The Vienna agreement among OPEC and non-OPEC oil producers will extend oil cuts by nine months. After the deal, oil price plummeted by about 5 percent. Far more is needed to subdue new economic uncertainty and market volatility.

Among the oil insiders, the decision to extend oil production cuts was seen as a done deal well before last week’s Vienna meeting. But as I have argued in the past few years, investors seek assurances of longer production cuts. That is vital in an era of huge energy overcapacity.

The Vienna outcome is critical to all energy importers. But why is it that oil producers seem to restrict their debates to shorter-term cuts, even though patient capital considers longer-term cuts warranted?

The oil glut of the 2010s

The current oil glut originates from surplus crude oil in 2014–2015. Accelerated in 2016, it was fueled by oversupply as US and Canadian shale oil production reached critical volumes, geopolitical rivalries amongst oil-producing nations, the eclipse of the “commodity super-cycle” due to the deceleration of Chinese growth, and perceived policy efforts away from fossil fuels.

As recently as 2012, the world price of oil was still above $125 per barrel, and remained relatively strong above $100 until September 2014. The sharp downward spiral ensued thereafter as oil price plunged below $30 in January 2016.

Moreover, the production of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was poised to rise further with the lifting of international sanctions against Iran, even as markets were oversupplied by 2 million barrels per day.

As the initial OPEC meetings failed to lower the ceiling of oil production, despite great overcapacity, what followed was a deep oil price meltdown. It heralded a new wave of destabilization that contributed to diminished global growth prospects.

In this status quo, the ability and willingness of the 13-member oil cartel to agree on such a ceiling, even on a temporary basis, supports stability while contributing to global growth; at least as long as its OPEC and non-OPEC participants comply fully.

Any new exemption or expanded production volume or ineffective compliance undermines OPEC’s effort to push up prices by extending cuts.

From the first cuts to the Vienna deal

Between August 2016 and February 2017, oil prices increased by 20 percent, mainly thanks to the agreement by the OPEC and other producers to cut oil production. After some weakening, oil prices stood at $50 a barrel at the end of the first quarter, soaring to almost $55 right before the Vienna talks.

Today, Riyadh needs stability to cope with domestic economic challenges, amid its war against Yemen. That’s why Saudi Arabia agreed last fall to the first output cut since 2008, accepting a “big hit” on its production, while permitting its regional rival Iran to freeze output at pre-sanctions levels.

Consensus was not automatic. In the past few months, Iran and Iraq, the second- and third-largest OPEC producer respectively, have sought exemption from further production cuts. Following talks, Iraqi Oil Minister Jabbar al-Luaibi and his Iranian counterpart Bijan Zanganeh supported the extension, along the lines of a plan agreed by Saudi Arabia and Russia, the largest OPEC and non-OPEC oil producers, respectively. A bad deal was better than no deal, in which case oil prices would plunge again, which would hurt them even more.

Russia has supported the cuts all along because, in the absence of adequate diversification, Moscow remains dependent on oil revenues. As long as the prices remain steady and on the upside, Russia’s economic growth is secured.

The extension also benefits the United States and the Americas, due to their shale and offshore oil and gas resources.

Inadequate extensions, global pressures

However, as the post-Vienna price declines evidence, the extension is inadequate. The rebalancing of supply and demand is still seen at least some 18 months away, after the buildup of stocks over the past three years.

Even before the Vienna meeting, skeptics thought that oil prices may not exceed $60 in 2017-18 because oil markets are under secular transformation, bargaining power has shifted from advanced economies to emerging nations, and new alternatives (shale, renewable) are capturing more space. Sluggish demand will ensure that further cuts will be needed as prices will remain subdued.

New pressures will ensue. When dollar goes up, oil tends to come down. Oil is denominated in US dollar, which is intertwined with the Fed’s policy rate. As the Fed will continue to hike interest rates that could contribute to further turbulence, particularly in those emerging and developing economies that are amid energy-intensive economic development.

In the short-term, the Vienna extension of production cuts is necessary but not sufficient for a sustained global recovery. Despite abundant inventories and sluggish demand, seasonal demand is likely to rise in the summer in the Middle East, which may make compliance challenging. Stronger US production is likely to delay rebalancing.

Moreover, there are several potential geopolitical storms – the Riyadh-Washington military cooperation but dissension about oil market’s future, the continued need for exemptions by Iran and Iraq and some other major producers, the new normal of oil demand in large emerging economies, the economic implications of President Trump’s pro-Israel policies in the Middle East and so on – that could undermine the ability or the willingness of OPEC and non-OPEC to sustain consensus about production cuts.

Even in the most benign two-year scenario, increasing divisions about production cuts are likely to keep prices relatively subdued for a protracted period. Far more is needed for peaceful, stable and sustained global prospects.

A year ago, in May 2016, Britain’s House of Lords decided to establish a new International Relations Committee.  On 2 May 2017, after six months deliberation, the committee issued its second report: “The Middle East: Time for New Realism”.   It is, quite frankly, an astonishing document, imbued with unconcealed hostility towards, and distrust of, US President Donald Trump, with the anti-Brexit rhetoric of much of the British establishment, and with downright naïve recommendations, reflecting the consensus of the politically correct, concerning Saudi Arabia, the Iran nuclear deal, and Palestinian sovereignty.

Roughly reflecting the composition of the House of Lords itself, the 12-member International Relations Committee contains only four Conservatives.  The rest are left-wing, liberal or unaffiliated peers. An amalgam of their prejudices informs every aspect of this new report.

Anti-Trumpism prevails.  “The mercurial and unpredictable nature of policy-making by President Trump,” it asserts uncompromisingly, “has made it challenging for the UK government to influence US foreign policy so far, a challenge that is not likely to ease.”  Based on this assertion, the committee chairman, Lord Howell of Guildford, said:

“We have a new and uncertain American policy in the region…We can no longer assume America will set the tone for the West’s relationship with the Middle East, and the UK must give serious thought to how our own approach will need to change.”

The serious thought undertaken by the International Relations Committee boils down, inter alia, to:

• discounting any pro-Brexit optimism that UK citizens may harbor about negotiating

a UK-Gulf trade deal: “the UK’s departure from the European Union does not necessarily offer the UK any added advantage”;

• urging the UK government to “work with Iran, despite US policy, to ensure the stability of the Iran nuclear deal”; and
• placing the onus of finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute unequivocally on Israel. Accordingly, their logic runs, “the Government should now give serious consideration to recognising Palestine as a state, as the best way to show its determined attachment to achieving the two-state solution.”

Illogicality permeates the Committee’s stance on Iran.  It turns a Nelsonian blind eye to the clear evidence provided to it by a Middle East expert, who spelled out Iran’s unconcealed religious and political ambition to undermine Sunni Arab states and dominate the region.  It takes no account of Iran’s record as the world’s leading sponsor of terror, its long history of initiating, promoting and supporting terrorism across the globe aimed at the Western democratic world, and in particular the US and Israel. Nor does it project any likely scenario involving a nuclear-armed Iran in some fifteen years’ time, when nuclear weaponry would become available not only to Iran, but via Iran to the jihadist-minded terrorist organizations it supports..

On the contrary, the committee’s concern is that Iran might feel frustrated if it is barred from Western markets. It worries that the nuclear deal could be imperilled by “a hostile US administration”, and that US sanctions “remain a serious impediment to attracting new finance and investment into Iran.”  As regards what might be done to contain a rampant Iran, the committee throws its hands in the air, but can’t avoid a dig at the US at the same time.  “The international community is limited in its capacity to respond to Iranian provocation in the region, but the approach by the US has a dangerous escalatory logic.”

So, wishing for the moon, the Committee suggests that the “external parties” to the Iran nuclear agreement should “find a way” to form a united and proportionate international position on Iranian actions.  When one considers that these “external parties” include not only the US but also Russia and China, the committee’s recommendation becomes so much wishful thinking – a replica of the UN Security Council hamstrung by the veto.

Reinforcing its policy of weak appeasement, the Committee concludes that the external parties “will also have to recognise that Iran has legitimate security interests and needs to be recognised as having a role as a regional power.”

Regarding the Israel-Palestine issue, the witnesses selected to be heard by the committee were, without exception, out of sympathy with Israel.  The committee heard no evidence of any sort critical of past or present Palestinian policies.  It did not probe the Palestinian failure during the numerous peace initiatives of the past decades to come to an accord with Israel. It heard nothing of the possible effect of leaving a new sovereign Palestine on the West Bank unprotected against Hamas, nor of the associated security concerns of Israel in that event.  In fact the Committee entirely ignores the presence of Hamas in the Gaza strip, ruling some 2 million Palestinians as it does.

The Committee seems focused on the idea that Israel, in the words of one of its witnesses, “holds all the cards” and that “more political robustness” is needed by the UK.  So, roundly condemning past and present settlement construction as “illegal and an impediment to peace”, the Committee asserts that “the balance of power in the delivery of peace lies with Israel. If Israel continues to reduce the possibilities of a two-state solution, the UK should be ready to support UNSC resolutions condemning those actions in no uncertain terms.”

Moreover the Committee urges the UK government to associate itself with the French-led initiative aimed at obtaining international recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state if no face-to-face talks can be organized.  This initiative surely carries within it the seeds of its own failure.  If Palestinian leaders know in advance that they will gain international recognition provided there are no negotiations, why on earth should they agree to negotiate?  Even given the partial and skewed evidence the committee received, it is difficult to perceive how it can believe that recognizing the Palestinian Authority as a state could advance an Israeli-Palestinian agreement.   All the major issues that have frustrated past attempts will remain unresolved – the refugee problem, the status of Jerusalem in general and the holy places in particular, Israel’s security, the future of Gaza, the eternal Hamas-Fatah feud.

This report is shallow, biased and inadequate.  Take it back, my Lords, and try again!

Although the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) itself is falling apart as vividly demonstrated in the disastrous recent NATO summit where US President Donald Trump scolded other NATO members for a security free ride, this has not stopped the idea of replicating in the Persian Gulf by setting up an “Arab NATO.” Spearheaded by Saudi Arabia and emboldened by the willingness of (non-Arab) Pakistan to extend a lending hand, this initiative is, by all indications, yet another exercise in impractical wishful thinking that will most likely remain on paper for the foreseeable future.

One reason is, of course, the complete lack of unity in the Arab world put on display these days by the war of words between Saudi Arabia and Qatar over the latter’s supposed closeness to Iran, not to mention a plethora of other divisive issues that simply preclude the formation of an Arab NATO. Even the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are in disagreement among themselves over this idea, which has been rebuffed by Kuwait explicitly, and therefore it is likely that this whole concept will be buried soon rather taking shape as a new military and political reality.

Another reason operating against an “Arab NATO’ is that it is entertained along the Sunni-Shiite fault line, thus creating internal fissures in the badly-divided Arab World that is plagued with extreme sectarianism. Countries such as Iraq, led by the Shiite majority today, would have no place in this idea, which has been shaped as a counterweight to Shiite Iran.

A third reason against the “Arab NATO” initiative is that any idea of NATO, Arab or not, invites hostility from both China and Russia, who dread the thought of NATO’s expansion one way or another. Thus, an unworkable idea is apt to add to the GCC states’ political headaches rather than help resolve them.

Fourth, the Americans seem to have come to the conclusion that despite their toying with it before Trump’s recent visit to the region it is not an altogether creative idea and that is why Trump’s big speech in Riyadh made no mention of it. An Arab NATO would, inevitably, give a prominent role to Egypt, given its considerable clout, and that too is premature in light of serious divisions between Cairo and Riyadh. Egypt is naturally interested in playing a greater role in the Persian Gulf security affairs but that is not viewed with favor by the small GCC states. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are at odds over Syria and this too is a major factor against an “Arab NATO.”

In conclusion, the mirage of an Arab NATO might linger for a while and leave a rainbow of political colors on the deserts of Arabia, but it is simply destined to the dustbin of history.

Spain’s Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy received the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, at the Moncloa Palace. Having welcomed him and after thanking him for making his visit to Spain, Rajoy announced the signing of a document to serve as a guide to develop “relations at a political, security, economic, scientific and technology level”.

In his speech, Rajoy praised the Indian Prime Minister for the “broad raft of economic reforms” he is pushing through in his country to ensure “good governance” and “a more developed and knowledge-based economy”.

Rajoy underlined the importance of India for Spain, as shown by the fact that it is our third largest trading partner in Asia. He also highlighted that “bilateral relations are on the rise and increasingly better”, and thus hopes that the visit by the Indian Prime Minister to Spain will serve to boost this collaboration even further.

Rajoy also announced the signing of a document to serve as a guide “to develop relations at a political, security, economic, scientific and technology level”. He also reported that, during the bilateral meetings to be held on Wednesday, other issues on the international agenda will be addressed as well as purely bilateral issues.

Prime Minister Modi, as well as thanking Mariano Rajoy for his “warm welcome”, expressed his interest in tackling issues with the Prime Minister Spain relating to the global and European situations and international terrorism.

On another note, Nasendra Modi claimed that the economic progress in India, “a huge country”, offers many opportunities and, to that end, invited Spanish companies to take part in the renewal and modernisation of infrastructures, sectors in which Spain is “highly competent at a global level”.

The new NGO law in Egypt is bound to put additional burden on NGOs’ activities and restrict the space of debate and discussion in the country, said the spokesperson for the European External Action Service in a statement, adding that the new law risks making civil society’s contribution to political, economic and social development more difficult.

“Some provisions, such as the ones related to the registration process, the activities NGOs are allowed to perform and the procedure for receiving domestic and foreign funding, are also likely to directly affect European cooperation assistance to Egypt,” noted the European External Action Service, adding “Indeed, a large part of our cooperation relies on non-governmental organisations as important implementing partners.

According to the European External Action Service, a flourishing civil society, able to work in good conditions, is important for democratic and economic development and to help build political stability.

“We therefore expect the Egyptian government to fully implement and uphold all the guarantees stipulated in the Egyptian Constitution and in international law and standards regarding freedom of expression and association, and the Egyptian authorities to apply the new law in a way that does not intimidate, restrict or criminalize peaceful human rights civil society organizations and their members,” the European External Action Service said

“Egypt is an important partner for the EU, and we stay committed to strengthening our bilateral cooperation and pursuing a constructive dialogue in all fields of our cooperation,” the statement concluded.

By Sinisa Jakov Marusic

Macedonia’s new government was elected Wednesday night with the support of 62 MPs in the 120-seat parliament. Its establishment is expected to put an end to the prolonged political crisis in the country. The previous government, led by the right-wing VMRO-DPMNE party stood accused of allegations of wiretapping and corruption.

“I will be a prime minister [working] for everyone. I announce a responsible, reformist, European government!” the new prime minister, Zaev, said in his announcement to MPs.

Zaev said his government would be based on civic principles and focus on three key goals: Boosting the economy, enabling justice and the rule of law, and integrating the country into the EU and NATO. He also pledged to have zero tolerance for corruption.

Among other things, the new prime minister announced the formation of a special court wing that would solely focus on processing high-level corruption cases instigated by the Special Prosecution, and thorough reforms in the judiciary in order to remove party influence.

“I want no revenge and revanchism, but everyone will be held responsible acourding to their deeds”, Zaev said.

The bulk of the new cabinet comprises 17 ministers proposed by the alliance led by the Social Democrats, SDSM. The largest Albanian party, the Democratic Union for Integration, DUI, which controls ten seats, has appointed six and the Alliance for Albanians, which has three MPs, has appointed two.

Besa [Oath], the second-largest ethnic Albanian party, decided not to join the new government and not to vote for it despite initially supporting the new majority. However, Besa said it may support some of its policies.

VMRO-DPMNE has been in power since 2006 and over the past two-and-a-half years has been entangled in several corruption allegations. The party has accused the new government of striving to nullify previous positive achievements and reforms and for threatening to politically persecute the VMRO-DPMNE leadership.

“We carried out many reforms… It is simply funny when someone now acts as if everything starts with them and as they invented reforms”, said VMRO-DPMNE leader Nikola Gruevski.

VMRO-DPMNE insisted that they were the true winners during the December 11 elections, by winning the most votes from the ethnic Macedonian population, and that their victory was stolen by “post-electoral engineering” which saw their former Albanian allies, the DUI, shifting sides and supporting Zaev.

Macedonia had been without a new government since the early general elections on December 11 failed to resolve the political crisis.

The polls ended in near-tie results between SDSM, which won 49 MPs, and VMRO-DPMNE, which won 51, after which VMRO-DPMNE was not able to renew its government alliance. It then blocked a peaceful transfer of power.

Zaev finally obtained the presidential mandate to form the new government on May 17. This happened after a dramatic violent episode in parliament on April 27. The United States and the EU also exerted pressure on VMRO-DPMNE and on Macedonian President Gjorge Ivanov to remove any blockades.

If it hopes to live up to its promises, the new government faces the daunting task of rebuilding institutions, financial consolidation and curbing corruption, observers say.

The EU must adopt policies for the development, deployment and use of artificial intelligence (AI) in Europe in such a way as to ensure it works for, rather than against, society and social well-being, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) said in an own-initiative opinion on the societal impact of AI, identifying 11 areas that need to be addressed.

“We need a human-in-command approach to AI, where machines remain machines and people retain control over these machines at all times,” said rapporteur Catelijne Muller (NL – Workers’ Group).

She did not refer to technical control alone. “Humans can and should also be in command of if, when and how AI is used in our daily lives – what tasks we transfer to AI, how transparent it is, if it is to be an ethical player. After all, it is up to us to decide if we want certain jobs to be performed, care to be given or medical decisions to be made by AI, and if we want to accept AI that may jeopardise our safety, privacy or autonomy,” Muller argued.

AI has experienced exponential growth in recent times. The AI market amounts to around USD 664 million and is expected to grow to USD 38.8 billion by 2025. It is virtually undisputed that AI can have significant benefits for society: applications can be used to make farming more sustainable and production processes more environmentally friendly, improve the safety of transport, work and the financial system, provide better medical treatment and in countless other ways. Indeed, it could even potentially help eradicate disease and poverty.

But the benefits associated with AI can only be achieved if the challenges surrounding it are also addressed. The EESC has identified 11 areas where AI raises societal concerns, ranging from ethics, safety, transparency, privacy and standards to labour, education, access, laws and regulations, governance, democracy, but also warfare and superintelligence.

These challenges cannot be left to the business community alone: governments, the social partners, scientists and businesses should all be involved. The EESC believes it is time for the EU to set standards, taking pole-position globally in this area.

“We need pan-European norms and standards for AI, much as we now have for food and household appliances. We need a pan-European ethical code to ensure that AI systems remain compatible with the principles of human dignity, integrity, freedom and cultural and gender diversity, as well as with fundamental human rights,” stressed Catelijne Muller, “and we need labour strategies to retain or create jobs and ensure that workers keep autonomy and pleasure in their work”.

Indeed, the question of AI’s impact on work is central to the debate around AI in Europe, where unemployment rates are still high following the crisis. Although forecasts as to the scale of job losses resulting from the deployment of AI over the next 20 years range from a conservative 5% to a catastrophic 100% leading to a jobless society, the rapporteur believes it more likely that, as a recent McKinsey report anticipates, elements or parts of jobs, rather than entire jobs, will be swept away by AI. This is where education, lifelong learning and re-training must come into play to ensure workers are supported through the transformation and are not the victims of it.

The EESC opinion also calls for a European AI infrastructure with open-source learning environments that respect privacy, real-life test environments and high-quality data sets for developing and training AI systems. AI has mainly been developed by the “Big 5” (Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Google and Microsoft). Although these companies are supportive of the open development of AI and some of them make their AI development platforms available open-source, this does not guarantee full accessibility. An EU AI infrastructure, possibly with a European AI certification or label, could help promote the development of responsible, sustainable AI, but could also give the EU a competitive advantage.

By James Crisp

(EurActiv) — The European Union and China will this Friday exact their revenge on US President Donald Trump after he decided to pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

The EU-China joint summit will see the unveiling of the first ever joint climate and clean energy statement backed by leaders.

The unprecedented announcement, exclusively obtained by EURACTIV.com, drips with veiled condemnation of the climate-sceptic Trump.

It is the result of eight months of secret talks and three rounds of ministerial-level negotiations, led for the EU by Climate Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete. It has been backed by the EU member states.

The meetings began in November last year, the very month that Trump was elected.

The statement was planned to heap pressure on the US to stay in the deal, which cuts emissions and caps global temperatures, but will now act as a rebuke to Trump.

Beijing and Brussels will make “the highest political commitment” to the Paris Agreement and “call on all parties to uphold it” in an alliance that will isolate the US.

The EU and China will promise to work together on global strategies for climate, including cooperating on legislation and regulation.

They will vow to increase the ambition of the landmark deal in a stern riposte to Trump’s efforts to weaken it. “[We] are determined to forge ahead with further policies and measures,” the statement will say.

Climate change and the shift to clean energy is “an imperative more important now than ever”, and a threat to national security and a contributing factor to instability and the displacement of people, according to the document.

The statement yokes together climate change and free trade – two of Trump’s biggest bugbears – in what is, despite the diplomatic language, a clear criticism of his policies.

It calls for more free trade to allow the full development of the low greenhouse gas emission economy.

That a major concession from the EU, which has anti-dumping measures on Chinese solar panels.

Friday’s announcement will be a powerful show of strength. A signal that that the Paris Agreement will continue, with or without the US, and possibly without the money it promised to developing nations for climate action.

It will see China and the EU claim the mantle of global climate leaders and garner the two partners much geopolitical capital. The US will lose face as well as green investment and jobs.

Under Barack Obama, the US and China ratified the agreement together. The commitment by the world’s two largest polluters sparked a wave of support from among the 195 countries signed up to the deal.

Trump kept his international allies guessing over his plans for the Paris Agreement at the recent G7 meeting of wealthy nations.

We have reported how his climate negotiators, in the absence of any instruction over the last 130 days of his presidency, were continuing to use Obama’s guidelines in talks.

White House officials today briefed US news outlets that there may be caveats in the US withdrawal.

But the decision to pull out of Paris, if confirmed by an official announcement from Trump, is already being rightly condemned as a breathtaking act of irresponsible, global vandalism.

The Roundup

Trump set the internet alight twice today, when the Paris rumours broke and earlier, when he cryptically tweeted the word ‘covfefe’. Linguists scrambled to decipher it but maybe it was just a smokescreen to distract us from the real news.

TTIP might be back from the grave, after US trade chief Wilbur Ross said he is “open” to unfreezing talks. The Western Balkans are China’s preferred trade access point to the EU but Brussels fears rules will be broken.

EU anti-fraud office OLAF has 47 cases open against EU staff, most of which work for the Parliament. Details include fraudulent use of pay for MEP assistants, non-existent ‘ghost’ offices and brown envelopes full of bribes being exchanged in public parks.

The Commission presented its long-awaited reflection paper on the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union.

Austria’s Socialists could be about to break a three-decade-long self-imposed ban on forming coalitions with the far-right. Italy’s central bank warned that leaving the eurozone would not solve the country’s economic woes. Spanish PM Mariano Rajoy will have to appear in court to testify in a corruption case.

Greece’s finance minister insists Europe has a moral obligation to grant debt relief. Germany has proposed cutting cohesion funding for member states that do not meet EU rule of law standards.

The EU institutions sat down today to start hashing out the bloc’s food waste policy for the next 14 years. A leading toxicologist has denounced the poor quality of the Commission’s glyphosate research. Czech bars and restaurants went smoke-free last night under strict new legislation.

A new poll shows the UK Conservatives will be 16 seats short of an overall majority in next week’s general election. Theresa May insisted she won’t appear tonight in an election debate because she is concentrating on the Brexit negotiations. Which don’t start until mid-June.

If you walk past the Manneken Pis tomorrow morning, expect a surprise. The symbol of Brussels will be relieving himself of milk rather than water, as an NGO looks to highlight its importance in fighting poverty in Africa.

Sam Morgan contributed to this Brief.

By Dr. Kazem Yavari*

According to the literature of game theory, a game generally consists of three elements: 1. set of players, 2. set of strategies for each player and 3. Set of payoffs. Set of payoffs simply tells us how much each player obtains or lose from a chosen profile of strategies. Game theory can be applied to many economic, social and political situations in the real world. Modelling a political situation within a game is mainly an art and indeed it is very difficult to put all characteristics of players’ behavior into a simple game. Nevertheless, to analyze a political situation in the real world, we need to focus on important aspects of the situation.

There are various games, each with a different structure. To me, the ongoing arms racing in the Middle East region and in particular between Iran and Saudi Arabia is more or less consistent with the structure of the so-called “catching a precious deer” game. Before analyzing this arms racing, it is informative to have a brief look at this game and its payoffs structure. In this game, two individuals try to catch a precious deer together and have agreed to share equally the benefit. Each individual knows that the deer is caught only if both cooperate together. Without cooperation, the deer will simply scape and nobody benefit. However, while the two individuals are getting closer and closer to the deer, they see goats are moving around. So, there is always a fear that one or both of them simply become negligent and get distracted by the goat. Therefore, in this simple game, each individual has two strategies: Watch carefully for the deer (D) or look for goat (G).

According to the literature of game theory, this simple game has two equilibria. By equilibrium, I mean a profile of strategies such that nobody has incentive to deviate from his strategy given his opponent’s strategy. Having this definition in mind, we see that one superior equilibrium is that both individuals watch carefully to catch the deer (D, D). Given that one player chooses “D”, the best strategy for the other player is “D” as well since Deer is better than Goat. The second equilibrium is an inferior equilibrium and this is when both individuals get distracted and follow the goat (G, G). Again, given that one chooses “G”, the best for the other one is “G” as well since Goat is better than nothing.

However, the profiles in which that one individual watches carefully for the deer and the other one looks for the goat [(W, C) or (C, W)] cannot be equilibria of this game since given that one chooses strategy “G”, it not optimal for the other one to choose strategy “D”. Unless there is a mutual cooperation between both individuals, there is no internal guarantee within the structure of the above game that ensures the superior equilibrium will be reached. Individuals may end up with (G, G) profile.

In the real world, a number of political situations can be modeled within the above “Catching a precious deer” game. The so-called nuclear arms racing among the world’s big powers and particularly between US and Russia is an example. There is no doubt that the world will be much safer if both US and Russia disarm themselves. No bomb – No bomb (NB, NB) is the superior equilibrium for the whole world. However, Bomb-Bomb (B, B) is also an equilibrium even though it is inferior and has much lower payoffs or even totally a loss for the entire world. The other profiles, (NB, B) and (B, NB) are not equilibrium. It is not optimal for Russia to disarm itself if US keeps nuclear bomb and vice versa. A similar situation is between India and Pakistan. Global warming is another situation. The world is much safer if everybody cuts greenhouse gases. But, since US refrain from doing that, China, Brazil, India and other big economies are reluctant to cut. So, the world end up with everybody maximizing industrial production, creating a disaster for the entire world.

To me, the ongoing arms racing between Iran and Saudi Arabia can be modelled by a game which has more or less the structure of “catching a precious deer” game. These two countries must understand that they are not involved in a zero-sum game in which one country has to win eventually and the other has to lose. Without going into details of all behavioral characteristics, it seems that Iran and Saudi Arabia are intentionally or unintentionally being pushed into this “catching a precious deer” game.

Apparently, each country can follow one of the two strategies: 1. Further accumulation of arms and arms racing and 2. Significant Push for Economic Growth and Development. Putting into economics tradition, each country must decide whether to have more guns (G) or more butter (B). Eventually, one of the following equilibrium profile of strategies will be chosen: (Guns, Guns) or (Butter, Butter). (Guns, Guns) is an inferior equilibrium and (Butter, Butter) is a superior equilibrium. Indeed, the profile strategies in which Saudi Arabia accumulate more arms and Iran not or vice versa, (Guns, Butter) and (Butter, Guns), will not be equilibrium profiles.

Given that Saudi Arabia will choose to buy more arms and increase its military expenditures, it is not optimal for Iran to be indifferent and pursue its economic development without increasing its defense and military expenditures. Also given that Iran is producing and to some extent importing variety of arms, Saudis will not find it optimal to stop arms racing with Iran. One might argue that Saudi Arabia is importing arms while Iran is mainly producing arms and so the situation is not symmetric.

However, we need to say that it does not matter whether to import arms or produce them domestically as long as resources are being taken away from production of butter toward production of more guns. Scarcity is the core of economics and every dollar a country spend on guns, that dollar is no longer available for the production of butter.

Now the question is that if both (Guns, Guns) and (Butter, Butter) are equilibrium, which one will be more likely to happen in reality. In other words, will Saudi Arabia and Iran keeps accumulating arms in future, being trapped in inferior equilibrium or they may be able to find a way toward a superior equilibrium. To answer this question, we have to look for the various factors that affect the likelihood of each case.

There are a number factors that apparently support the fact that the inferior equilibrium (Guns, Guns) will be likely to be the outcome of the game. These factors are as follows:

1. Economics tells us that production of a good will eventually stop unless it is constantly being consumed by someone. Oranges and apples are consumed daily by individuals and their production will never stop. Guns are consumed only in wars and arms racing. Given the fact that US economy very much depends, among other things, on its capabilities to produce a variety of guns, wars and arms racing around the world are the best for US economy in general and US arms producing companies in particular. Once the twin towers collapsed in 9/11, share prices of all US companies fell sharply in the world stock markets, except share prices of companies producing guns. If the produced arms by US and the other big military powers are not consumed within a decade or so, their arms producing companies get into real problems, creating unemployment. Therefore, these external factors directly and indirectly push for arms racing around the world, particularly in regions in which wealthy countries exist to buy arms. Middle East is the best market for arms racing and the rich Persian Gulf countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are prominent among others. The recent US multibillion arms deal with Saudi Arabia is the best evidence. Therefore, existence of such external forces and the benefits they obtain from arms racing push both Iran and Saudi Arabia into the inferior equilibrium (Guns, Guns), lowering the chance or likelihood of reaching the superior equilibrium (Butter, Butter).

2. The role of oil in fueling arms racing in the region cannot be ignored. As a result of US military presence in the region and the resulting crises, oil prices sharply increased during the first term of Ahmadinejad. This oil price rise brought an unprecedented oil windfall for the oil exporting countries in the region. In our case, it is said that Ahmadinejad government had more 700 billion dollars in oil revenue. The figure for Saudi Arabia has been much higher. Other countries in the region benefited proportionately from this hike in oil price. What matters for the US government is the total wealth accumulated in the hands of these governments. Now, the US sees that wealth, while its economy is suffering from economic crisis in 2008 and afterward. The only way to recapture that money is through arms racing and destruction of countries in the region. In game theory terminology, the best way for US to recapture that money is through pushing players in the region into a burning inferior equilibrium which is arms racing.

3. Ethnic, Religion and language differences between Iran and Saudi Arabia as well as their historical low trust make the superior equilibrium less likely to be reached. Although manifestation of these differences had faded away to some extent in some periods, particularly at the time of deceased president Rafsanjani and President Khatami, they flourished again during the President Ahmadinejad, lowering economic and political cooperation between the two countries and the likelihood of superior equilibrium.

4. Acts of pressure groups and hardliners in both countries have been always in favor of inferior equilibrium. In Saudi Arabia, Wahhabis’ pressure on Iranians during Haj Time and presence of more anti-Shiite groups within the government get feedbacks inside Iran. In Iran, attack on Saudi Embassy in Tehran, created many problems for Iranian foreign ministry and the immediate Saudis feedback was to cut all diplomatic relations. Although these wounds on both sides may get healed over time, they lower the chance of economic and political cooperation for the purpose of development of both countries.

5. The unresolved situations in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq and involvement of Iran and Saudi Arabia in these countries in one way or the other, created an unprecedented distance between the two countries. Indeed, one of the main reason for Saudis to boost their military expenditures and arms importation from US is their military involvement in Yemen and to some extent indirectly in Syria and Iraq. The real problem is the huge differences in their preferences which distance them to a maximum extent from each other, giving support to the increasing chance of inferior equilibrium for the two countries.

However, we should not be totally pessimistic about future cooperation between Iran and Saudi Arabia. We hope that the two countries reach a superior equilibrium in a foreseeable future, helping the entire Muslim World to enjoy the fruits of economic development and prosperity. Some of the factors that might help the two countries to reach the superior equilibrium are as follow:

1. Re-election of Dr. Hassan Rouhani might change the trajectory of Iran’s movement in the region as it did so in the world arena when he could reach a historic nuclear agreement with 5+1 more than a year ago. His repeated campaign promise that Iran wants to create a bridge to the world economy and cooperate with almost all countries on economic and political grounds, indicate that Iranian government is serious on the issue of cooperation.

2. Haj and Omrah are two important ceremonies that may help Iran and Saudi Arabia not to lose their hope totally in reaching a superior equilibrium in future. Keeping these ceremonies is vital for both of them.

3. In addition to its ambition for arms racing, Saudi Arabia desires to unite its neighbors against Iran. Fortunately, the recent reluctance from Qatari government created a doubt on Saudis ability to isolate Iran. If further differences are created and we observe more gaps among the Arab countries in this regard, the benefit of the inferior equilibrium of arms racing for Saudi Arabia will decline over time.

4. On the Iran side, a solid bridge with the west lowers the benefits of arms racing. Gradual removal of sanctions and increasing foreign investment in Iran makes Saudi Arabia more isolated and they may start thinking about cooperation rather than racing with Iran.

5. The last but not the least is a unilateral signal and movement from either side of the game. Although this is very difficult and each one is not willing at the moment to do so, ignition of a friendly act is like creating a small hole in dark room, searching for light. That light may eventually guide both countries toward a magnificent platform. This is what the entire Muslim world expect from these two important countries in the region.

In summary, in addition to a superior equilibrium, the game of “catching a precious deer” has unfortunately an inferior equilibrium in which both players lose or earn nothing in the long term. Cooperation is much safer and better than arms racing. Iran and Saudi Arabia must firstly understand that they are not playing a zero-sum game, but a positive-sum game. Both can get maximum benefits if they wisely can find a way toward the illuminating superior equilibrium and start distancing gradually themselves from the destructing inferior equilibrium by which they earn very little and the Trump’s government gets a bonanza.

* Dr. Kazem Yavari
Associate Professor of Economics
Tarbiat Modares University

**These views represent those of the author and are not necessarily Iran Review’s viewpoints.

Backed by scientific data and evidences,Sea-level Rise (SLR) is no longer an issue of make-belief. Almost all states now agree to the emerging threats to security from climate change, especially risks from sea level rise to global peace and security.

By Major General ANM Muniruzzaman*

Sea-Level Rise (SLR) is a climate-induced and human-driven phenomenon. Growing population, increasing demand for natural resources, and rapid urbanisation are the major factors pushing sea level rise to a risky extreme.

Thermal expansion of water due to global warming remains one of the two main causes of SLR while the other is massive melting of ice sheets and glaciers. Scientists predict that even though the sea level is estimated to rise 11 inches to 38 inches by 2100, a major breakup of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets can easily raise it up to 23 feet, creating a doomsday scenario.

Potential Losers

Low-lying regions around the world will suffer the most. For example, Bangladesh will lose a significant part of its territory. In the extreme case, island states like Maldives and Papua New Guinea will disappear. Among all the regions East Asia, Middle East, and North Africa exhibit the greatest relative impacts.

Coastal areas will be severely affected. The most alarming news is that eight of the 10 mega cities and many financial centres (i.e. New York, London, and Mumbai) in the world are situated in the coastal areas which may be partially or completely lost due to SLR. This could cause global trade and the international financial system to face significant shocks. Supply chain management will also be adversely affected due to rising water level in port cities like Rotterdam and Shanghai.

Many small island developing states will face existential threat due to the rise in sea-level. Loss of wetland will result in a massive territorial shrink. Even before being submerged, the viability of these states will already be threatened as often sea-level rise makes islands uninhabitable long in advance.

Security Implications

Disputes over maritime boundary are very likely to take place as baselines and shorelines will move from its present longitudes and latitudes. With even the slightest change in lines, the current regime of maritime boundaries based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) will be obliterated. Confusion over coastlines and borderlines will also create disagreement over EEZs and territorial seas and access to ocean resources. These might make inter-state relations tardier and peace more difficult.

Expansion of sea areas in previously habitat areas will displace hundreds of millions of people around the globe. Since 40%-45% of global population lives by the coast, the human loss and displacement is going to be enormous. Intra and inter-state migration will occur on a massive scale which will eventually create an unhealthy distribution of population.

Lack of resources can further cause tension between host communities and the migrants which in extreme cases can even lead to the collapse of states. Regions already facing socio-economic tensions are likely to suffer more due to migration.

Along with the loss of habitat, livelihoods will suffer too. Production of different sorts of crops will be halted and their quality can deteriorate due to salinised water. Hundreds of species of fishes will be lost due to higher ocean temperature, altered depth of water and associated changes in chemistry of water. Similarly, many aquatic animal species will also be lost as the change in sea level will affect their metabolism, functionality, ecosystem, growth rate etc.

Food, Water and Energy Security

Food security will be hampered to a great extent as we are losing agricultural land to rising sea-level. Quality of the remaining agricultural land will also worsen with saline water intrusion. Salt water contamination will make irrigation difficult. Expected production of crops will go down drastically.

A huge amount of rice production is predicted to be lost due to delta areas such as those of the Mekong and Red River being submerged. This food insecurity among people will gradually build up to unstable security situation within and beyond the state.

Water security will similarly be threatened due to hyper-salinisation of water. Ice-melted water will submerge the coastal areas. Different sources of water will be contaminated by salt water. Sweet water will be contaminated by the infusion of salt water. In absence of drinkable water, excessive pumping of ground water might insert unwanted chemicals like Arsenic which are often very detrimental to human health.

Energy infrastructures are highly vulnerable to the sea-level rise. Nuclear reactors need uninterrupted water supply for cooling down the system which is why they are built near coastlines. Increased water level will flood the nuclear power plants which will affect the functionality of the reactors.

The Fukushima power plant is a prime example, which in 2011’s Tsunami was washed away in water and was cut down from electricity supply which eventually prevented its regular function, causing radiation to leak into water and air.

Politico-economic Impact

Destruction of coastal infrastructures will occur due to SLR. Port facilities, rail and road links, transmission facilities etc will be heavily impacted. Capacity of coastal cities and states will decline severely as providing basic services to the population will become more difficult. Lack of services often aggravates the fragility of states.

Higher sea levels have the potential to flood terrestrial habitat. Greater tidal intrusion will change the salinity regime of coastal freshwater. Due to increased depth of the sea, marine life will be exposed to various threats like lack of sunlight, wave energy, and oxygen, which will adversely impact the marine ecosystem and will become an existential threat. Alteration in chemistry of soil caused by saltwater will also reduce the coastal plant life.

Economic impact on tourism sector due to SLR will be devastating. Caribbean nations alone will see 149 multi-million dollar resorts lost to rising sea level. Available high-end beach properties will skyrocket. Huge disparity over the supply and demand of properties will resurface allowing only a small portion of population access to shelter.

All these effects could easily add up to civil unrest and warfare. Multidimensional insecurity of people can make them vulnerable and prone to crimes and violence. Price hikes in the Middle East caused by a draught in Russia had sparked riots in Tunisia, which eventually led to events of the Arab Spring.

Conflicts among nuclear armed states will make the situation worse as seen in the case of India-Pakistan over the Indus water treaty. Weak governance, a common feature among the climate change-affected countries, will aggravate the internal anarchy.

Possible Action Lines

Reversing the process of sea-level rise is not achievable, as we have come very far along the dangerous road of SLR. Some of the impacts of rising water level are inevitable. Hence, rather than focusing on reversing the process, the practical and attainable course of actions will be to mitigate it with the objective of preventing further aggravation.

Through making and implementing effective policies, we can slow down the rise of sea level, if not completely stop it. To check the multidimensional security implications, states and international organisations should come together to map an action plan. Effective implementation of this action plan is crucial, if we want to reduce the deadly impact of sea-level rise.

*Major General ANM Muniruzzaman (Retd) was recently a Visiting Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is the President and CEO of Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies (BIPSS) and Chairman of the Global Military Advisory Council on Climate Change (GMACCC). This commentary is based on his briefings on Sea-level Rise (SLR) at the United Nations Security Council in New York.

A leading Filipino prelate said “demonic” acts by gunmen claiming to be Islamic militants in the southern Philippine region of Mindanao are dividing Muslims and Christians.

Cardinal Orlando Quevedo of Cotabato said the relationship between Christians, Muslims, and tribal people in the region is being destroyed by an ideology “that asserts the morality of killing in the name of God.”

“This violence of terrorism is creating great fear and anxiety in Mindanao,” said the prelate, adding that it is “a demonic ideology,” which is being condemned by true believers of Islam.

The cardinal lamented that the “specter of terrorism, hatred, hostility, prejudices and biases … the specter of darkness is stalking our beloved land.”

He said some political leaders in the region have been “aggravating poverty and underdevelopment” through greed and corruption coupled with the proliferation of illegal drugs.

“Thousands of poor people are being trodden underfoot and forgotten,” amid ongoing clashes between security forces and gunmen in the city of Marawi.

Fighters of the local terror Maute group tried to occupy the city on May 23, burning a Catholic cathedral, a Protestant school, and the city’s jail.

The vicar general of the Prelature of Marawi, Father Teresitio Suganob, and several parishioners and residents remain hostages.

The government said the death toll in the week-long fighting had reached 104, including 65 militant fighters and 20 soldiers and policemen. At least 19 civilians were also reported killed.

Ahok’s defeat in the Jakarta gubernatorial election and his conviction for blasphemy have reignited debates about the role of Islam in a secular state. Misconceptions about the relationship between the two need to be addressed.

By Nursheila Muez*

When President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) called for religion and politics to be separated ahead of the Jakarta gubernatorial run-off election in April, he was met with scepticism from conservative Muslim voices. They took the statement to mean that the president was advocating the liberal and Western values of secularism.

Amid the resurgence of religion, specifically the rise of increasingly vocal voices of the religious-right as Indonesia struggles to fight the tide of conservatism, a reassessment of religion’s role in the public space is necessary. As a key theme which underpinned the election it is imperative to clarify the relationship between religion and state.

Misconceptions About Secularism

The common negative perception of secularism stems from conflating politics and state as well as misequating secularism with Westernisation. There are three implications:

Firstly, by conflating politics and state, Muslims who reject the idea take separation of religion from politics to mean the relegation of Islam to the private sphere and its total exclusion from the public domain. However Jokowi’s call to divorce religion from politics was in no way an attempt to undermine Islam in Indonesian society. Rather, he was warning against the politicisation of religion which would divide society.

The impact of sustained use of the religion in politics was evident in how easily Basuki Tjahaja Purnama’s opponent, Anies Baswedan, outperformed him in the election despite Basuki (Ahok) having a strong lead in the earlier round. Continuous slogans to defend the Quran and Islam, and messages emblazoned on banners in mosques that Muslims found to have supported Ahok would not be granted funeral rights are salient examples of how politicisation of religion is always divisive.

Secondly, the view that secularism as a Western idea is incompatible with Islam overlooks the nuances and unique contexts in which the social process of secularisation occurs. While it might have drawn its roots from the West, secularism as a political concept has manifested itself in diverse and multiple forms according to particular historical experiences of a country.

For Indonesia, which has had a history of positive experiences with democracy and pluralism, a secular state that is neutral towards all religious and non-religious communities is the most prudent form of governance to safeguard the country’s social fabric. Secular and strong state institutions are also instrumental in meting out justice and upholding citizens’ trust towards the government.

Beyond Ahok’s defeat, his being sentenced for blasphemy is a bigger disappointment for secular-minded Indonesians. The verdict also stokes fears that religion is gradually encroaching into the legislative and judicial arms of the state. Human rights activists and lawyers have posed concerns that this verdict – arguably arrived at under the influence of religious rhetoric as well – sets an unwelcome precedent that religion could and would be used by some people to suppress others, especially minority groups.

At this juncture, it is worthwhile noting that there is no place for blasphemy laws in a secular state with secular institutions like Indonesia. However, there is still a place and a strong case for religion in the public space. The question is: what form of religion should operate in the public space? And how can religion contribute to the common space?

Contextualised Islam in a Secular State

In a recent interview with Indonesian TV series Mata Najwa, prolific Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) leader, Mustofa Bisri or more affectionately known as Gus Mus, and Quranic exegesis expert Quraish Shihab, attributed the rise of a hardline understanding of Islam and intolerant attitudes in Indonesian society to the presence of religious leaders who claim a monopoly on truth.

When putting forth the need for Muslims to ‘return to the Quran’ for moral guidance and practical solutions to modern problems, they in fact preach for a return to one particular translation of the Quran which they subscribe to and are familiar with – a reality that many Muslims fail to realise. While the Quran’s message is complete, perfect and eternal, Muslims’ access to it is not.

Especially for non-Arabic speaking Muslims, reliance on translations and commentaries by scholars is inevitable in order to unpack and comprehend what the Quran says. Meanwhile, scholars and commentators, in the process of interpreting the text, undeniably bring to bear the contexts in which they are living in and that have shaped their thoughts.

‘Going back to the sources’ does not simply refer to lifting a Quranic verse or a hadith and transplanting it to socio-political issues in the world today. Instead, ‘going back to the sources’ refer to a constant re-examination and re-learning of the text to glean meaning and discover its relevance in current context.

Understanding and appreciating the text beyond a literal and formalistic reading, the two scholars agreed, is a crucial step in dealing with the tide of conservatism and intolerant behaviour.

In other words, a contextualised form of religion – one that is not foreign or alien to the norms and values of a particular society – would be best able to contribute to expanding the common space. This is because it considers the important role of culture in shaping religious thought and practices, as well as promotes tolerance and respect for diverse views.

Youth Engagement in Public Space

What was also evident in the Jakarta election was the ability of fringe voices to mobilise masses in support of their cause. Most interestingly, yet also most worrisome, were reports in the Indonesian media which noted that youth as young as fifteen years old participated in the FPI-led rallies because they wanted to contribute to “defending the religion”.

As such, renewal of the religious education curriculum would be central in tackling extreme thoughts and behaviours among the youth. In fact, this was one of the long-term policies outlined by the youth wing of NU, Gerakan Pemuda Ansor (GP Ansor), in its attempt to tackle intolerance and extremism. In a bold move, GP Ansor recently issued its Declaration on Humanitarian Islam, which also included strategies such as practising ijtihad to contextualise Islamic teachings to the contemporary setting, strengthening grassroots movements to build consensus and political will among society.

The youth, as a segment of the community that is tech-savvy, educated and aware about the workings of the modern political system as well as religion, play an important role in contributing to the ways that religion can expand and contribute to the common space. Their diverse and creative voices would be beneficial in populating public discourse with positive examples and resources from within the religion itself.

Religion would continue to have a space in public sphere in a secular state, insofar as it is able to constructively contribute to improving tolerance and understanding in society. For this to happen, religion has to be strictly separated from politics lest it is manipulated and abused for political ends.

*Nursheila Muez is a Research Analyst with the Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies Programme (SRP), at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Say you’re Vladimir Putin, and you did a deal with Trump last year. I’m not suggesting there was any such deal, mind you. But if you are Putin and you did do a deal, what did Trump agree to do?

1. Repudiate NATO. NATO is the biggest thorn in your side – the alliance that both humiliates you and stymies your ambitions in the Baltics and elsewhere. Trump almost delivered on this last week by pointedly not reaffirming Article 5, which states that an attack on one NATO ally is an attack on all.

2. Antagonize Europe, especially Angela Merkel. She’s the strongest leader in the West other than Trump, and you’d love to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Germany. Your larger goal is for Europe to no longer depend on the United States, so you can increase Russia’s influence in Europe. Trump has almost delivered one on this, too. Now Merkel even says Europe can no longer depend on America.

3. Reject the Paris accord on the environment. This will anger America’s other allies around the world and produce a wave of anti-Americanism – all to your advantage. Nothing would satisfy you more than isolating the United States. Seems like Trump is about to deliver on this one, too.

4. Embarks on a new era of protectionism. Or at least anti-trade rhetoric. This will threaten the West’s economic interdependence, and loosen America’s economic grip on the rest of the world. Trump is on the way to delivering on this one.

5. End the economic sanctions on Russia imposed after the annexation of Crimea and Russian backing of separatists in eastern Ukraine. No delivery on this as yet, but you understand why. Trump has got to cope with all the suspicion in the U.S. over the deal he made with you to win him the presidency. Once that dies down, he’ll end the sanctions.

And what did you agree to do, Vlad? Not only help him win the presidency, but also shut up about it so he wouldn’t be impeached and then convicted of treason.

In other words – if you did do a deal – Trump is still in the process of delivering on his side of it, as are you. That’s the art of the deal.

Good governance considers principles of science along with timeless basic needs and the desire to belong.

By Louis René Beres*

As the Jesuit philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin notes in The Phenomenon of Man, “The existence of `system’ in the world is at once obvious to every observer of nature” and ”Each element of the cosmos is positively woven from all the others….”

Above all, the world remains a system of closely interrelated and intersecting parts.

It follows that the grievously evident shortcomings of US society and foreign policy exert substantial impact upon world politics. Reciprocally, this impact “feeds back” to institutions in the United States, creating a constantly-changing source of persistent global transformations.  This dynamic cycle of impact and counter-impact continues, perhaps more pronounced, in the openly “anti-system” and anti-globalism era of the Trump administration. Humans stubbornly cling to tribal behaviors while expecting the rest of the world to follow suit. Most plainly, the ironic consequence of individual states expanding unilateral military power is often an actual diminution or reduction of such power. In modern political philosophy, the relevant analytic problem is sometimes referred to as an example of the “tragedy of the commons.”

To respond usefully, three core lessons come to mind.

Lesson 1: Science is not always arcane or diffuse, and, in fact, generality is a conspicuous trait of all serious meaning. What matters most for science and reason are not tantalizing particulars or eccentricities of various nation-states and personalities, but rather the indispensably systematic identification of recurring policy issues. In the end, therefore, all purposeful national policies and global improvements must center on the determinedly continuous discovery of regularities.

In global politics, it’s only by classifying an otherwise amorphous mass of disjointed individual cases that our leaders can ever hope to unearth illuminating and predictive data. Only by deliberately seeking general explanations can we expect to suitably tackle world problems. To begin, the conceptual focus of any such search must be at the level of individual human psychology – more precisely, this requires far greater understanding of our utterly primal human inclination to find comfort within “tribes.”

Lesson 2: The desperate human need to belong at all costs is a principal cause of species-wide suffering. In our perpetually fractionated universe, where becoming an individual is blocked by demeaning entertainments and ritual formalizations of anti-reason, “non-members” including refugees, “infidels,” “apostates,” and others are conveniently designated as extraneous, subordinate or inferior. This potentially fatal designation, one whose logical end point is inevitably some form of “tribal” extermination or conversion, was recognized not only by philosophers Søren Kierkegaard, Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche, but also Max Stirner whose original The Ego and its Own was the intellectual starting point for Ayn Rand.

From the start, our ancestors’ global affairs have been driven by “tribal” conflict. Without a clear and persisting sense of an outsider or enemy, of a suitably despised “other,” whole societies might have felt insufferably lost. Drawing their necessary self-worth from membership in their state, faith or race – what Friedrich Nietzsche had called “herd” and Sigmund Freud called the “horde” – such dehumanized humans could not have hoped to satisfy even the most elementary requirements of global order and system-wide coexistence. Yet, despite detailed histories and advanced technologies, global politics in the 21st century continue to mirror the most corrosive stigmata of our primal human failings.

As much as we still like to cast ourselves as a “higher” species, the veneer of human society remains razor thin. Although largely inured to almost every shade of civilizational horror, we still witness routinized accounts of child soldier atrocities, rampant slavery, proliferating terrorism, human trafficking, rape camps, nuclear proliferation and genocide. Somehow, although impressively conversant with abundantly sanitizing statistics, entire nations still manage to glance smugly over freshly eviscerated corpses and declare without shame, “Life is good.”  In this lethal inclination, Trump-era America is no exception.

For the jihadists, terrorism and war are only superficially about politics, diplomacy or ideology. In reality, they represented an aptly celebrated “marriage” of violence and the sacred. In this fashion, seductive whisperings of the irrational can offer potential aspirants a seemingly prudent path, a temptingly consecrated road to personal belonging and life everlasting.

Hope still exists, but it must sing softly, sotto voce, in a cultivated undertone. Although seemingly counterintuitive, in order to fix the world, we must pay closer attention to our intensely personal human feelings of empathy, anxiety, restlessness and desperation. Correspondingly, there can be no satisfactions from any atavistic celebrations of insularity, belligerent xenophobia or “America First.”

While private feelings may remain unacknowledged as hidden elements of a wider and safer world politics, they are also starkly determinative for all global relations. Instead of retrograde affirmations of crudely zero-sum orientations to world affairs, we must understand that the “whole” of world civilization cannot be greater than the sum of its individual human “parts.” This is, in fact, precisely what was meant by Swiss psychologist Jung’s “molecular” description of human civilization as “the sum total of individual souls seeking redemption.”

Flagrantly, the concept of “soul” is unscientific. Still, crucial issues of the world often rest beyond easily manipulated boundaries of verifiable assessment. To wit, even before Jung, Freud placed unashamed emphasis on the centrality of “soul,” seele, in German, treating it as a helpful metaphor for human essence. He even applied the special referential richness of “soul” to the United States, a country he had regarded with deep pessimism, if not outright loathing. “America is gigantic,” he remarked to fellow psychoanalyst Ernest Jones, “but it is a gigantic mistake.” Americans, of course, are apt to be offended by such a harsh observation, but what specifically troubled Freud was this nation’s overriding commitment to crass materialism and technology. What Freud prescribed instead for human societies was a “spontaneous sympathy” of one’s own unconscious with that of all others.

In the 1970s, I led a contingent of Catholic students from Spanish Harlem in the Puerto Rican Day Parade; I did so for several years. It was a fun event. What made it so great were the wonderful people who marched, as well as those who cheered along the parade route. That is why it is a disgrace this year to see the parade so thoroughly politicized, taken over by extremists.

The June 11 parade will honor a convicted felon, a thug who worked with terrorists, Oscar Lopez Rivera; he is being touted as National Freedom Hero. The most prominent persons supporting him are New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and New York City Council Speaker Melissa-Mark Viverito, both Marxist millionaires.

Lopez Rivera was a co-founder of the FALN, a terrorist organization that seeks independence for Puerto Rico, a goal summarily rejected by the Puerto Rican people for decades. He was once in command of the Chicago group, arming the terrorists with dynamite, detonators, and guns. He was also trained in making bombs. Convicted of transportation of firearms with the intent to kill, as well as the transportation of explosives, he was sentenced in 1981 to 55 years in prison (another 15 were tacked on after he tried to escape from Leavenworth). President Obama commuted his sentence before leaving office (though he was not set free until two weeks ago).

Mayor de Blasio is either ignorant, or lying, when he contends that Lopez Rivera has renounced violence. He never has. In 1999, when President Clinton offered to reduce his sentence, providing he renounce the use of violence, he refused. He said, “The whole thing of contrition, atonement, I have a problem with that.”

When Lopez Rivera was released in January, he again refused to apologize for what the FALN did: it was involved in more than 100 bombings, killing at least six people and wounding at least 130 others. New York City was hit hard in 1975 when four were killed and scores were injured at Fraunces Tavern.

The FALN’s stated goal is to lead “an armed and political struggle in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist principle” and to implement “the Stalinist ideological position….” This is what defines Lopez Rivera.

Many leaders in the Puerto Rican community have withdrawn from marching in the parade, but not Mayor de Blasio. This is a man who lied to his own children about where he and his wife honeymooned: he told them they went to Canada when, in fact, they went—illegally—to Castro’s Cuba. Prior to that he raised money for the communists in Nicaragua. His seven-figure net worth makes him a Marxist millionaire.

The other Marxist millionaire, Mark-Viverito, is even more hard core than de Blasio. Three years ago, she was described by a Puerto Rican New York state senator as a person who “has never honored the American flag at any event.” Moreover, he added, she knows nothing about the working class, availing herself of “free cars, free chauffeurs, free offices, a big salary, huge stipends,” etc.

On May 17, Mark-Viverito traveled to Puerto Rico to celebrate the release of Lopez Rivera. She immediately secured for him the honorary position in the parade, an effort made possible by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman: the wealthy radical made sure that left-wing extremists took control of the event.

Mark-Viverito hates capitalism but loves the bounty it affords her. In 1998, she signed documents on behalf of her family confirming a $186 million sale of a hospital in Puerto Rico: her father had a stake in it, which redounded to her benefit. She wound up splitting $6.7 million with her relatives from the capitalist venture.

The Marxist millionaire is not only filthy rich, she is dishonest. In 2014, she was in the news for failing to report $92,600 in rental income from her East Harlem townhouse. She also managed to qualify for a city program designed to help the poor buy homes, paying no interest on a $70,400 mortgage for her home. That same year it was disclosed that she owned four properties in Puerto Rico: two rental condos, a home worth $500,000, and 7 acres of land worth $250,000.

The Marxist millionaire could teach the Wall Street crowd a thing or two about capitalist investments, yet she pretends to be a member of the proletariat. To wit: She was arrested in 2011 for her illegal activities involved in Occupy Wall Street. “I was more than happy to participate in this action,” she said.

Both de Blasio and Mark-Viverito stuck it to Irish Catholics for years by refusing to march in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. As they are wont to do, they lied: They said homosexuals were barred from marching in the parade, knowing full well that gays marched for decades in the parade (homosexuals were not allowed to march under their own banner, anymore than pro-life Catholics were).

It is obvious that the mayor and the city council speaker are more at home honoring a man who hates America and champions the terrorist cause than they are in associating with patriotic Irish Catholics. The Puerto Rican people deserve better. They have been morally fleeced by these Marxist millionaires, two of the most dishonest and ideologically corrupt persons ever to hold public office in New York City.

Some of the world’s worst leaders from Hungary, to Russia to Iran have joined forces in echoing anti-Semitic tropes bashing American-Jewish financier, George Soros.  In their assault, they’ve been aided by some imprecise reporting by the NY Times correspondent in Iran.

In early May, before the recent presidential election won by Hassan Rouhani, Thomas Erdbrink reported that Ayatollah Khamenei had attacked George Soros by name as a “rich Zionist” purportedly known for toppling regimes through his support for democratic movements in places like Georgia and Iran itself (in the 2009 election).  Thomas Erdbrink reported:

In accounts of the speech reported by the Tasnim News Agency and other Iranian news outlets, including Ayatollah Khamenei’s own website, he also accused George Soros, the multibillionaire Hungarian-American investor, of having tried to influence the elections of 2009…

…“An evil American and rich Zionist said that he managed to turn everything upside down in Georgia with $10 million,” Ayatollah Khamenei said, referring to Mr. Soros and his alleged role in the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia.

“In 2009, he was foolish enough to try to affect the Islamic republic, but he slammed against a strong wall of national will and determination,” Ayatollah Khamenei said. “It is the same today.”

NYT man in Iran doesn’t “claim”. @ThomasErdbrink reports facts. As he did in this case. pic.twitter.com/aJXG6juqzl

— Bahman Kalbasi (@BahmanKalbasi) May 30, 2017

Before I get to the obvious lies and distortions of the Iranian leader’s comments, it’s important to clarify the journalistic sloppiness in this passage.  When I visited the Tasnim site to which Erdbrink linked there was no reference at all to Soros in its coverage of the speech.  Then I attempted to find the original Farsi speech.  When I asked him for a link to it, Erdbrink gave me a link to the Ayatollah’s site but not the speech itself.  But since I don’t speak Farsi, that didn’t help much.

When I tweeted requesting a link to the speech itself, BBC Persia’s Bahman Kalbasi offered a screenshot of the passage in question and affirmed Erdbrink’s account of it.  But I still wanted a more precise analysis.  I asked Prof. Muhammad Sahimi, a native Farsi speaker, to review it and he noted that Khamenei never mentioned Soros by name in the speech.  However, the Supreme Leader did offer enough hints that it was clear to a well-informed listener he was referring to Soros.

But given the Times history of falsifying statements by Iranian leaders, (I wrote this post on the subject as well) you’d think Erdbrink would be more careful in offering accounts of this speech.  Especially given how his account was abused shortly thereafter (more on this below).  There is a distinct difference between attacking Soros by name and by inference.  Both would be offensive.  But one is clearly different, and more severe than the other.

Khamenei’s Attack on Soros

Khamenei, like all demagogues, needs bogeymen to provoke fear in his subjects and unify them against imagined enemies.  Hitler did this and used Jews as Germany’s national demons.  So it’s no surprise that Khamenei pursued a similar approach.  Though in his description of Soros as a “rich Zionist” Khamenei doesn’t refer explicitly to the billionaire’s Jewish identity, the implicit connection is clear.  Dictators around the world, taking their lead from Israeli leaders themselves, refuse to distinguish between Zionists and Jews.  It’s no surprise Khamenei does the same.

Khamenei displays a host of other ignorant views in this passage as well.  To call Soros a “Zionist” mischaracterizes his views.  While he once gave $750,000 to J Street just after its founding, he’s given very little to explicitly Zionist groups or causes.  The Democratic National Committee e-mail leaks revealed that Soros’ has actually given far more largely to Israeli Palestinian causes like Adalah ($2-million), I’lam ($1-million), Mada al-Carmel, Kayan-Feminist Organization, Mossawa Center, Molad, The Galilee Society, Al-Tufula Center, Ma’an, Injaz, Sidreh, Lakiya, Baladna, Arab Association for Human Rights, National Committee of Heads of Arab Local Authorities in Israel and PILI Foundation.  A significant portion of the funds were donated via the New Israel Fund.  While it does support Israel as a Zionist state, it is reviled by the Israeli nationalist-right for its support of Palestinian causes.

Other media sources report that Soros’s Open Society also funds Breaking the Silence, an Israeli NGO which documents IDF abuses and potential war crimes against Palestinians living under Occupation.  In fact, the pro-Israel media has reviled Soros for his long record of giving to such causes.  They in effect, call him a “rich pro-Palestinian” traitor to his race.

So at the very least, Khamenei is guilty of not understanding the nuance of Israeli-Palestinian politics and the role Soros plays as a funder in that context.  Likewise, characterizing Soros as an ‘evil American’ is ridiculous.  Soros supports the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.  He is one of its major funders.  The financier supported Barack Obama and the folks who negotiated and supported the P5+1 nuclear deal.  Though the deal was far from perfect, it did permit the easing of sanctions and the return of Iran to the international oil market.

In fact, those in the GOP who seek regime change in Iran revile Soros.  So unless Khamenei doesn’t even trust those American politicians seeking a reset in relations with Iran, he should see Soros as a lifeline, rather than an enemy. It could be however, that Khamenei is such a hardliner that he rejects even this attempt to reconcile with Iran.

The Iranian rejectionist claims that Soros financially supported reformists in the disputed 2009 election is absurd.  Moderates like Moussavi and Kouroubi, in their campaign against Ahmadinejad, understood that outside funding would destroy their credibility.  There was never any credible evidence that George Soros or any outside entity offered financial support to what was then called the Green Revolution.  But as I wrote above, these false smear tactics are exceedingly convenient tools for dictators the world over.

So it’s no surprise that another autocrat read Erdbrink’s account and saw a way to reap political capital.  Viktor Orban, one of Europe’s reigning intolerant nationalists saw Soros’ name and immediately began salivating like Pavlov’s dog.

George Soros was born a Hungarian Jew before the Holocaust.  His father saved his life by sending him to live with a non-Jewish friend.  This relationship enabled Soros to survive the war.  After Communism fell in eastern Europe, Soros hoped to pay back him native country and also lay the groundwork for a nascent civil society movement in former Communist states like Russia and Hungary.  Thus he founded the Open Society movement.  He also launched the Open University in Hungary.  He even funded scholarships for young scholars to study at western universities where, it was hoped, they would study about democracy and instill those values in their home countries.  A young Viktor Orban received such a fellowship to study at Oxford University.

Hungary has a long history of anti-Semitism which included a fascist World War II government which willingly rid itself of its Jewish population by shipping 400,000 to Auschwitz in the closing months of the War.  Now Orban is reviving the dark shadows of this far-right past by posing Soros as an enemy of the Hungarian nation.  He’s blamed him personally for the hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees fleeing to Europe from the chaos of Africa and the Middle East.  He’s sought to close the Open University under fraudulent pretexts, just as Bibi Netanyahu has sought to smear Israeli human rights NGOs using similar xenophobic sentiments.

The irony of a far-right nationalist embracing an anti-Semitic meme by an Iranian theocrat was apparently lost on Orban, who’s more of an opportunist than a disciplined thinker.  Both Orban and Khamenei share a fondness for dog-whistle racist politics, which revive anti-Semitic tropes while eschewing some of the ugliest Goebbels-Streicher stereotypes.  You might even call it ‘anti-Semitism lite,’ if it weren’t so dangerous given Europe’s past history.  They both portray Soros as a vulture capitalist sucking the life-blood out of the world financial system.  This too is a well-worn anti-Semitic stereotype that survives to this day in some media and alt-right circles.

Trump’s Dog Whistle Politics

Donald Trump, of course, is a master of a similar form of dog-whistle racism directed at immigrants and Muslims.  In addition, he’s hired an outright Hungarian neo-Nazi, Sebastian Gorka, as an “anti-terror” advisor, though his Hungarian doctorate and credentials are fraudulent or non-existent.  The one credential he has which is legitimate is his pin certifying his membership in the Hungarian neo-Nazi “Vitezi Rend” movement.  Gorka’s wife too has landed a similar position in the Trump administration.

The savagery of Trump’s politics toward minorities is evident in attacks throughout the country against Muslims, Blacks, Sikhs, Hispanics and even Jews.  Many of those who kill in the name of alt-Right politics either explicitly endorse Trump or implicitly feel their hate empowered by his rise to power.  The latest of these are the victims of Jeremy Christian, the neo-Nazi who murdered two Portland men seeking to defend two young girls (one of whom was Black and the other a hijab-wearing Muslim) from his assault.  Trump maintained radio silence about this heinous slaughter for days, despite a massive drubbing he suffered on social media for refusing to speak up.  He finally did make a statement, but only after hundreds of thousands of comments slamming his indifference.

But almost no one in this country is calling this attack what it was–a white supremacist terror attack.  It appears that only Muslims can be terrorists.  White people may be crazy, even alt-right.  But they’re not terrorists.

Putin’s Xenophobia

Another practitioner of xenophobia is Vladimir Putin, who pioneered the xenophobic art of smearing foreign aid groups, including Open Society.  He passed legislation which repressed these groups.  They were often charged with sham financial offenses which led to closing their offices (a tactic he uses against his individual political opponents as well).  So, in a sense, Orban and Khamenei are learning xenophobia at the feet of the master in their smears of Soros.

Israeli Racist Dog-Whistle Politics

Israel too has its great share of such dog-whistle racism.  Like fish, it stinks from the head.  Meaning that leading cabinet ministers like Ayelet Shaked, Avigdor Lieberman and Miri Regev advocate genocide against Palestinians in public speeches.  They’ve also attacked African refugees as a “cancer” on Israeli society and incited violent riots against them in Tel Aviv neighborhoods.  But there are far more Palestinians than Africans in Israel, so the latter has receded as an effective cudgel with which whip up racist frenzy.  There are also a plethora of Israeli Jewish racist NGOs like Lehava and many others which espouse ethnic cleansing and mass violence against Palestinians.

The irony, of course, is that Jews were the ultimate victims of Nazism.  They bore the brunt of a similar breed of annihilist hate.  The primary difference is that genocide was at the heart of the Nazi platform, while Iran and Hungary’s leaders appear to be using it as a tactic rather than strategy.  They pursue temporary political advantage rather than a Final Solution.

The Palestinian NGO, 7amaleh (the Palestinian Center for Digital Media Advancement) published the shocking results of a survey which found that 60,000 Israeli Jews were posting 700,000 separate social media posts containing racist, violent material.  Unlike Palestinians, who were hunted down and arrested by Israeli authorities for similar postings, no Israeli has ever been prosecuted for posting such hate.  Instead, Israel pressures Google and Facebook to approve censorship of Palestinian content on the unsubstantiated excuse that it provokes terror attacks against Jews.  Israel has even developed algorithms helping its social media censors to detect posts that supposedly advocate incitement or violence.  While these tools have been used to arrest Palestinians, there is no proof they’ve actually prevented terror attacks.  In effect, they’re a form of pre-emptive censorship which criminalizes speech.

Unfortunately, there are no Palestinian NGOs exerting a similar level of pressure to censor Israeli Jewish content.  Nor are there any major NGOs on either side upholding the rights of free speech in the digital realm.

This article was published at Tikun Olam.

Whatever the political outcome, transitioning from violence to peace is not just about the removal of violence. How can this future be achieved and who will do this work?

By Caroline Brooks*

As the conflict in Syria enters its seventh year, there are two widespread assumptions about the future of the country. The first is that a peace deal will involve a transition of power from the government of President Bashar al-Assad to someone else. The second is that such a transition will lead to peace.

Indeed, the focus of the latest round of peace talks in Geneva has been on preparing the ground for an eventual transition of power from Assad’s government. This outcome may be desired by many parties, including the UK government, but it is not guaranteed. There is a chance the current regime will remain in power, if not indefinitely, then for some time to come.

Whilst many people will find this abhorrent, others will see it as the best option, or at least the ‘least bad’ one. Let’s remember that the Assad regime does have support, and not only from outsiders such as the governments of Russia and Iran, but from many Syrians, too – including the army. There are others who do not necessarily support the Assad regime, but are not actively opposed to it either. For them, it is a case of better the devil you know. They are fearful of the alternatives, fearful of other groups who may be just as violent or repressive coming into power.

If Assad – or a version of his regime – does stay in power, it will be highly unlikely that the root causes of the war and the conflicts that have been created by the war, such as those over resources, territory and identity, will be resolved. Whilst we may see an end to the current extreme levels of widespread violence, the underlying tensions will remain dormant and likely to reappear in the future. As research in other countries shows, many peace deals collapse within five years precisely for this reason.

The second assumption that Assad’s removal will lead to peace is also tenuous. What will come next if Assad does go? Will a new authoritarian leadership rise-up on the backs of the old? How will a new leadership ensure sustainable peace in a country so deeply divided and wounded? What will all this mean for Syrian people who are still inside Syria, and those who have fled across borders and seas? There is so much uncertainty, but one thing is clear: even if the negotiating parties in Geneva can get to a deal that leads to a transition, this will not in itself lead to peaceful coexistence. There will be a very long road and a lot of challenging work ahead.

In either case – whether Assad stays or goes – there are likely to be millions of Syrians unable or unwilling to return home. This is a possibility that the states hosting Syrians need to prepare for in policy, practice and rhetoric. Whether or not you believe in the concepts of a common humanity, global citizenship, or moral duty towards strangers in need, the reality is that there are millions of Syrians who are unlikely to be able to go home. There are more than 4 million Syrian children out of school, and millions of people in need of healthcare, psychological support, and jobs. Of course, there are many constraints on the governments now hosting refugees, but political rhetoric and action now needs to reflect the likelihood that the refugee crisis is not a temporary issue.

Whatever the political outcome, transitioning from violence to peace is not just about the removal of violence, but also about improving relationships and building structures and institutions that enable equality, justice, and opportunity. In a country torn apart by war, how can this future be achieved and who will do this work?

Part of the answer lies with the many Syrians who are already working every day in the hope that the future of Syria will be built on firm, peaceful foundations.

For all the violence, tragedy and bloodshed that the war has spawned, it has also given rise to and enabled a plethora of civil society organisations and community activists. It has also awakened many hundreds of people to the fact that they have a role in shaping Syria’s future.

Despite all the devastation, there is extraordinary, visionary and creative work going on in many communities inside Syria and in the surrounding countries – and in fact, in every place around the world where Syrians now reside.

Out of the view of the international media, there are initiatives underway to build the leadership and peace building potential of young people, to support them within their communities and in their networks around the world so that their voices are heard and their ideas for positive action can be made into reality.

There are dialogue processes going on between people from all sides of the conflict who are trying to open themselves up to hear other people’s experiences and ideas. There are people who have been directly involved in fighting and who are now working in communities to discourage others from joining in the violence as well as helping them to think of alternative ways to use their energy and their voices.

These people – be they teachers, artists, doctors or others – have their feet on the ground and their eyes on the future. They know that the task of building peace in Syria will be a herculean endeavour that will last for decades, but they believe in a better future for themselves and for the next generation.

If a better future is to be achieved, Assad or no Assad, it will be built by Syrian people; if they are enabled to continue their work in the long term, it will be they who will be rebuilding Syria and helping to heal the injuries caused by the war.

*Caroline Brooks is Syria Projects Manager at International Alert.

This article was originally published by OpenDemocracy and is available by clicking here. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of TransConflict.

Barack Obama presided over the sale of more than $100 billion in weaponry to Saudi Arabia during his presidency. These deals were transacted before, during and after the Saudis’ devastating attacks on Yemen. It is important to state these simple facts because there is now a concerted effort among the rulers to make us believe that these recent events never took place.

Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia and announcement of yet another arms sale is the immediate cause of consternation. The continuity in foreign policy decision making from one president to another is a longstanding American tradition. But acknowledgement is problematic now that Trump is the one acting as his predecessors did.

The Saudi bombing and blockade of Yemen has resulted in starvation and a cholera epidemic. The corporate media and their talking heads ignored the crime as long as Barack Obama was in the White House. Now the same forces who hid the carnage beginning in 2015 behave as if the new president bears responsibility when Obama gave the green light.

A New York Times editorial is an example of the official propaganda scheme. Entitled “Will President Trump Help Save Yemen,” the editorial excoriated Trump for doing nothing more than what Obama had done. There was no mention of the former president’s support, in fact the Times gave the impression that he somehow opposed a policy he had carried out.

The New York Times is not alone in trying to make observant people disbelieve their lying eyes. Obama UN ambassador Samantha Power is also part of the amnesiac brigade. In a twitter post she responded to Trump administration boasting about the arms sale. “For a country whose attacks on civilians in Yemen — and inability to learn from mistakes — have been devastating to human life.” Fortunately, social media is a two way street and her obvious attempt at changing history was called into question by angry readers.

So concerned are the elites and their friends around the world that they won’t let Obama go. Defending the prerogatives of the ruling classes is a permanent position after all. That is why Obama was invited months ago to give a speech in Berlin with Angela Merkel by his side. The obvious goal of the photo opportunity was to help Merkel’s election campaign. Now an Obama visit may also undermine any foreign policy changes Trump may contemplate. Trump’s message of America first throws the imperial project into jeopardy and causes panic among current and former leaders.

The corporate media and foreign governments don’t care about the damage Trump is doing domestically. The ICE raids, emboldened racism, voter suppression and cuts to government programs don’t concern them. But Trump’s victory already killed the TPP trade deal. His white America first philosophy leaves less room for NATO machinations and imperial imperatives.

Trump literally shoved the president of Montenegro aside at the NATO summit. The juvenile alpha male move was ironic for several reasons. Tiny Montenegro has been pushed into NATO against the wishes of many of its people. But NATO is determined to expand because Russia is the last country capable of saying no to America’s whims and its determination to run the whole world.

Trump’s understanding of European foreign policy consists of worrying about how much America contributes towards NATO funding vis a vis other nations. He is a businessman after all and sees no reason to pay more than the next guy. This nationalistic impulse creates huge problems for the elites, who had no intention of giving up on their grand schemes of control backed by American muscle.

Trump’s non-commitment to NATO’s Article 5 may have done the world a huge favor. Article 5 makes every member nation responsible for the defense of the others. NATO assists in every act of aggression that the United States cooks up and that is one of the reasons the elites want Trump gone. The American/NATO effort to tear Yugoslavia apart included the bombing of Montenegro. Trump’s wrong headed impulse reveals some important truths about the state of the world.

And that is why Obama will keep showing up for his friends. He is still working for the western oligarchs who want the system to keep running as it has done. No one should worry about Merkel’s lament that Europe can’t count on the United States. Trump’s boorish behavior is a lot less dangerous than the trans Atlantic alliance of war making.

Of course Obama acolytes are lying about his relationship with Saudi Arabia. American presidents always genuflect to their partner in crime. The Saudis have aided in the destruction of much of that region but those facts are inconvenient. Obama’s second act won’t work unless some very big lies are served up.

Skirmishes in the southern Philippine city of Marawi highlight the emergence of the Maute Group (MG) as a potential new magnet for other IS-inspired militants in Mindanao. Manila must act swiftly to contain and defeat IS-inspired militants in central Mindanao lest a protracted conflict increases Mindanao’s attractiveness as a hub for foreign terrorist fighters.

By Joseph Franco*

On May 23, 2017, security forces attempted to arrest Isnilon Hapilon who was allegedly recovering from injuries sustained in a previous battle with the Philippine military. Hapilon was recognised by Dabiq, the online magazine of Islamic State (IS), as the “emir” or leader of an Islamic State “division” since October 2014 but stopped short of designating him as a “wali” (governor) of a wilayah (province). What was intended as a short raid degenerated into a series of skirmishes in the city centre.

Fighters from the MG, Isnilon’s Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) faction, and other armed gangs coalesced into an ad hoc combat unit to resist the Philippine security forces. What transpired was an episode of “pintakasi”, where different armed groups converge together for mutual support and to seize firearms from decimated military units. Pintakasi has complicated efforts to clear the city of terrorists. Nearly a week into the fighting, 90 percent of Marawi’s civilian population has been displaced. Dozens of militants have been killed, including foreign fighters from Indonesia and Malaysia. The Malaysian authorities have confirmed that two fighters from Kedah and Kelantan were involved in the battle.

The Maute Dynasty

At the heart of the current crisis is the MG who pledged allegiance to IS caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in April 2015. They refer to themselves as “IS Ranao” alluding to the archaic name of Lanao del Sur province. To residents in Marawi they are known simply as “grupong ISIS” (the “ISIS group”) founded by brothers Abdullah and Omarkhayyam Maute. The brothers are scions of the Maute clan, a political family who actively fields candidates for local government elections. Prior to pledging to IS, the Maute brothers headed a private militia that targeted sawmill operators and rural electrical infrastructure for extortion.

The MG pledge was a calculated move by the Maute brothers to project a fiercer image. For Hapilon, the pledge made MG an attractive partner to enhance his status as emir. Merging the MG with Hapilon’s armed group could lead to greater fighting capability and territorial control. In Western Mindanao, other Abu Sayyaf factions (i.e. ASG in Sulu Province) appeared to focus their armed activities on lucrative cross-border kidnapping. Hapilon’s Basilan-based ASG faction struggled to find similar sources of illicit funds.

The Hapilon faction’s move from Basilan province was both an initial overture to establish a permanent IS presence in the Philippines and to link with the resource-rich Maute clan. Prior attempts by the ASG to move into central Mindanao had met with failure due to the difficulty of integrating into the complex human terrain. Hapilon’s link-up with the MG expedited the process and expanded the number of his sympathisers.

Threat of Urbanised Maute Group Violence

The Battle for Marawi highlights how Philippine-based militants are able to operate in more urbanised areas aside from their usual hinterland strongholds. This portends further complications for Philippine security forces who are more accustomed to operations in the jungles of Mindanao.

First, more frequent incidents of urban combat could provide militants more opportunities to create and disseminate terrorist propaganda due to the density of civilians. Soft targets are in greater supply in the urban centres of Mindanao and can lead to more mass casualty events. In addition, launching attacks in cities would lead to greater media coverage as compared to a militant attack occurring in a remote locality.

Second, the target-rich environment would lower the bar in terms of the necessary combat skills necessary for would-be jihadists. Foreign militants would no longer be hampered by the necessity of trying to survive in the jungles of Mindanao. Nor would they need to acquire more advanced skills such as jungle warfare.

Third, the ubiquity of civilian targets would provide the opportunity for more lone-wolf attacks as encouraged by IS. Rather than resorting to knife and vehicle attacks, would-be jihadists in Mindanao would be able to tap into the copious supply of loose firearms in central Mindanao.

Externalities of Martial Law

Given the confusion during the opening salvos of the Battle for Marawi, President Rodrigo Duterte’s proclamation of martial law appears defensible. It has come to light however that several incidents used to rationalise the proclamation were either the result of MG propaganda or the “fog of war” inherent in a crisis situation. For example, further investigation revealed that the Amai Pakpak Medical Centre was not occupied by the MG. Reports that mentioned the beheading of a Lanao police chief was also disproven.

Hapilon’s intent to have IS declare a “wilayah Mindanao” must be considered in any decision to either lift martial law or extend it across the entire Philippines. To recall, IS through Dabiq recognised Hapilon’s pledge but had “delayed the announcement of their respective [wilayah]”. The reluctance to declare a wilayah is a tacit admission of the IS core that Hapilon and his followers have yet to exercise control in their localities.

Paradoxically, the declaration of martial law may be interpreted by the IS core that Mindanao had been sundered from the Philippines by Hapilon. Instead of a show of force, martial law may be taken as a go-signal by foreign terrorist fighters to exploit the perceived lapse of government control in Mindanao. Prior to the Battle of Marawi, there were already more than a dozen foreign fighters being monitored by the Philippine military in-country. This was before the June 2016 exhortation of Malaysian Abu Aun al-Malysi for other Southeast Asians to join their “brothers” in Mindanao if one could not travel to Syria.

Normalising Mindanao

To manage this externality, it is in the interest of Manila to normalise the Mindanao situation swiftly. Defeating the MG would deny them the space to exert territorial control that is critical in acquiring more support from the IS core. Beyond the battlefield, a quick conclusion to the military campaign will deny the MG the narrative that it has achieved parity with state security forces.

As the Philippines fights the MG, it must avoid collateral damage to prevent the MG from mischaracterising fighting as an existential struggle between Filipino Christian “crusaders” and Filipino Muslims. As the jihadist centre of gravity shifts to the Maute Group, the Philippines must adapt and overcome the distinct challenge it poses compared to other legacy groups such as the ASG.

*Joseph Franco is a Research Fellow with the Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS), a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

A group deportation of failed Afghan asylum seekers scheduled for Wednesday has been cancelled due to a deadly bomb attack in Kabul, a German government source told dpa.

An Afghan security guard at the German embassy was killed and several of its employees injured in the explosion, which was caused by a device in a tanker truck in Kabul’s diplomatic district.

Large parts of the German embassy were damaged in the blast, killing at least 80 people and injuring 350 others, a Public Health Ministry spokesman said.

Little is left of the vehicle – either a water or human waste tanker – that was used for the bombing, said Najib Danish, a spokesman for the Afghan Interior Ministry.

In the past, the majority of Afghans whose asylum bids were declined were allowed to remain in Germany due to the security threat in their country. But Berlin decided last year to designate parts of Afghanistan safe for return.

The deportations have come under fire in Germany from opposition parties and rights groups who argue that much of Afghanistan is not safe for return.

The government source said Wednesday that nothing had changed regarding the government’s fundamental stance on deportations to Afghanistan, but that embassy staff had “more important things to do” than receive failed asylum seekers in the coming days.

Original source