Iran to join the EEU – a move that was seen as crucial in bringing the two countries closer in their plans to form a strategic partnership.

Putin emphasized that a research had already started overt the possibility of creating a free-trade zone between Iran and the EEU.

“Iran is Russia’s longtime partner. We believe that bilateral relations will benefit from the reduction of tensions around Iran following the comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program,” Putin was quoted by the media as saying.

original source

In a small, randomized Phase I/II clinical trial (SAT1), researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine say a 100-year-old drug called suramin, originally developed to treat African sleeping sickness, was safely administered to children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), who subsequently displayed measurable, but transient, improvement in core symptoms of autism.

ASD encompasses a group of developmental disorders, often characterized by communication and language difficulties, repetitive behaviors and inability to socialize. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that ASD occurs in 1 in 68 children, with the condition 4 times more common in boys than girls. ASD has no single known cause, but may involve both genetic problems and environmental factors, such as viral infections, pollutants or complications during pregnancy. One of the aims of the SAT1 study was to test the cell danger hypothesis as a possible unifying theory that contributes to the pathogenesis of ASD.

Writing in the Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology, first author Robert K. Naviaux, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, pediatrics and pathology at UC San Diego School of Medicine and colleagues describe a novel double-blind, placebo-controlled safety study involving 10 boys, ages 5 to 14 years, all diagnosed with ASD.

Five of the 10 boys received a single, intravenous infusion of suramin, a drug originally developed in 1916 to treat trypanosomiasis (sleeping sickness) and river blindness, both caused by parasites. The other five boys received a placebo. The trial followed earlier testing in a mouse model of autism in which a single dose of suramin temporarily reversed symptoms of the neurological disorder.

The results in humans were equally notable, though the purpose of the SAT1 trial was fundamentally to test the researchers’ underlying theory about a unifying cause for autism and to assess the safety of suramin, which is not an approved treatment of ASD. In fact, there are no approved drugs to treat the core symptoms of ASD.

All five boys who received the suramin infusion displayed improvements in language and social behavior, restricted or repetitive behaviors and coping skills. Assessment of improvements was based upon observational examinations and interviews using standardized tests and questionnaires, such as the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, 2nd edition (ADOS-2), the Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Testing (EOWPWT), the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC), the Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist (ATEC), the Repetitive Behavior Questionnaire (RBQ) and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) questionnaire. To minimize misinterpretation of natural day-to-day variations in symptoms, parents were asked to mark a symptom as changed in the 6-week CGI only if the symptom lasted for at least one week.

The researchers found that ADOS-2 scores were improved in the suramin treatment group at six weeks, but not in the placebo group. Specifically, ADOS-2 scores improved by -1.6 points in the suramin group, but did not change in the placebo. Children who have a score of 6 or lower in ADOS-2 may have milder symptoms but no longer meet the formal diagnostic criteria for ASD. A score of 7 to 8 indicates the child is on the autism spectrum. Nine and above classifies the child as autistic.

Suramin treatment was also associated with improvements in the ABC, ATEC and CGI measurements, but not RBQ. The most changed behaviors, the authors said, were social communication and play, speech and language, calm and focus, repetitive behaviors and coping skills.

Participating families also reported benefits among the children who received suramin. “We saw improvements in our son after suramin that we have never seen before,” said the parent of a 14-year-old who had not spoken a complete sentence in 12 years.

“Within an hour after the infusion, he started to make more eye contact with the doctor and nurses in the room. There was a new calmness at times, but also more emotion at other times. He started to show an interest in playing hide-and-seek with his 16-year-old brother. He started practicing making new sounds around the house. He started seeking out his dad more.

“We have tried every new treatment out there for over 10 years. Nothing has come close to all the changes in language and social interaction and new interests that we saw after suramin. We saw our son advance almost three years in development in just six weeks.”

Cell Danger Response

Naviaux, who is co-director of the Mitochondrial and Metabolic Disease Center at UC San Diego, believes that ASD — and several other chronic conditions, including chronic fatigue syndrome and some autoimmune disorders — are caused by metabolic dysfunction or impaired communication between cells in the brain, gut and immune system.

Specifically, this dysfunction is caused by abnormal persistence of the cell danger response (CDR), a natural and universal cellular reaction to injury or stress. “The purpose of CDR is to help protect the cell and jump-start the healing process,” said Naviaux, by essentially causing the cell to harden its membranes, cease interaction with neighbors and withdraw within itself until the danger has passed.

“But sometimes CDR gets stuck,” Naviaux said. “This prevents completion of the natural healing cycle and can permanently alter the way the cell responds to the world. When this happens, cells behave as if they are still injured or in imminent danger, even though the original cause of the injury or threat has passed.”

At the molecular level, cellular homeostasis or equilibrium is altered, creating an abnormal cellular response that leads to chronic disease. “When this happens during early child development,” said Naviaux, “it causes autism and many other chronic childhood disorders.”

Suramin works by inhibiting the signaling function of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), a nucleotide or small molecule produced by cellular mitochondria and released from the cell as a danger signal. When CDR is activated, the effect of extracellular ATP is similar to a warning siren that never stops. Suramin inhibits the binding of ATP and similar molecules to key purinergic receptors, according to Naviaux. It silences the siren, “signaling the cellular war is over, the danger has passed and cells can return to ‘peacetime’ jobs like normal neurodevelopment, growth and healing.”

“There is evidence, gathered over the past 10 to 15 years, that children with ASD can exhibit oxidative stress, an outcome of the cell danger response,” said Pat Levitt, PhD, Simms/Mann Chair in Developmental Neurogenetics at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and W.M. Keck Provost Professor in Neurogenetics at Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California. “This can impact how well neurons and circuits function. Why this would impose problems on certain circuits that mediate specific behaviors, such as social communication, is unclear, but this is why understanding how genetic risk and environmental factors combine to increase risk for autism spectrum disorder is important.”

Levitt was not involved in the study.

Dramatic, but Temporary Benefit

“We had four non-verbal children in the study,” said Naviaux, “two 6-year-olds and two 14-year-olds. The six-year-old and the 14-year-old who received suramin said the first sentences of their lives about one week after the single suramin infusion. This did not happen in any of the children given the placebo.”

Additionally, Naviaux said, “that during the time the children were on suramin, benefit from all their usual therapies and enrichment programs increased dramatically. Once suramin removed the roadblocks to development, the benefit from speech therapy, occupational therapy, applied behavioral analysis and even from playing games with other children during recess at school skyrocketed. Suramin was synergistic with their other therapies.”

Naviaux and colleagues do not believe CDR is the cause of ASD, but rather a fundamental driver that combines with other factors, such as genetics or environmental toxins. And suramin, at this stage, is not the ultimate answer.

Unlike treatment for African sleeping sickness, which involves multiple, higher doses of suramin over a period of time and frequently results in a number of adverse side effects ranging from nausea and diarrhea to low blood pressure and kidney problems, researchers said the single, low dose of suramin used in the ASD trial produced no serious side effects beyond a passing skin rash.

But the therapeutic benefit of suramin was temporary: Improvements in the treated boys’ cognitive functions and behaviors peaked and then gradually faded after several weeks as the single dose of suramin wore off.

The primary import of the trial’s findings, said Naviaux, is that it points a way forward, that suramin should be tested in larger, more diverse cohorts of persons with ASD. (Naviaux said his research has been limited by costs; his lab is primarily supported through philanthropy.)

“This work is new and this type of clinical trial is expensive,” he said. “We did not have enough funding to do a larger study. And even with the funding we were able to raise, we had to go $500,000 in debt to complete the trial.”

Larger and longer trials would include multiple doses of suramin over longer periods of time, allowing researchers to map whether improvements continue or if uncommon side effects appear when participant numbers are greater.

If Not Suramin, Maybe Something Like It

Andrew W. Zimmerman, MD, a clinical professor of pediatrics and neurology at the UMass Memorial Medical Center who was not involved in the suramin trial but is conducting similar research, described the study results as “very encouraging for the field of autism, not only for the positive effects of suramin for the children who received the drug, but also for confirmation of the important ‘cell danger response.’

“As the authors point out, many genetic variants have been found in ASD, but few have led to specific treatments. The CDR includes a number of metabolic pathways that may be affected by a number of genetic mutations or by environmental factors that have effects epigenetically — beyond the genes themselves.”

The Food and Drug Administration has not approved suramin for any therapeutic use in the United States. It is not commercially available. Naviaux noted that new trials could prove suramin is not an effective ASD treatment. Its benefits may prove too limited over the long term, he said, or an unacceptable safety issue might arise.

But “even if suramin itself is not the best antipurinergic drug for autism, our studies have helped blaze the trail for the development of new antipurinergic drugs that might be even better,” said Naviaux. “Before our work, no one knew that purinergic signaling abnormalities were a part of autism. Now we do, and new drugs can be developed rationally and systematically.”

Levitt at USC agreed: “The suramin pilot study is too small from which to draw specific conclusions about the treatment, but there is no doubt that the pilot study reports positive outcomes for all five children who received the medication. The findings provide a strong rationale for developing a larger study that can probe functional improvements in children in greater depth.”

The potential financial cost of ASD treatment using suramin cannot yet be determined for several reasons, the study authors said. First, additional trials are required to determine the effective dosage and frequency for different types of patients. Suramin is used much differently for treating sleeping sickness, but the cost for a one month course of treatment is modest: approximately $27. Second, the age of the drug means that, if approved, it would almost certainly result in cheaper, generic formulations, but there is no way to accurately predict how that would play out at this time.

John Rodakis, founder and president of the N of One: Autism Research Foundation, which provided funding support for the study, said that despite all of the necessary caveats and need for additional research, the findings are “promising, hopeful work for a community of affected families that have been given little in the way of answers by medicine.”

By Ajit Kumar Singh*

The Security Forces (SFs) killed eight terrorists, including Hizb-ul-Mujahideen’s (HM) incumbent ‘Kashmir Commander’ Sabzar Ahmad Bhat, in two separate encounters in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) on May 27, 2017. In the first encounter, SFs killed six terrorists along the Line of Control (LoC) in the Rampur sector of Baramulla District.

In another encounter the same day, SFs eliminated Sabzar Ahmad Bhat along with another HM terrorist in the Tral Area of Pulwama District. Further, on May 28, Army shot dead a militant along the LoC in Poonch District. Earlier, on May 26, 2017, the Army foiled a Pakistan Army Border Action Team (BAT) attack along the LoC in the Uri sector of Baramulla District, killing two BAT personnel. According to reports, the BAT team had penetrated 400 metres beyond the LoC. During the course of the week, between May 20 and May 27, 2017, the SFs eliminated at least 13 terrorists in J&K.

According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), at least 60 terrorists have already been killed during the first four months and 28 days of the current year (data till May 28, 2017). During the corresponding period of the previous year, SFs had eliminated 53 terrorists. Significantly, this is the highest number of terrorists killed in this period (the first four months and 28 days of the year) since 2010, when at least 115 terrorists were killed in this interregnum.

SFs have upped the ante against the terrorists after suffering increasing losses through 2016, more so in the second half of the year, as well as in the current year. The 88 SF fatalities recorded in 2016 were the highest in this category, on year on year basis, since 2009, when 90 personnel were killed.

SFs have already lost 25 personnel in the current year, thus far. During the corresponding period of 2016, fatalities in this category stood at 15. It was way back in 2010 that the SFs had lost a higher number of personnel, 37, during the same period (the first four months and 28 days of the year).

The increased engagement between SFs and terrorists on the ground is indicative of the deteriorating situation in the State in evidence since the second half of 2016. J&K has already recorded 25 fatalities among civilians, the highest number during this period since 2008, at 26. It is pertinent, however, that despite the surge in overall fatalities, as compared to 2015, 2016 recorded the lowest number of civilian fatalities, 14, since the insurgency began in 1998. Nine of 14 civilian fatalities recorded in 2016 were in the second half of the year, as were 58 of the total 88 SF fatalities.

The killing of the HM ‘commander’ Burhan Wani in an encounter on July 8, 2016, and the subsequent orchestration of street violence – backed by Pakistan-based terrorist formations and covert Pakistani support – has had a cascading effect on the State. Flawed policies and the abject failure of the state in controlling the spiraling violence have created ample opportunities for inimical forces to broaden radical and extremist mobilization and violence. According the State Police Crime Branch data, 3,404 cases of rioting were recorded in 2016, as compared to 1,157 such cases in 2015, an increase of 194.2 per cent. As SAIR has highlighted earlier, such ‘uprisings’ have had direct Pakistani support in the past, and similar connections and connotations are in evidence in the present cycle of mobilization. Indeed, according to a release dated May 19, 2017, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has registered a preliminary inquiry into the Pakistani role, noting:

National Investigation Agency has registered a PE (Preliminary Enquiry) into the funding of Hurriyat leaders, namely Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Naeem Khan, Farooq Ahmed Dar, Gazi Javed Baba and others in J&K by Hafiz Muhammed Saeed and other Pakistan based terrorists and agencies to carry out subversive activities in Kashmir and for damaging public property, stone pelting on the security forces, burning of schools and other Government establishments. The NIA has also taken cognizance of the news item related to the recording of conversations between the reporter and leaders of the separatist groups operating in Kashmir valley, by India Today TV, on 16.05.2017 in this regard.

According to a March 29, 2017, report, some fugitive stone pelters identified as Zakir Ahmad Bhat, Farooq Ahmad Lone, Wasim Ahmed Khan, Mushtaq Veeri and Ibrahim Khan made some startling confessions – from being on the payroll of their underground masters to carry out deadly attacks on security forces, public servants and property in the troubled region – in their conversations with India Today TV’s ‘undercover’ reporters. “It’s Rs 5,000-Rs 7,000 (a month) and clothes. Sometimes shoes as well,” Bhat said in the sting tapes, when asked whether he was paid to pelt stones at SF personnel. He, however, did not disclose the identity of his financers: “We will die but won’t reveal their names. It’s the question of our bread and butter.”

Terror funding from Pakistan has also been highlighted on numerous occasions in the past. Most recently, for instance, a Government of India release stated,

The Central Government had received information about illegal transfer of funds from Pakistan to India through import of California Almonds via cross-LOC mechanisms through Trade Facilitation Centers (TFC) in Jammu and Kashmir. Keeping in view the gravity of the matter the Central Government directed the NIA to take up investigation of this case. The NIA has registered the case as RC-17/2016/NIA/DLI on 16.12.2016.

Meanwhile, according to data provided by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA), at least 88 local youth joined terrorism in 2016, mostly after the Burhan Wani killing. According to media reports, another 16 local youth have joined terrorism in the current year. Wani was the man responsible for reversing the declining trend of local recruitment in the Valley. According to UMHA data, the number of locals joining militancy had declined from 54 in 2010 to 23 in 2011 further down to 21 in 2012 and just 16 in 2013. In 2014, the number of locals joining militancy increased to 53 and reached at 66 in 2015.

Having succeeded to an extent in fuelling fire in the State with the support of its cohorts within India, Islamabad simultaneously increased its activities along the LoC and International Border (IB). According to UMHA data, there were at least 371 infiltration attempts by the terrorists trained by Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) from across the border in 2016, as against 121 such attempts through 2015, a more than threefold increase. Such attempts had declined sharply in 2015, in comparison to 2014, when there were 222. There have been 47 such attempts in 2017, thus far. The number of terrorists who were forced to return to the Pakistani side rose to 217 in 2016, as against 41 in 2015. More worryingly, there were at least 119 estimated net (successful) infiltrations recorded through 2016, as against 33 in 2015. These infiltration attempts most often occur under cover firing by Pakistan Rangers or Army personnel. UMHA data also indicates a continuing increase in the number of ceasefire violations by Pakistan, at 449 in 2016, as against 405 in 2015.

Not surprisingly, the estimated number of active terrorists in the State has increased. According to varying media reports, there are presently an estimated 500-plus active terrorists in the State – 320 locals and 180 foreigners; as against about 179 – 143 locals and 36 foreigners – prior to Wani’s killing in July 2016.

Despite the deterioration consequent upon these various factors, there are some early signs of improvement in the law and order situation in the State. According to the Month-wise details of Law & Order incidents since July 8, 2016, provided by UMHA, the number of such incidents has declined considerably.

According to partial data compiled by the SATP, the number of such incidents declined further to 22 in April 2017, though May registered a spike, at 41. Nevertheless, the situation appears to be coming under reasonable control in comparison to earlier months.

For the time being SFs have done their bit in restoring the law and order in the State, as expected, despite tremendous odds – both at the operational and at the political leadership level. Sustaining such improvement, however, lies entirely in the hands of the political class, both at the Centre and in the State. Unfortunately, there is little evidence of the necessary political sagacity needed to bring J&K out of its orchestrated turbulence and restore it on the trajectory to the greater stabilization that was visible in before the present cycle of disturbances.

*Ajit Kumar Singh
Research Fellow, Institute for Conflict Management

By Deepak Kumar Nayak*

On May 21, 2017, seven cadres of the Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC), a splinter group of the Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist), were killed in an exchange of fire between two of its own factions in the Keredari area of Hazaribagh District. Three of the slain cadres were identified as TPC ‘zonal commander’ Sagar Ganzu, ‘area commander’ Manish Mahato and ‘commander’ Jhonson. One severed head recovered from the spot is yet to be identified. The remaining three bodies were taken away by the rebels. The Police team recovered some empty cartridges, Naxal [Left-Wing Extremism (LWE)] uniforms, a blood-stained carpet and other items from the spot. Bhimsen Tuti, Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), North Chhotanagpur Division, disclosed that the group fought following a dispute on the sharing of money extorted from construction companies.

On April 17, 2017, a villager, Shiv Nath Yadav (55), and his son, Guddu Yadav (28), were killed by over 20 armed CPI-Maoist cadres at village Kulheya under Harihurganj Police Station in Palamu District. The two were suspected by CPI-Maoist cadres to be TPC supporters.

On March 24, 2017, three TPC cadres were killed in an internecine clash at Seeta Chuan under the Mohammadganj Police Station in Palamau District. One of the dead was identified as ‘zonal commander’ Ajay Yadav, carried a reward of INR 500,000 on his head. The other two were identified as ‘area commanders’ Krishna Kharwar and Ravindra Mahto. Police recovered one AK-47 rifle, one INSAS (Indian Small Arms System) assault rifle, one semi automatic rifle, one .303 rifle, along with 630 live bullets, 23 magazines, 11 cell phones, several Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), 50 meters of Codex wire, and six back packs.

According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), out of a total of 15 LWEs killed during the current year, at least 13 were killed in fratricidal incidents (data till May 28, 2017). During the corresponding period of 2016, out of a total of 14 LWEs killed, at least six deaths occurred in such incidents. Through 2016, fratricidal incidents were responsible for 18 out of a total of 40 LWE cadre deaths.

Indeed, since 2010 in Jharkhand fratricidal killings have been a major trend. Out of a total of 309 LWE fatalities, at least 133 were killed in such incidents, a staggering 43.04 per cent. More worryingly, the number of such killings witnessed a surge in 2016, even as the overall percentage also increased – accounting for 29.72 per cent in 2015, 45.0 per cent in 2016, and 86.66 per cent in 2017 (data till May 28).

These internecine clashes have also affected the overall LWE situation in the State. According to the SATP database, there were a total of 35 deaths [18 civilians, two Security Force (SF) personnel, and 15 LWEs] in LWE-violence related deaths in the current year, as compared to 33 (nine civilians, seven SF personnel, and 17 LWEs) during the corresponding period of the previous year. Overall fatalities in such violence stood at 81 (31 civilians, 10 SF personnel, and 40 LWEs) through 2016, as compared to 58 (16 civilians, five SF personnel, and 37 LWEs) in 2015, an increase of 39.65 per cent.

Significantly, civilian fatalities, which had declined considerably from 48 in 2014 to an all time low of 16 in 2015, almost doubled and at 31 in 2016. During the first four months and 26 days of the current year, the State has already recorded 18 civilian deaths in such violence. Significantly, splinter groups of the CPI-Maoist have been responsible for the larger proportion of this increase, rather than the parent formation. While all 16 civilians’ fatalities were inflicted by CPI-Maoist cadres in 2015, splinter groups were responsible for 18 of 31 civilian deaths recorded in 2016, while 13 were killed by CPI-Maoist cadres. In the current year, splinter groups have already killed five of the 18 civilian victims of such violence.

Moreover, out of 18 major incidents (each involving three or more killings) of civilian killings recorded in the State since 2010, splinter groups have been responsible for at least seven. The most prominent among those included:

September 26, 2016: Three persons were killed and four were injured when People’s Liberation Front of India (PLFI, a CPI-Maoist splinter) cadres, opened random fire at a gathering in a village in Khunti District.

March 17, 2016: At least four persons working on a road construction site were killed allegedly by PLFI cadres in a village under the Basia Police Station limits of Gumla District.

November 3, 2014: Suspected PLFI cadres gunned down seven persons, reportedly members of Shanti Sena, a local outfit formed to maintain peace and brotherhood in Gumla District.

May 16, 2011: Four persons of a family were killed by PLFI cadres at Dakeya village in Okba panchayat (village level local self government institution) under Basia Police Station in Gumla District. The PLFI cadres tied their hands and took them to Karisokra Forest where their throats were slit.

There are around 19 LWE groups operating in the State, including CPI-Maoist, PLFI, TPC, Tritiya Prastuti Committee-1 (TPC-1), a breakaway group of TPC, Jharkhand Janmukti Parishad (JJMP), Jharkhand Sangharsh Jan Mukti Morcha (JSJMM), and Jharkhand Prastuti Committee (JPC). PLFI is among the largest splinter groups of CPI-Maoist in Jharkhand. A group of dissidents claimed that the Maoists were unfair to cadres, and had parted ways to form the PLFI in 2006. Likewise, TPC was formed in 2002 after a number of CPI-Maoist cadres had walked out of their parent outfit complaining of the domination of the Yadav caste in the decision-making process of CPI-Maoist.

Among all these splinter groups PLFI is the biggest threat. Indeed, subsequent to the encounter on November 29, 2016, in which the founder and chief of PLFI, Dinesh Gope, was injured on Pangur-Bintuka road in Simdega District, Superintendent of Police (SP), Rajiv Ranjan Singh, on December 1, 2016, observed, “PLFI is one among the last LWE groups active in the region and the Tuesday (November 29, 2016) encounter comes as a huge blow to their morale here (in Simdega).”

At a time when LWE violence in the State is witnessing a surge, with the major group, CPI-Maoist, also escalating activities, the menace of splinter groups and the resultant turf-war are alarming. Meanwhile, in a major blow to the CPI-Maoist, on May 14, 2017, the group’s Jharkhand ‘regional committee secretary’, Kundan Pahan, surrendered before the Police in Ranchi District. Pahan carried a reward of INR 1.5 million on his head and was facing a total of 128 cases.

State Chief Minister Raghubar Das called for more sharing of intelligence among LWE-affected States at the meeting between the Centre and the States affected by Left-Wing Extremism in New Delhi on May 8, 2017. Detailing the challenges before Jharkhand, Das further noted that the Government had mounted pressure on the Maoists and their splinter proliferating splinters. This is an objective that must be sustained with continuous operational pressures to ensure that Jharkhand, for along among the worst LWE afflicted States, does not see a resurgence of Maoist violence and the vicious trend of extortion and criminality by proliferating splinter formations.

*Deepak Kumar Nayak
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

By Jeff Deist*

Memorial Day provides the political class countless opportunities to ruin an otherwise thoroughly enjoyable holiday weekend.  Like clockwork, local congressmen, mayors, city council members, et al. materialize at parades, picnics, and churches to give speeches about “freedom.”

But what does freedom really mean?

Just as we should repudiate Junk English in economics, we should demand precision when it comes to the language of political posturing! In other words, we should insist that politicians use defined terms (I’m not holding my breath).

In essence, freedom is the absence of state coercion. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less.

Dr. Ron Paul explains this coercive reality behind those invoking freedom while advocating state action:

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

Taking this definition a step further, Hans-Hermann Hoppe describes a free society as the absence of aggression against one’s body and property:

A society is free, if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or “homestead” previously un-owned things as private property, if everyone is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of other peoples’ property), and if everyone is free to contract with others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is un-free to the extent of such aggressions.

In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard similarly defined freedom as the “absence of invasion by another man of any man’s person or property” (italics in original).

This encapsulates the critical libertarian concept of negative liberty, as opposed to the view of positive liberty in the form of mastery over one’s person and surroundings generally favored by “progressives.”

This definition of freedom is fundamental.  It means free people should be able to use their minds, bodies, and talents to advance their well-being (whether material, intellectual, or spiritual) as they see fit.  It does not mean they can demand freedom from material want, or scarcity, or illness, or unhappiness, or unpleasantness generally.  It does not mean anyone owes them housing, medical care, food, or a “living wage.” It means, in sum, the freedom to be left alone.  And this is precisely what the political class of all stripes cannot abide.

About the author:
*Jeff Deist is president of the Mises Institute. He previously worked as chief of staff to Congressman Ron Paul, and as an attorney for private equity clients. Contact: email; twitter.

Source:
This article was published by the MISES Institute.

Around the world marine ecosystems are being stressed by a diversity of anthropogenic activity. Fisheries and aquaculture, pollution (including agricultural run-off), habitat loss and degradation, and species invasion are all putting the ecosystems in seas and oceans under pressure. Human activity is increasing rapidly and the EU-funded MERCES (Marine Ecosystem Restoration in Changing European Seas) project aims to further our understanding of the changing interaction between humans, the environment and marine species.

The Mediterranean Sea is a highly diverse marine ecosystem that hosts 7–10% of the world’s marine biodiversity. Using trend data from 1950 to 2011, the MERCES project has investigated the whole of the Mediterranean Sea and found that anthropogenic activities have played an important role in driving species dynamics. The project recently published a paper in ‘Scientific Reports’ in which they present their findings, including their observation of a reduction in abundance of important fish species amounting to a decrease of 34% of both commercial and non-commercial species and 41% of top predators. The team explains that community biomass, trophic levels, catch and diversity indicators all show that the ecosystem has been degraded over time.

MERCES evaluated the temporal responses of species abundance and ecosystem dynamics to changes in primary productivity and fisheries using the Ecopath with Ecosin (EwE) food web model approach. The team focused on eco-system based management (EBM), rather than an evaluation of single resources and threats, using models that allow for the quantitative assessment of the role of different stressors.

The study, ‘Historical changes of the Mediterranean Sea ecosystem: modelling the role and impact of primary productivity and fisheries changes over time’, quantifies temporal dynamics and then calculates a series of ecological indicators to analyse past ecosystem dynamics. Their specific goals were to: investigate the sea’s temporal evolution by developing a hind-cast scenario, to establish differences and similarities in historical ecosystem dynamics through modelling, and to analyse the structural and functional historical changes of the sea’s ecosystems using specific model-based indicators.

They describe their study as a ‘baseline reference’, which can play a role for future research in the face of increasing pressure on the Mediterranean due to the combination of climate change and human activity. Since the intensity of these stressors is increasing throughout most of the Mediterranean basin, temporal analyses are increasingly needed to inform effective current and future marine policies and management actions.

Cordis Source: Based on project information and media reports

An international team of scientists has argued that if the asteroid that likely caused the extinction of non-avian dinosaurs had hit the Earth only a minute or two earlier (or later), the extinction may never have taken place and, the dinosaurs might have survived, and us humans may never have existed.

The new theory, espoused by an international team of researchers from institutions including Imperial College, London, the University of Bremen and the University of Texas, completely flips on to its head the conventional belief that the demise of the dinosaurs was inevitable. The team outlined their argument in a documentary for the BBC, ‘The Day the Dinosaurs Died’ that was broadcast in the UK on 15 May.

So how is it possible that the ‘terrible lizards’ may have survived? Essentially, if the massive asteroid that ploughed into the shallow waters of what is now present-day Yucatan, Mexico, had instead crashed further out into the deeper Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, the impact would not have occurred in an area made up of limestone and rich in carbon dioxide, sulphur and deadly gypsum. Due to the Earth’s rotation, even a minute or two later or earlier could have made a world of difference to the dinosaurs’ fates.

“When the asteroid hits with the force of something like 10 billion Hiroshima explosions, all of that gets pumped up in the atmosphere, and it may have been really critical for the mass extinction that followed as it blocked out the sun,” saidd Sean. P. Gulick, a University of Texas professor who studies catastrophism in the geological record. “A few minutes earlier or later and the asteroid would’ve hit the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean and not slammed into a big, volatile platform that was then vaporised as it spread upward and outward.”

“This is where we get to the great irony of the story – because in the end it wasn’t the size of the asteroid, the scale of the blast, or even its global reach that made dinosaurs extinct – it was where the impact happened,” said one of the documentary’s BBC presenters, Ben Garrod.

So what would have happened if the killer asteroid had hit the deeper ocean instead of the shallows of the Yucatan peninsula? Indeed, an ocean impact would have caused a much less dense cloud and sunlight could still have reached the planet’s surface, ultimately meaning that the late-Cretaceous mass extinction of 75% of the world’s species may have been avoided.

Instead, by smashing into Yucatan, the research team argues through the documentary that the asteroid would have released a radioactive fireball that reached 18 000 degrees and scorched the Earth for 1 000 kilometres in every direction, as well as caused the largest tsunami in Earth’s history. A deadly vapour containing billions of tons of sulphates fanned out over the globe, completely blocking out all sunlight and lowering temperatures, casting the Earth in shadow. Molten material from the crater would have rained down for thousands of miles in every direction, starting fires and turning the atmosphere into an oven. With plant life being extinguished within days, the dinosaurs had no chance of survival.

To arrive at the conclusion that a deep ocean impact could have seen the dinosaurs survive the collision, the research team spent eight weeks in Yucatan, intensively drilling in the impact crater and removing samples that were then analyzed at the University of Bremen, Germany. By analyzing the 800 metres of rock collected, the team believes that they can now prove the asteroid was traveling at 65 000 kilometres per hour when it hit and unleashed its fury on the Earth.

However, the end of the dinosaurs in such catastrophic circumstances was a blessing in disguise for mammals, which had been, up until the late Cretaceous period, living in the dinosaurs’ shadows. Just half a million years after the great Cretaceous extinction, the world was dominated by mammals of all shapes and sizes, and ultimately led to the evolution of us humans.

So although it may be exciting to think about having less chickens and a few Velociraptors running around with us in the modern world (and Velociraptors were much smaller than popular culture has us believe, and so we wouldn’t have had to worry about them opening doors), from a mere human’s selfish point-of-view, it may ultimately have been a good thing that the asteroid hit the Earth exactly when and where it did on that fateful day 65 million years ago… We may never have existed otherwise…

Cordis Source: Based on media reports

The European Commission said Monday it has approved EDF’s proposed takeover of New NP, the Areva Group’s nuclear reactors business, under the EU Merger Regulation. The Commission has concluded that the transaction would not raise competition concerns.

EDF plans to acquire between 51 % and 75 % of the capital of ‘New NP’ which houses the Areva Group’s nuclear reactors business. The two companies operate in the energy sector. EDF is the largest nuclear power plant operator in the EU, while New NP focuses on the design and supply of nuclear reactors and equipment, fuel assemblies, control systems and services to nuclear power plants. Although their activities do not overlap, the two companies are major players in the nuclear industry, the one as a supplier and the other a customer.

Considering the vertical relationships between the two companies, the Commission said it has concluded that the proposed takeover is unlikely to cause competition issues. In particular, the Commission assessed the probable effects of the transaction on the ability and incentives of the merged entity to engage in foreclosure strategies by restricting access to products, equipment and services designed or supplied by New NP and to EDF, as a customer.

As regards the market for the design and construction of new reactors, the Commission has concluded that EDF and New NP would not be in a position to push out their competitors because of the different market characteristics and the number of suppliers and also the number of nuclear plants not operated by EDF.

In the case of the markets for services to existing plants and for instrumentation and control systems, the Commission’s investigation has shown that New NP has every interest in proposing high-quality products and services to as many potential customers as possible. Furthermore, in view of the various provisions governing public procurement, EDF would not be in a position to foreclose New NP’s competitors and would have every interest in continuing to source its supplies from a diversified group of suppliers in order to ensure that its plants operate competitively.

As regards the fuel assemblies market, the Commission said it considers that EDF would not have sufficient incentive to source its fuel assemblies solely from New NP. The Commission has therefore concluded that the foreclosure of competitors seems unlikely in the medium term.

Lastly, the Commission has ruled out the possibility of EDF restricting the supply of fuel assemblies and related services to other operators of nuclear power plants in the European Economic Area, which would be in breach of existing contracts.

The Commission has accordingly concluded that the proposed transaction was unlikely to raise competition concerns.

By Arthur Molt*

(EurActiv) — Little ones at the front. Big ones at the back. It works for taking photos but that logic was not folowed last week at the NATO summit in Brussels.

Former media personality and real estate mogul Donald Trump tried to make it clear he was the most important person there when he barged his way to the front of a group of his fellow leaders.

The man who took the brunt of his display of bravado was Prime Minister of Montenegro Duško Marković.

With a population of just 600,000, his country is the smallest state in the Balkans. Although it is the smallest state in the region, Montenegro is the richest, with a GDP of $6,700 per person.

Trump supporters revel in the president’s alpha-male approach to leadership. Pushing Marković out of the way could be interpreted as the top dog relegating the weaker man to the back but the simple fact is he probably did not even know who he was.

The American leader’s difficulties in dealing with European politicians are well known. Trump has in the past confused Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker with Council President Donald Tusk, according to the former.

Montenegro will join NATO on 5 June, under Marković’s leadership, but there was a decisive lack of welcome from Trump. Just a shove.

Perhaps it is unfair to criticise Trump for not knowing who Marković was, despite having access to a huge amount of information and data, when many people reading this article would have been unable to name the Montenegrin leader before he was thrust into the spotlight.

Did Trump just shove another NATO leader to be in the front of the group? pic.twitter.com/bL1r2auELd

— Steve Kopack (@SteveKopack) May 25, 2017

Duško Marković, born in 1958 in northern Montenegro, worked as a legal expert and then as a politician in his hometown of Mojkovac between 1989 and 1991.

He then filled the position of secretary-general in the government of Milo Đukanović and was in 2005 appointed by parliament to lead Montenegro’s security agency.

Marković represents the Democratic Socialist Party (DPS), a movement that has its roots in the old League of Communists of Yugoslavia.

The DPS has dominated Montenegrin politics since the first free elections were held and DPS President Đukanović served as prime minister five times, as well as holding the office of president from 1998 to 2002.

A former ally of then-Serbian President Slobodan Milošević, Đukanović turned against him in the late 1990s by pursuing a vision of an independent Montenegro and by staying neutral in the war in Kosovo.

Montenegro finally succeeded from Serbia in 2006, after it held a referendum on the issue. The country has since allied itself with Western values, by recognising the independence of Kosovo in 2008.Serbia was heavily critical of this decision and Montenegro’s ethnic Serbs protested in the streets.

The DPS’s main rivals, the Democratic Front, is also opposed to NATO and EU membership, the former of which has now been granted and the latter of which formally started in 2012. The Democratic Front wants to organise a referendum on both membership bids though.

Last year’s October elections reconfirmed the DPS as the main party but it missed out on a majority, meaning it has had to broker deals with smaller political groups.

Marković is keen to follow the course that was plotted by his predecessor and party chief. He wants to cut government spending and borrowing, as well as achieving yearly growth of between 3.4% and 4%.

Montenegro’s EU accession negotiations are quite advanced in relation to its fellow Western Balkan candidates and 26 negotiating chapters have been opened, including two on justice and fundamental rights.

Although an EU accession date has not been set, NATO membership is imminent. In December 2015, Montenegro was invited to join the Alliance and the existing 28 members were asked to ratify its membership.

The US Senate gave its approval at the end of March, with 97 voting in favour of Montenegro joining. We can only speculate as to whether Donald Trump remembers this diplomatic protocol being pushed through. It certainly was not on his mind when he shoved his ally out of the way last week.

This article was originally published in German by EURACTIV’s partner treffpunkteuropa.de.

For quite some time North Korea, threatened by the US, South Korea and Japan, has been testing new missile capabilities to equal similar capabilities of neighboring nations and the US.

On Monday, North Korea fired at least one short-range ballistic missile that landed in the sea off its east coast into Japan’s maritime economic zone. It was the latest in a fast-paced series of missile tests defying world pressure and threats of more sanctions. The missile was believed to be a Scud-class ballistic missile and flew about 450 km (280 miles), South Korean officials said. North Korea has a large stockpile of the short-range missiles, originally developed by the Soviet Union.

It was the third ballistic missile test-launch (and the 12th this year) since South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in took office on May 10 pledging to engage with the reclusive neighbor in dialogue. Moon says sanctions alone have failed to resolve the growing threat from the North’s advancing nuclear and missile program.

The test is the latest launch by Pyongyang this year as the isolated regime steps up efforts to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile that can deliver a nuclear warhead to the continental USA

North Korea, which has conducted dozens of missile tests since the beginning of 2016 in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions, says the program is necessary to counter US aggression.

North Korea last test-fired a ballistic missile on May 21 off its east coast and said it had tested a new anti-aircraft weapon supervised by leader Kim Jong-Un. The North Korean regime has hundreds of artillery cannons and rocket launchers within range of one of the most densely populated cities on earth, which is the capital of South Korea. In the program “Face the Nation”, he said in the event of war, they would bring danger to China and to Russia as well.

Modified versions of the Scud have a range of up to 1,000 km (620 miles). Monday’s launch followed two successful tests of medium- to long-range missiles in as many weeks by the North, which has been conducting such tests at an unprecedented pace in an effort to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of hitting the mainland United States.

The launch comes in fresh defiance of tough talk from US President Donald Trump, who promised last week at the G7 summit that the “big problem” of North Korea “will be solved”.

North Korea has tested Scud-type, short-range missiles many times in the past, most recently in April, according to US officials. However, experts say it may be trying to test new capabilities that may be fed into its efforts to build an ICBM. “There are many possibilities It could have been a test for a different type of engine. Or to verify the credibility of the main engine for ICBM’s first stage rocket,” said Kim Dong-yub, a military expert at Kyungnam University’s Far Eastern Studies department in Seoul.

The missile launches, and Pyongyang’s threat to stage its sixth nuclear test, have prompted calls for tougher UN sanctions and a warning from Trump that military intervention was an option under consideration. US military monitors said the short-range missile flew for six minutes, while Japan said it fell into the country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) — waters extending 200 nautical miles from its coast.

North Korea is likely showing its determination to push ahead in the face of international pressure to rein in its missile program and “to pressure the (South Korean) government to change its policy on the North”, South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff spokesman Roh Jae-cheon said. The missile reached an altitude of 120 km (75 miles), Roh said. “The assessment is there was at least one missile but we are analyzing the number of missiles,” he said.

Japan lodged a protest against the test missile, which appeared to have landed in its exclusive economic zone. Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe swiftly condemned the test and vowed concerted action along with its US ally. “We will never tolerate North Korea’s continued provocations that ignore repeated warnings by the international community,” Abe told reporters. “As agreed during the G7 summit, the North Korean problem is the international community’s top priority. In order to deter North Korea, we will take concrete action with the United States.”

South Korea’s Moon swiftly called a meeting of the National Security Council, South Korea’s Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement. Seoul’s new liberal administration has said Pyongyang’s repeated test launches were dashing hopes for peace.

The White House said President Donald Trump had been briefed about the launch. The US Pacific Command said it tracked what appeared to be a short-range ballistic missile for six minutes and assessed it did not pose a threat to North America. The USA has said it was looking at discussing with China a new UN Security Council resolution and that Beijing, North Korea’s main diplomatic ally and neighbor, realizes time was limited to rein in its weapons program through negotiations. US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, asked what a military conflict with North Korea might look like if diplomacy failed, warned it would be “probably the worst kind of fighting in most people’s lifetimes”.

China reiterated that UN Security Council resolutions had “clear rules” about North Korean missile activities and it urged Pyongyang not to contravene them. “The situation on the Korean peninsula is complex and sensitive, and we hope all relevant sides maintain calm and exercise restraint, ease the tense situation as soon as possible and put the issue back onto the correct track of peaceful dialogue,” China’s foreign ministry said in a statement.

Russia condemned the launched and also called for restraint, “including towards military activity”, from the partners it was working with, the RIA news agency quoted a deputy Russian foreign minister as saying.

Despite US President Trump’s strident warnings, Secretary of Defense James Mattis said in an interview that aired before the launch that a war with North Korea would be “catastrophic.” “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.”Mattis declined to say what kind of action from Pyongyang would constitute a “red line” for Washington, saying the administration needs “political maneuver room.”

Following North Korea’s test-firing of what analysts said was its longest-range rocket yet earlier this month, the UN Security Council vowed to push all countries to tighten sanctions against Pyongyang. But China, the North’s main trade partner and ally, has made it clear that the push for diplomatic talks — and not imposing more sanctions — is the priority. The US has said it is willing to enter into talks with North Korea — but only if it halts its missile and nuclear tests.

Meanwhile, the US will test an existing missile defense system on Tuesday to try to intercept an ICBM, officials said.

All said and done one thing is certain: there is no possibility of a missile war between North Korea and other competing powers or the USA precisely because any war would be disastrous for the war torn nations, as in the case of Afghanistan and Arab nations. The US is taking all precautions to deny any chance for North Korea to start a war and hence it is using China towards that purpose.

The intensity and frequency of unprovoked shelling across Line of Control (LoC) by Indian occupying forces targeting civilian population in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has increased under the Bharatiya Janata Party driven by extremist Hinduta ideology.

Since January 1949, India continues to blatantly refuse the mandate and functions of United Nations Military Observers Group in Indian and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) that was created to monitor ceasefire violations on both sides of LoC.

On May 25, Indian troops fired on the vehicles carrying UNMOGIP observers on Pakistani side LoC in Khanjar sector. Despite the fact that the vehicle carrying observers had the blue UN flag hoisted on it for clear identification, the firing incident shows that it was deliberate action on part of Indian troops to target the UN observers. The purposes of such deliberate firing can be none other but to stop UNMOGIP observers from collecting evidence of ceasefire violations by Indian forces.

Realpolitik in the 21st Century at a tactical level bears a profound shift where states are looking for alignment of interests, instead of alliances. Balancing China at least in military domain brought convergence of interests between India and the US. In 2005, India and the US signed a ten-year defense framework in which they committed to increasing defense trade, the transfer of technology, and counterterrorism collaboration. Barack Obama realized the waning influence of the country around the world and presented the “Pivot to Asia” strategy that was later renamed as “Rebalance to Asia” for reasserting the US leadership role around the world, especially Asia. This strategy viewed India as natural partner in South Asia. India seized the opportunity to align with the US for exploiting the ‘China threat’ to build its military muscle.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s military modernization project aims to spend $250 billion by 2025 to develop a kill factor. Such a plan will further put pressure on Pakistan to adequately enhance defense spending to counter conventional threats to its security.

In June 2016, under the Obama administration India requested the US to supply 22 General Atomics Guardian drones. These drones are primarily used for surveillance purposes, but can be armed with air-to-ground missiles as well. A major hurdle for India acquiring both armed and surveillance UAVs from the US after joining the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) on June 27, 2016 with the US support was removed. With the signing of Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA) with the US, India has renewed its push for acquiring combat Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).

For increasing pressure, the US Senate India Caucus co-chairs Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) have written letters to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis for the early approval of 22 General Atomics Guardian drones for India. India is also in a consultative process for buying 100 armed Avengers UAVs from the US. Avengers drones armed with Hellfire anti-tank missiles can strike targets eight kilometers distant. The delivery of 10 Israel manufactured Heron TP-armed drones is due this year. Dual-use Heron drones can be used both for reconnaissance and air-to-ground missiles.

The induction of advanced surveillance and combat UAVs along the LoC by India will be highly destabilizing. India has claimed to carry surgical strike in the aftermath of Uri attack, a claim vehemently denied by Pakistan due to absence of any evidence of such strike. Armed UAVs will provide India the capability to strike targets within Azad Jammu and Kashmir without risking the lives of its ground soldiers and air force pilots.

Under these circumstances, Pakistan will be forced to respond in kind and the situation will escalate due to Indian aggressive actions along the LoC. Recently Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, the head of US Defense Intelligence Agency in testimony to US Senate Armed Services Committee has shown serious concerns about India launching aggressive actions inside Pakistan on the pretext of stopping cross-border attacks.

The US, Israel or any other state supplying UAVs, especially armed UAVs, to India must play a responsible role for keeping tensions under control along the LoC. Such UAVs deliveries should only proceed after written guarantees from India that these UAVs will not be used along the LoC. The US as a world leader must consider the dangerous implications of these UAVs on peace along the LoC. The world leader must not forget that keeping India and Pakistan away from armed conflict is in the best interest of international community.

*The author works as Research Associate with Strategic Vision Institute (SVI), Islamabad, Pakistan

If you play a game by the rules and your opponent cheats, you’ll lose. If the referee is siding with your opponent in spite of his cheating, you’ll lose. Does this mean that I’m advocating that you cheat to level the playing field? No. Stop playing the game.

Unfortunately, the game in this case is Macedonia, and it’s viability as an independent state. And the West has been changing the twisted rules as they go. The key though, is that Macedonia owns this game and can choose to stop playing at any time. This is not an oversimplification of things, it’s basic common sense. If someone tells you to negotiate a name change to appease a blatant oppressor of your own people, you don’t agree. If someone tells you to change your flag to deny your ethnic identity and origin, you don’t agree. If someone puts up never-ending hoops and tells you to keep jumping through them to achieve an unachievable goal, you don’t agree.

This is something that Macedonian Human Rights Movement International has been telling each successive Macedonian government since independence in 1991, but to no avail. And look where we are today. We have told every Macedonian Prime Minister, President and government representative that the artificial name dispute is the overarching issue that is wreaking havoc in Macedonia. Stop negotiating your own name, and the name dispute goes away. Stop looking to the West to solve all of Macedonia’s problems, when it is the West that creates many of them. If the European Union and NATO tell you to change your age-old name to enter a coalition of oppressors, then don’t engage.

The West has chosen to intervene in Macedonia and enable a coalition of war-criminals and political sellouts because they are viewed as more pro-West. In other words, controllable. Ironically, VMRO, having been in power for the past 11 years, has succumbed to many Western demands to the detriment of Macedonia, but was viewed as “nationalist” because it wouldn’t change Macedonia’s name. To quote Seinfeld, quoting Superman, what kind of bizarro world do we live in? Would any other country even engage in such a discussion? Would any other country be pressured to engage in such a discussion? In the past few months, the Macedonian government decided to stand up to the West, in other words, to heed MHRMI’s advice. Too little, too late. Now, it seems, like the fate of Macedonia rests in the hands of an American-enabled 10% minority population whose public goal is the destruction of Macedonia in the name of Greater Albania. Bizarro? More like pathetic.

Macedonian politicians, you have no right to play with our country’s name and the ethnic origin of our people. Current citizens of a country do not have the right to change an age-old nationality. As MHRMI’s Our Name Is Macedonia campaign says, “Who Gave You the Right to Negotiate Our Name?”

We told you that the West is treating you exactly how you’re asking to be treated. If you do not stand up for yourself, do you think they will? Take advantage of Macedonians living abroad, who know how the West thinks, and who vehemently defend Macedonia more than any of its politicians ever have. Our Name Is Macedonia and we are Macedonian. Wake up.

*Bill Nicholov, President of Macedonian Human Rights Movement International

The Government of India (now popularly known as the Modi government) has published new rules to regulate livestock markets under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

Even before the ink on the paper describing the notification has dried, a section of Indian media, opposition political parties and some fringe groups have jumped into fray and have started accusing vehemently the Prime Minister Narendra Modi of implementing what they call as Hindutva doctrine.

These days, Hindutva doctrine is the term frequently used by several critics to paint the Modi government as not secular and as one trying to spread the cause of Hinduism. This despite the fact that Mr. Modi has been repeatedly praising other religions, and just two days back in his national radio address, Mr. Modi conveyed his greetings to Muslims on the eve of Ramzan (Ramadan). But, these statements are falling on deaf ears among the determined critics who seem to be finding loopholes to paint the Modi government in a negative way at every opportunity.

The fact is that the notification issued by the Modi government to regulate livestock market is a document on the regulation of sale of livestock bought and sold in animal markets, with prohibition on the cruelty inflicted in the transport and treatment of animals. It includes a category of cattle namely cows, buffaloes, bulls and camels. The notification just aims to regulate the market and bring a certain element of order.

Now, let us read the notification straight.

The rules prohibit the sale of animals for slaughter through the livestock markets, so that animals for slaughter could be sought directly from farms, thus ensuring traceability and food safety. Nowhere in the notification, it has been said that the animal cannot be slaughtered. However, this important aspect has been ignored by the media and the critics. Obviously, they have not cared to get the required clarification from the government before reacting with strong criticisms and adverse comments.

Let us look at the regulation from another viewpoint.

Many critics say that cow is a holy animal for Hindus and therefore, the Modi government is trying to prevent the slaughter of cows to satisfy the so called Hindutva agenda. This uncharitable criticism further goes on to say that the list includes camels also to camouflage the intention of the Modi government to prevent the slaughter of cows.

Christians consider the Bible and Cross as Holy. In the same way Muslims consider the Koran as Holy. Hindus consider Bhagawad Gita and the Cow as Holy and every religion has such sentiments and they are entitled to have it. It is the duty of every one to respect such sentiments. In the same way, Hindus expect that their sentiments for the Holy Cow should be respected by everyone else.

None of the critics of the notification of the Modi government have cared to comment on the rights of the Hindus to expect that the Holy Cow, which they hold in high respect, should be protected.

Another criticism is that the move to regulate the market will kill the livestock economy in India and affect the buffalo meat export which recorded Rs. 26,684 cr. in 2015-16. Further, the critics have argued that meat, leather and other industries would be seriously crippled. All these are exaggerated fears and statements without careful study of the implications of the regulations.

The new rules clearly aim at regulating the market. While the sale in the animal market for the slaughter have been banned, the sale from farms has not been banned. This will ensure that the beef market would be more healthy and the buyers will have greater confidence that they are not eating the beef produced from the slaughtering of sick animals.

Further, it may be pointed out that the slaughtering of cows has already been banned in few states in India and heaven has not fallen due to this.

In India, we have seen situations recently when a person was arrested for throwing down a live dog from the top of a multi-storey building and another person was arrested for feeding poison to a stray dog. These acts are called as cruelty to animals and were severely condemned in the media. But, the same media seems to think that the slaughter of cows or buffaloes or cameles is not an act of cruelty. What strange and convenient logic.

The number of deaths due to the floods and landslides has increased to 180, while 110 are missing, Sri Lanka’s Disaster Management Center said on Monday.

Flooding and landslides has affected 588,082, with about 76,902 people in 368 safety centers, the government said.

The National Building Research Organization has said that people in many provinces should move away from their homes even during a slight spell of rains due to the possible landslides. Additionally, steps have been taken to maintain the health services in the affected areas and the Public Health Inspectors have been given instructions to prevent a possible epidemic situation.

Earlier this week, the government increased the amount of money allocated for the preliminary relief measures in seven districts affected by the flood and landslide.

Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena has instructed officials to take immediate steps to provide compensation for the deaths and property damages caused by the adverse weather conditions resulting in floods and landslides.

Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said that he defends, “a Spain such as we have today.” Rajoy also added that, “the claims for independence” are “the worst thing that could happen to us all, to all the people of Catalonia and to all the people of Spain” because “this would put an end to our shared centuries of history” and “liquidate the ties of all types that unite us.”

Speaking about the so-called Transience Act (the content of which was published in the media just a few days ago), Rajoy noted that this piece of legislation seeks to liquidate the Spanish Constitution, the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, national unity and national sovereignty, as well as “remove Catalonia from Europe” “by a majority” and “in just a day.”

As regards the pro-sovereignty process, Rajoy said that this could force the people of Catalonia, who at present are Catalans, Spaniards and Europeans, to choose one of these three statuses. He also added that “they would leave Europe, whatever they may say.” On this point, Rajoy referred to Brexit and the “unfortunately bad” consequences that this will have, both for the people of Great Britain and for the rest of Europe.

Rajoy, speaking Saturday at the 33rd meeting of the Economic Forum in Sitges, pointed out that any breakaway by Catalonia “would be traumatic”, with “terrible” economic consequences. Among other things, he explained, the people of Catalonia would lose European aid and “not be able to try and host the European Medicines Agency.”

Although he expressed his interest in seeking a solution and “new formulas” for understanding, Rajoy indicated that he is being asked to do something that he neither wishes nor is able to do.

“I do not want to see a referendum held anywhere in Spain that deprives the Spanish people of their right to decide on what their own country is. Not here, or anywhere else in Spain. I neither wish to see nor do I believe that this will be possible while I am the Prime Minister.”

In this regard, Rajouy added that this referendum can only be authorized by Parliament following a reform of the Constitution “because sovereignty belongs to the Spanish people” and because, “the right to decide is a right that belongs to everyone in relation to what they want their country to be.”